“Our Morality: A Defense of Moral Objectivism”
After our recent ‘Death of Morality’ issue, Mitchell Silver replies to the amoralists.
And nowhere, in my view, is this myth exposed better than in discussions of conflicting goods amidst human social, political and economic interactions. The closest we come to it is embodied in democracy and the rule of law. But that is basically a historical component embedded in the capitalist political economy. Prior to that, various combinations of might makes right [sustaining empries] and right makes might [sustaining God] prevailed.
And, then, in more “primitive” communities – nomadic, slash and burn, hunter and gatherer – there was the part given over to “the gods” and the part given over to the biological imperatives that sustained particular gender roles in keeping the community going.
There simply wasn’t enough “surplus labor” around back then for a community of philosophers to pop up in order to grapple “intellectually” with things like “neutrality”.
Something worked to keep the community going – fed, clothed, sheltered and defended – or it didn’t. And that generally revolved around there being a proper place for everyone and everyone being in their proper place. No laws or courts around to actually be neutral.
Okay, so the first thing we will need to look for here is the extent to which this age-old “general description” of human morality is brought out into the world of very real conflicting behaviors revolving around actual conflicting goods. And, in particular, when those who share his view that morality is objective go after others [sometimes viciously, ruthlessly] who refuse to embrace their own set of precepts and behaviors.
And, it should be noted, the author will consider all of this given the assumption that we live in a No God world.