Moreno wrote:It is problematic given that the analogy is towards a universal morality. What everyone should do. What the guy who likes FGM should do even though he doesn't get it. Unless I am missing something. I assume an objective morality SHOULD be universal, even if it isn't followed by everyone. Otherwise I am not sure what objective would mean in this context.
The analogy we're talking about is about physical health, right?. Let's try to clear this up. The analogy should help explain to you why objectivity and universality need to be kept separate. I think that was the original point...
At different ages, in different climates, for different body types---there are different things you need to do to be healthy. And they change. And the definition of 'health' changes, and so on. But nevertheless, some things are objectively bad for you. (Objective = not a matter of your opinion). If it helps you translate the analogy, then think of FGM like "drinking poison".
Now, whether or not "drinking poison" is healthy (or not) for you can't be universal---since it's (at least theoretically) possible for it to have a negative effect on one person, but a positive effect on another. So, X can't be universal (Universal = applies to anyone in any context). There are some cases where drinking poison might be the best thing you could do for your health. Suppose, in a hospital, you are given something that, in other contexts, would very likely harm your health---but in this context, it works to kill the disease that is actually currently harming your health to a far greater degree. That's just an example. But recognize: It might be the case that drinking some kind of poison is, as a matter of fact, never good for any creature such as us. In that case, objectivity and universality align---but there's no conceptual connection between them, it's just a matter of contingent matter of fact.
Now, think of FGM like drinking poison...
It's theoretically possible, I suppose, to think up an example where FGM is objectively good, and morally required. It's all contextual, right. It's hard for people to imagine because there's probably not an actual context---just one we imagine by thought-experiment. So, imagine a context: saving a life, 10 lives, painless, autonomy respected, stops nuclear war, etc etc. And line up the facts that are relevant. Thus: Objective, but not universal.
I think that is a common misunderstanding. I'm glad it's hopefully cleared up.
That we had a way of determining what we need are and what our well being is, that this can be objectively ascertained. This, in a context discussing morals.
Sometimes we can. I call it science, medicine, empirical things like that. Now, that transfers partially across analogies I think---when you're a consequentialist. Which is a good thing.
Why is this not universal amongst animals, then? Why has evolution not weeded out intraspecies violence? In fact it seems a core portion of many species behavior.
I'm not sure what point you think I made that you are now trying to hold me to. I'm not an evolutionary scientist, and I'm not even sure why this is a pertinent question.
I don't think I have to capitalize reasoning for it to be associated with a mental, generally language based, intended to be logical process. But I can work with your definition of reasons.
You surely don't. You have both feet firmly planted in a long tradition of using the word in an obscure way. That "process" you're referring to...is obscure. Why don't you stand up and put forth a view? I have been asking you to explain this "process", which I find obscure. And as a side point, I think it's false to call "reasons" in the way I'm using the word as "causes". They're not causes in any sense of "necessary connexion" or constant conjunction. They're just the ordinary facts about the world that you would point to when you explain 'why' you acted one way rather than another.