Thoughts on morality, responsibility, and justification
I'm working on a philosophical (more or less) argument for the mildly radical proposition that there is no ultimate justification for anything. My whole moral theory hinges on this, and I think that what it will ultimately boil down to is that all moral judgments are about what should be the case, but such judgments cannot have a basis strictly in facts (this is the old is-ought gap from David Hume). They are always based (entirely or partly) in a normative impulse arising from preference, emotion, or (in the best cases) personal commitment. When a speaker expresses a moral judgment about some state of affairs, they aren't offering any information directly about that state of affairs; they are giving you a cryptic indication of how they feel, how they want things to be, or what they're committed to. If there are such things as "moral facts", they are not facts about what is being morally judged, but rather about the ones who are judging. Moral judgments are based (at best) in commitments rather than facts, and there is no ultimate way to decide between competing commitments.
When we reason with each other morally, we do so on the basis of the commitments that we assume one another to hold, which is just the process of justification. Ultimate justification would require a commitment that was somehow authoritative and privileged, but authority and privilege require further commitments to justify them, so it finally involves an infinite regress.
I don't mean to recommend by all this that we cease to make moral judgments, or stop reasoning with one another about moral issues. The reason I want to get these ideas out is that I want people to be aware that they are responsible, not only for their actions, but for the values on whose basis they act. Our values are our values and we can never escape responsibility for imposing them, or failing to, as nothing can ultimately justify us in doing so.
I have much more to say about this sort of thing, but I wanted to make sure that I get around to stating all of this clearly. I hope I have done so.
When we reason with each other morally, we do so on the basis of the commitments that we assume one another to hold, which is just the process of justification. Ultimate justification would require a commitment that was somehow authoritative and privileged, but authority and privilege require further commitments to justify them, so it finally involves an infinite regress.
I don't mean to recommend by all this that we cease to make moral judgments, or stop reasoning with one another about moral issues. The reason I want to get these ideas out is that I want people to be aware that they are responsible, not only for their actions, but for the values on whose basis they act. Our values are our values and we can never escape responsibility for imposing them, or failing to, as nothing can ultimately justify us in doing so.
I have much more to say about this sort of thing, but I wanted to make sure that I get around to stating all of this clearly. I hope I have done so.