Epistemic status[1]: Do meta-ethics matter? (see below), and what does it mean for something to be empirical if it can’t be verified?
TL:DR;
Ethics can have a basis for going from is to ought, whether or not that base is justified*, which can render later** judgements ‘empirical’. But people can lie, especially in favor of what they prefer being ethical, when they are not going from ‘ethics’ to ‘action’.
*What does it means for an ethical basis to be justified?
**Downstream
Further Contents
1. Conditional Judgements
2. Understanding intent (of message, of speaker)
3. Ethics ‘provide’ a way to get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’. (see also: 6.)
4. (Turning one ethical statement into another.)
5. Subjectivism and the Death Penalty
6. Ethical decision making, or justification? (continues 3)
1. Conditional Judgements
But there is still a fact about what the speaker is actually experiencing. It’s possible she might not dislike stealing, for example—maybe after robbing a bank I get caught by the cops, and in a pitiful attempt at deceiving them I exclaim, “I don’t even like stealing!”
Or someone could like stealing conditional on getting away with it.
Such a thing can (in theory) be determined about a specific event—particularly after the fact, based on whether or not they were caught.
With more difficulty, and some assumptions, this could be translated from a binary statement into one of:
-- probability (of getting caught) or
-- a statement about expected utility, though these approaches seems odd.
2. Understanding intent (of message, of speaker)
The question of what a speaker intends to communicate when they make a moral claim is an empirical question, and I think it’s safe to say that different people mean a variety of different things when they make moral claims. So I don’t think it makes sense to unreservedly jump on board with a conclusion about how to correctly interpret all moral claims. Someone can always come along and be like “Actually, when I make a moral claim I mean something totally different from what your theory says I mean,” and I guess you could just insist that they are lying or very confused about their own internal experience, but that seems like a silly thing to commit yourself to doing all the time.
Classify such statements as emotive or subjective. (Perhaps someone can say “I see the sky as red” and have this be empirically true—it is still (or was) subjective.) Does emotive include the empirical? (It seems to include a notion about meaning being encoded in the act of saying or doing something, and a person saying something true is also an act.)
3. Ethics ‘provide’ a way to get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’.
Do you think that you have ever made a moral claim that turned out to be false? Think back over the course of your life, maybe to when you were a child. If you can recall a time when you made a moral claim that you feel you later learned was wrong (you didn’t just change your mind, but discovered the claim to be false) that’s an indicator that you think of your moral claims as truth-apt.
Or there’s an ethical “basis” of some form like:
Suffering is bad. (Ethical)
X is bad. (Empirical aspect: Does it lead to suffering? More suffering than the alternative?)
4. (Turning one ethical statement into another.)
This statement has the capacity to be true or false (and I actually think it’s false, but we’ll get to that later), so it is a truth-apt statement.
Compromise: Lies should be held to a higher stand than truth. (Caveat: in some circumstances.)
5. Subjectivism and the Death Penalty
The aspiring subjectivist might have some bullets to bite when they consider the existence of people generally considered to be really bad. If a psychopath believes murder is good, then is it really true that murder is the right thing for him to do?
This relies on an condition, that seems to be mentioned out of proportion to its frequency. For something that might be more common, some people are in favor of the death penalty (at least for certain crimes, if a certain standard of evidence is reached, etc).
6. Ethical decision making, or justification? (continues 3)
You might worry about the fact that relativism doesn’t seem to allow for moral progress over time.
If morality is ‘determined’ by some fact, then what is moral may not be about ‘slavery’ but instead about how a given practice measures up to that standard. From Wikipedia’s Proving Too Much:
The Georgia-born American educator Henry Coppée in 1850 described in his “Elements of Rhetoric” that if one argues that slavery is evil because masters are put into situations where they can beat slaves to death, then marriage and parenthood are also evil because domestic violence exists.
On this basis, the argument (above) could be furthered on the grounds that if violence exceeds some threshold, then the practice should be abolished/made illegal/etc., and then argue in favor of ‘current standards’ that slavery exceeds this amount while marriage and parenthood do not. But if data is never examined, and all that is taking place is justification, then a claim that empirically based morality/etc. is occurring is false, and the activity is rendered somewhat inauthentic. And without a way to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth, why should their statements be taken as “empirical”?
[1] This phrase has nothing to do with the meaning of the constituent words.
Epistemic status[1]: Do meta-ethics matter? (see below), and what does it mean for something to be empirical if it can’t be verified?
TL:DR;
Ethics can have a basis for going from is to ought, whether or not that base is justified*, which can render later** judgements ‘empirical’. But people can lie, especially in favor of what they prefer being ethical, when they are not going from ‘ethics’ to ‘action’.
*What does it means for an ethical basis to be justified?
**Downstream
Further Contents
1. Conditional Judgements
2. Understanding intent (of message, of speaker)
3. Ethics ‘provide’ a way to get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’. (see also: 6.)
4. (Turning one ethical statement into another.)
5. Subjectivism and the Death Penalty
6. Ethical decision making, or justification? (continues 3)
1. Conditional Judgements
Or someone could like stealing conditional on getting away with it.
Such a thing can (in theory) be determined about a specific event—particularly after the fact, based on whether or not they were caught.
With more difficulty, and some assumptions, this could be translated from a binary statement into one of:
-- probability (of getting caught) or
-- a statement about expected utility, though these approaches seems odd.
2. Understanding intent (of message, of speaker)
Classify such statements as emotive or subjective. (Perhaps someone can say “I see the sky as red” and have this be empirically true—it is still (or was) subjective.) Does emotive include the empirical? (It seems to include a notion about meaning being encoded in the act of saying or doing something, and a person saying something true is also an act.)
3. Ethics ‘provide’ a way to get from ‘is’ to ‘ought’.
Or there’s an ethical “basis” of some form like:
Suffering is bad. (Ethical)
X is bad. (Empirical aspect: Does it lead to suffering? More suffering than the alternative?)
4. (Turning one ethical statement into another.)
Compromise: Lies should be held to a higher stand than truth. (Caveat: in some circumstances.)
5. Subjectivism and the Death Penalty
This relies on an condition, that seems to be mentioned out of proportion to its frequency. For something that might be more common, some people are in favor of the death penalty (at least for certain crimes, if a certain standard of evidence is reached, etc).
6. Ethical decision making, or justification? (continues 3)
If morality is ‘determined’ by some fact, then what is moral may not be about ‘slavery’ but instead about how a given practice measures up to that standard. From Wikipedia’s Proving Too Much:
On this basis, the argument (above) could be furthered on the grounds that if violence exceeds some threshold, then the practice should be abolished/made illegal/etc., and then argue in favor of ‘current standards’ that slavery exceeds this amount while marriage and parenthood do not. But if data is never examined, and all that is taking place is justification, then a claim that empirically based morality/etc. is occurring is false, and the activity is rendered somewhat inauthentic. And without a way to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth, why should their statements be taken as “empirical”?
[1] This phrase has nothing to do with the meaning of the constituent words.