A Modest Proposal for Religion and Morality Terminology: Part 4 (Discovered vs Invented)

Source: PXFuel; License: Public Domain 

4. Discovered vs Invented

Having reviewed the terminology to describe the positions that moral sentences are either are (or are not) capable of being true or false, I am now going to explore the philosophical territory under cognitivism. When cognitivists talk about the truth value of moral sentences, it is useful to distinguish between the source and nature of these sentences. Allow me to explain. 

Again, consider the following moral sentences.

• Do unto others what you would have them do to you.
• Plural marriage, involving one husband and multiple wives, is acceptable.
• It is the duty of parents to ensure that their daughters are 'circumcised,' i.e., have their clitoris removed.

By definition, if cognitivism is true, each of those sentences is either true or false. But what makes each of them true or false? Here are two indirect answers to that question.

• discovered: whatever it is that makes moral sentences true or false, it is something that "we" recognize and which is beyond "our" control.
• invented: a mind (or something like a mind) decides which moral sentences are true or false.

Each of these two options has two sub-options: one limited to humans and one which includes humans and any supernatural beings which might exist, such as gods and God.

• discovered by humans: whatever it is that makes moral sentences true or false, it is something that humans recognize and which is beyond humans' control.
• discovered by minds: whatever it is that makes moral sentences true or false, it is something that minds (or something like minds) recognize and which is beyond their control.
• invented by humans: humans decide which moral sentences true or false
• invented by minds: a mind (or something like a mind) decides which moral sentences are true or false.

The distinction between "discovered" and "invented" captures most, if not all, of what philosophers mean when they talk about the "objectivity" or "subjectivity" of "morality" in a purely ontological sense, i.e., what "exists" in reality.[1] But the discovered-vs.-invented distinction has a major advantage over the ontological objectivity-vs.-subjectivity distinction. Even among philosophers who define the terms "objective" and "subjective" in an ontological sense, there is disagreement about how to apply that distinction to God (and ethical theories in which God plays a major role). Some philosophers maintain that "discovered by humans" is a sufficient condition for ontological objectivity, while others insist that ontological objectivity means mind-independent and so "discovered by minds" (including God) is a necessary and sufficient condition for ontological objectivity. In contrast, the two distinctions -- discovered-vs.-invented by humans-vs.-minds -- bypasses that semantic swamp entirely and does so in a way easily understandable by everyone.

Notes

[1] In this sentence, replace "morality" with "social moral system or Socratic moral system."

A Modest Proposal for Religion and Morality Terminology: Part 3 (Cognitivism and Non-Cognitivism)

Source: PXFuel; License: Public Domain 

3. Defining "Truth-Apt" and "Not Truth-Apt"

In Part 2, I suggested that, in place of referring to "morality," it would be helpful instead to explicitly refer to the concept of morality the speaker has in mind. I identified the following two different concepts of morality.

• social moral system: a set of rules which define acceptable or unacceptable behavior towards other people
• Socratic moral system: a set of rules which define acceptable or unacceptable ways for living one's life, including situations which involve other people and situations which do not.

The "rules" of a moral system can be thought of as sentences which describe acceptable or unacceptable behavior.  Consider the following non-moral sentences.

• It is 60 degrees Fahrenheit outside.
• Ronald Regan was the 40th President of the United States of America.
• The earth is flat.

All of those sentences have truth-values, meaning that they are the kind of sentences which can be either true or false. We'll call sentences of this kind "truth-apt" or cognitive." Now consider the following sentences.

• Tomatoes: yuk!
• Boo on running a marathon!
• Professor: "For your next assignment, we are going to read Dostoyevsky's Crime and Punishment."
  Class: (groans)

These sentences are "not truth-apt" or "non-cognitive." They are not the kind of sentences which can be either true or false. 

Now consider the following sentences about the moral status of various kinds of behavior.

• Do unto others what you would have them do to you.
• Plural marriage, involving one husband and multiple wives, is acceptable.
• It is the duty of parents to ensure that their daughters are 'circumcised,' i.e., have their clitoris removed.

Cognitivists believe that these sentences are truth-apt. Non-cognitivists, on the other hand, believe they are not truth-apt.