Objective Morality?
Mikael Gueck brings up the need for a couple of additional points. His most recent comment really deals with two distinct issues. We will diverge from talking about sales and character for this posting, in order to explain a couple of important preconditions that are necessary in order to have a meaningful conversation about character.
The first issue is the question of whether we can really communicate – in this case via written form – in an objective manner. Is meaning communicated objectively? To this question we answer, “Yes!”
(And I suggest that the last sentence above, can be translated into any language at all times and in all places for all people and it would still carry the same meaning.)
The sentence, “The dog has four legs,” contains an objective meaning that has a one-to-one correspondence between the sender and receiver of the communication. I could also write, “Das Hund hat vier Beine,” and it would carry the same meaning to Max Weber (Different words and language, but the same objective meaning).
Context is critical to understanding the objective meaning of a sentence because of the constantly changing use and meaning of words. For example, if I wrote, “That bitch is bad,” without knowing the context and how specific words were used in my time and culture, one could derive completely different meanings. Was I saying that the female dog was a bad dog, or that she could no longer breed? Or was I saying that woman over there was feisty and good-looking and I liked her a lot? However, the need for context does not negate the possibility or actuality of having objective meaning reside in the text of some writing.
We could go on and on with the study and debate of conventionalism and objective communications, but I will stop at this point. A comical observation I like to point out is that many academics have written many volumes making a case that objective communications is impossible.
The second question is the existence of an absolute moral standard that applies to all peoples, all places, and all times. I alluded to this question in my last post and the vigorous debate this question brings up on the college campus today. My educated guess is the idea of an absolute moral standard is argued against for several reasons. First of all if there is indeed a moral law that transcends times and cultures, then who is the moral lawgiver who transcends time and cultures? Most academics today would rather not concede that point because they have decided a priori that God does not exist, so damn the evidence before it slips through a crack in the door. The second reason we don’t want a moral law is if it really exists, then there is a standard against which to judge my actions. This is mostly a theoretical debate because of these two points.
How do we know an absolute standard of morality, right and wrong, really and objectively exists?
The best proof for it is when we are the objects of its violation. When someone steals from me, that is the point in time when I know without doubt that stealing is wrong, there has been a violation of a moral standard, and I’m really pissed.
To bring this discussion back to selling – my conviction is that while many people in our culture today may have a worldview that is not theistic, they may not personally believe there is an absolute moral law or moral lawgiver, and they may have a relativistic view of truth and morality, in reality they would prefer that their sales people sell and treat them as though a moral law did exist, and they expect their sales professionals to sell to them by that standard.
(C.S. Lewis was an academic and skeptic who changed to a theistic worldview due to the moral law. His case is presented in "Mere Christianity" and "The Problem of Pain". See: C.S.Lewis )
Relativism makes for a lively theoretical debate, but when it comes to how we are treated we demand absolutes.
Thanks Mikael for bringing up these important issues!
Posted at 08:42AM Jul 21, 2007 by George Miller in Personal | Comments[1]
"One of Lewis’s most serious weaknesses as an apologist is his fondness for the false dilemma. He habitually confronts his readers with the alleged necessity of choosing between two alternatives when there are in fact other options to be considered. One horn of the dilemma typically sets forth Lewis’s view in all its apparent forcefulness, while the other horn is a ridiculous straw man. Either the universe is the product of a conscious Mind or it is a mere “fluke” (MC. 31). Either morality is a revelation or it is an inexplicable illusion (PP, 22). Either morality is grounded in the supernatural or it is a “mere twist” in the human mind (PP, 20). Either right and wrong are real or they are “mere irrational emotions” (CR, 66). Lewis advances these arguments again and again, and they are all open to the same objection."
Personally, I wouldn't call presenting my customers with false dilemmas honest salespersonship.
I'm sorry for coming back to your blog and challenging something you truly believe in, for very little possible gain for either of us, but like Dale Carnegie said, "a person's name is like the sweetest music to them," and seeing mine mentioned in my Google Reader forces me to pay attention.
Why do academics write volumes about the impossibility of objectivity in human communications? While perfection and objectivity in communication would be great, we don't have them and probably never will, as long as there are meaningful differences from one person to another. What we do have is the next best thing, a reasonable approximation thereof, with pretty wide tolerances. Because that's what we have, and it's workable, we'll work with it.
Of absolute moral standards being proven by people reacting reasonably identically when their moral standards are breached, I'll just have to say that my experiences differ. In my experience, what's acceptable differs significantly from culture to culture, and what people find offensive is taught instead of transmitted through DNA.
To follow your example and bring the discussion back to selling, I don't expect or necessarily require objectivity from a salesperson. I require something that people generally think is more difficult, that the salesperson consciously "recognize their preferences and then subject them to especially harsh scrutiny," in the words of Stephen Jay Gould.
Posted by Mikael Gueck on July 21, 2007 at 05:46 PM EDT #