Ethics, Ethical Objectivity - Objection to Arguments of Companions in Guilt

To begin with, I believe in ethical, moral objectivity. I believe there's no particular problem in proving this/make a good case for it.

1. That the ethical system is flawless in the sense that there is no obvious allowance of moral wrongdoing in it.
2. "...ethical claims are objective if it is possible for agents who make them to do so correctly or incorrectly. Objectivity in this sense implies the possibility of moral error.(3)" That is to say that moral mistakes exist, not that moral errors are committed ethically.
3. "...ethical claims are objective if they are 'answerable to substantial [ethical] facts and properties in the world that exist independently of the contingent practice of making those claims and the relevant attitudes of those who make them' (p. 6)(1).(4)"
4. "...ethical claims are objective if reasonable agents competent with the concepts that constitute them would converge in 'favorable circumstances of rational inquiry' (p. 7)(2).(5)" That is to say, in my opinion, that there are objective moral duties in relation to the object in question.

From the book review of (1)(2)Hallvard Lillehammer's Companions in Guilt: Arguments for Ethical Objectivity written by (3)(4)(5)Terence Cuneo in the journal Mind Volume 118, Number 470, April 2009, ISSN 0026-4423.

It's also worth mentioning the book of Paul Bloomfield's Moral Reality, OUP, 2004 that the review mentions.

I see the description of an Ethical Objective system as an (mathematical) intersection of the above 4 points. The Ethical Objective system should thus satisfy the most strict and strongest requirements for such a system. It's worth noting that it should be humanly possible to fit into it with a least one member, one human being, and that it should live up to general requirements of plausibility and reasonability.

One more thing: I think it should be noted that "reasonable agents" mean people who are able to separate right from wrong and are basically in agreement with the actual system of ethics in question. If the case is otherwise, they fall into a different group and are not relevant to the system that is being discussed. This may limit the number of people who can adhere to that system quite severely, but that is the nature of the current diversity of humanity.

I've made some additions to the book review and as such the whole is more a new argument than a factual instance that I like to address.

The framework for every Ethical Objective System can be as extensive as every legal framework as I see it, without imposing particular problems.

The further work to the Ethical Objectivity is this. The obstacle one meets is concerning depth. I think the human cognition decides the depth of the ethical system's reach, absolutely and objectively, of the Ethical Objectivity discussed. If the human being can't have knowledge about a deeper fact of nature then one can't also say that the human being can commit any mistakes in that relation. It's therefore of no use to point to a phenomenon that lies outside the normal or possible human cognition because a sufficient ethically objective system isn't constructed at all to take care of those phenomena's ethical content. No matter what, the ethically objective system will therefore relate to our common life-world, the life-world that one can actually say something objective about. It's therefore the case that all hypothetical micro- and macro-phenomena are outside the domain that actually can have some influence on the human being's ethical and moral life. It's therefore not decisive to have absolute knowledge to have an efficient ethical objective system as long as one does one's duties for the best in this actual effective ethical objective system in what concerns information and possibilities. In that kind of view, one can plausibly say that doctors in ancient history may have been acting ethically objective in some cases, if not all, of course, despite a very limited knowledge about the human body. It's clear that science will form an outer frame for our life-worlds wherein this Ethical Objective System functions as in the question of preventive measures concerning Global Climate Changes and also about our limitations in size of total world population that should or can exist without collapsing into chaos and extinction of being examples of conscious beings capable of knowledge, possibly effecting one's own salvation.

Consequently, let's look at abortion again. What if two parties agree on the fact that guilt may not apply for abortion because there are factors that speak strongly for and against as well as the indeterminate status of the fetus to be removed, both on brain function and emotional function(1) when the procedure is carried out? Thus, abortion for these two parties remains a private, informed and "esoteric" decision, yet respected by either party in companionship without guilt!

Hypothetically speaking, it's plausible to say that being a human without an ethical system in the 21st century and aligning oneself with the ancient humans and humanoids like the Cro-Magnons, seems just crazy! It's laying such a waste to a whole heritage, legacy of philosophical civility! The ancient humans before civilization can be said to be driven by evolutionary, biological instincts! Nihilism, relativism or other destructive ethical approaches are historically insensitive, possibly rationally insensitive, absurd or out of touch.

As much as Paul Bloomfield makes the argument of having and maintaining good physical health, I'd like to add the following:
It should be possible to determine Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health by keeping one's ethics. People may fool themselves, but I think that the most sensitive factor of these three, being Integrity, is very much affected by both bad attitude/mindset and bad actions, altogether being bad morals and possibly bad ethics.

Through the arsenal of diagnostics like various lie-detectors, (f)MRI-scans, interviews, somatic examinations and what have you it should be possible to make good judgment on the status of these 3 factors, Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health. Any reasonable doubt can therefore be removed for what kind of companion one is socialising with. Any person with substantial deviation in either Integrity, Mental Health and Physical Health from the characteristics that are condoned by exactly this Ethical Objectivity can thus be excluded from the desirable group of people that comply with Ethical Objectivity. The days of the Arguments of Companions in Guilt are consequently numbered!

It should be a fundamental belief that morality/ethics is to respect rationality in others, also the potential of such in others, eg. children. This doesn't capture ecology very well, but I can think of it as intelligent/rational to allow nature and animals alike a natural life (for various reasons) incl. agricultural/aquacultural. Thus, as this is a facet of being rational as a person, every person should respect people with ecological views and the ecological view therefore becomes the only ethical view in this respect, a general starting point.
Rationality in this sense is nothing mysterious. It's just the capacity to score well/great on IQ-tests, having a fine, intelligent flow of thoughts and doing a good or great working performance, whatever this may be, being in the stream so to speak!

Although I've written about rationality above I like to write the following to make it perfectly clear. There are (at least) two kinds of Rationality that it's fair to speak of. One is the rationality according to function, being the way you apply your mind to whatever problems, practical or intellectual. The other one is rationality as in being of good mental health, being well-developed. It should be clear that rationality is the top premise of this Ethically Objective system that I ascribe and develop from a Neo-Kantian position.

This is a writing for removing any religious notion to the word Rationality and thus the system of Rationality may seem reasonable to everyone. I'm in doubt whether I. Kant has meant any religiousness at all with his "kingdom of ideas". People have interpreted it this way, but I can't see that there's a single factual instance of this in his text. Quite the opposite, I think he thinks that the common person is able to make clever thoughts, to take part in the "kingdom of ideas". I find this a much more charitable reading of him and it makes him look better too!

Repugnance and appeal to emotions/feelings/aestheticism are not any good way to get there even though I support every argument that makes a good foundation for Ethical Objectivity.

It should be noted that people of good moral attitude and behaviour seem better able to create and maintain, by keeping the duties, social relationships both in symmetric and asymmetric terms.

I'm with Dr. Sam Harris when he argue by objectivity of flourishing and happiness, potentially by and in everyone, on TED Talks that some/all moral questions or some/all outside spectrums of some/all moral spectrums can be answered by science. Now, I don't know if this is consensus within a group of scientists and philosophers alike and if this is documented by scientific articles. He does mention psychology and neuro-science as two (obvious) angles to answer this scientifically. It must be admitted by myself, whether or not Dr. Sam Harris agrees, however, that flourishing and happiness are still normative, unscientific, ethical objectives. One can indeed be relatively poor and still be generally happy and one can work too much and thus flourish beyond one's happiness. It's also a question to what ends we are supposed to be flourishing and happy. Where does this flourishing and happiness lead to if there's no destination in sight? Isn't then life only a matter of taste and artistry in life? What about doing extreme sports and other activities where one does risk one's own life? The question is not so much a matter of this risk-taking person's life, but this person's social connections, possibly causing grief in these people by the risk-taking. Thus, it's yet to see to what extent one can fully argue that the objectives of flourishing and happiness can be scientific. Indeed, this scientific notion has implicitly some kind of normative destiny to it that Dr. Sam Harris is in debt to answer.

It's admirable of Dr. Sam Harris of denoting this "scientific", given the normative objectives, and at the same time quenching the lunatics who promote death and destruction. It's certainly worth a thorough scientific study of what underlying causes there are for people's misfortunes when it's so commonly known that most or all people like to be happy, flourishing or both.

(1)Remark concerning abortion by The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG):

By The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG),

"Fetal Awareness - Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice".

From this link:
http://www.rcog.org.uk/fetal-awareness-review-research-and-recommendations-practice

Fetal Awareness

* The fetus cannot feel pain before 24 weeks because the connections in the fetal brain are not fully formed
* Evidence examined by the Working Party showed that the fetus, while in the chemical environment of the womb, is in a state of induced sleep and is unconscious
* The Working Party concluded that because the 24 week-old fetus has no awareness nor can it feel pain, the use of analgesia is of no benefit
* More research is needed into the short and long-term effects of the use of fetal analgesia post-24 weeks.

The full report: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf

Article, this particular webpage, is published: 25/06/2010 (summary and more).

Game over! You lose, relativists and subjectivists! I'd say there is no objection by the subjectivists and relativists that can overcome Ethical Objectivity (now)! I've been meditating this for quite a while and I'm now at peace by the preceding sentences. There is simply no chance to refute Ethical Objectivity anymore.

The argument is not finished by these words and remains to be made a paper of academic quality, if not a book.

By Terje Lea / Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea, 2009 - 2010, 2012 - and still ongoing.

By Terje Lea, 11th November, 2009, 9th December, 2009, 11th December, 2009, 6th March, 2010, 24th March, 2010, 26th March, 2010, 12th April, 2010, 22nd April, 2010, 25th April, 2010, 26th April, 2010, 4th May, 2010, 10th May, 2010, 9th June, 2010, 28th June, 2010 and 24th October, 2010. Minor change of title, 18.11.2010. Now controlled under my new name, Leonardo F. Olsnes-Lea.