Position:Home>Philosophy> Must a philosophical account of morals be axiomatic to have any objective value?

I do think Kant's system was an attempt to make morality follow logically from certain premises that rational agents were, by their rationality, bound to acknowledge!. I don't think he was successful because I do not think that what he took to be rational and self-evident is at all rational and self-evident!.

Your first question is a very good one!. To be honest, I don't know!. Kantianism certainly seems to answer affirmatively!. Utilitarianism takes the minimization of suffering and maximization of pleasure as self-evident goods, so it would also seem to answer affirmatively!. Rights theories from John Locke to John Rawls all, to the best of my knowledge, try to give rights a basis in "self-evident" truths!.

Now, in one sense, it does seem that a moral philosophy can have objective value regardless of how it is grounded!. That would be the pragmatic sense!. Whether, say, the prohibition on murder is rooted in axioms or not, there still seems to be objective value in making murder, in most cases, a prohibited thing!. Usually this value is cast as a moral value, but it does not have to be!. (If it is, then it would beg the very question the appeal to pragmatic consequences tries to avoid!.) A society in which murder is allowable would be inferior to a society in which it is not in many ways - less pleasant to live in, less productive, less intellectual advancement (perhaps as intellectuals flee to another society), and so on!.

An appeal to other values to ground moral values would, from where I'm sitting now without having thought about it much, seem to be able to give an objective basis to a moral system without that system relying on axioms!. As long as we believe that empirical evidence (what would form the basis for the pragmatic justification) is objective, and as long as we can objectively say certain things are "bad" for (the functioning of) a society, a pragmatic kind of morality would seem to be objective!.

It certainly seems like there would be other problems with such a moral system - it would legitimize any functional system, no matter how abhorrent!. But it does seem, at least to me now, to be an objective one, not based on self-evident truths!.

EDIT: I would like to pick on one of your additions!. You state both that "rationality unifies humanity as a whole" and that "Psychopaths demonstrate that we can't take a unifying 'human nature' for granted!."

Why wouldn't irrational humans, then, demonstrate that we can't take a unifying human rationality for granted!? If psychopaths get to rule out grounding morality in some sort of moral nature, why wouldn't people with severe mental defficiences or the senile rule out grounding morality in some sort of rational nature!?Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

The very nature of your question undermines itself!. How can any axiomatic system by objective!? By the very nature of being axiomatic, it seemingly cannot be objective!.

Addition: Your follow up information suggests that you wish to create a "philosophical account of morals" from the, in Husserlian terms, "pure, logical, and ideal!." This, however, it impossible because as soon as the "account" enters into the human it must become "empirical, psychological, and real!." In such an event, no objectivity (that false space outside human interaction, knowledge, and claims) is possible!. Regarding Kant specifically, his categorical imperative (noting universalizability of action)--while attempting be 'outside' context--fails to provide adequate claims to some contentious controversies (of ethical conduct)!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

I'm not familiar at all with Kant, but I still think I can answer your question!.

I do believe that your assertion is true!. However I, personally, would call your axioms or your self-evident truths, God!. My own beliefs notwithstanding, this truth needs to be something objective, unchanging, and beyond manipulation!. I wouldn't necessarily say it needs to be self-evident, I think there are many universal objective truths that humanity is completely unaware of!.

Anyway, the point is that without a set of "axioms" that fit the criteria I just laid out, any moral system must be derived from a compromise between humans and is completely subjective!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

i would like them to be true but then people would have tpo face their problems,!., what does philosophy say about a problem atics socioety that a person can still be a philsopopher i one wchi ich is baby talk letss all get realWww@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Honestly, I think Kant oversimplified morality!. The rational option in a situation isn't always the moral one!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

There cannot be an objective moral system!. Morality is subjective!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---

Yes, they must be axiomatic, so long as you do not mean "axiomatic concept" as differentiated from "axiom!." http://www!.aynrandlexicon!.com/lexicon/ax!.!.!.

In metaphysics the axiom would be individual sovereignty!. "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day; " http://www!.friesian!.com/ellis!.htm

In epistemology it would be "that which is required for man’s survival qua man!." http://www!.aynrandlexicon!.com/lexicon/mo!.!.!.

In ethics it would be the non-initiation of force!. "[The] non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle" http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Non-aggress!.!.!.

In politics it would be "common sovereignty," derived from the consent of the individual sovereigns!. http://globalization!.icaap!.org/content/v!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

---

---