The relationship between morality and power | Philosophers Tommy Curry, Michael Huemer, Melis Erdur
Feb 18, 2025
auto_awesome
Tommy Curry, a professor focused on Africana philosophy, Michael Huemer, an advocate for philosophical anarchism, and Melis Erdur, an expert in metaethics, engage in a riveting debate on morality's true nature. They explore whether morality is an objective truth or a tool for the powerful. The discussion unfolds around the connection between moral frameworks and power dynamics, the complexity of moral reasoning, and the subjective nature of ethical beliefs, ultimately igniting critical questions about how we perceive morality in society.
The podcast explores the tension between morality and power, questioning whether moral codes are often tools for justifying oppression rather than genuine ethical approaches.
Philosophers debate the existence of objective moral truths, highlighting that while some principles may seem universal, societal attitudes can heavily influence moral recognition.
The discussion emphasizes the evolving nature of moral understandings across time, suggesting that humility is essential in recognizing that contemporary beliefs may be challenged by future perspectives.
Deep dives
The Relationship Between Morality and Power
The podcast delves into how morality has historically served the interests of those in power, often disguising prejudice. The conversation highlights that moral codes have been utilized to justify terrible acts, such as slavery and the oppression of marginalized groups, under the guise of rational thought. Philosophers such as Rousseau and Nietzsche have suggested that moral frameworks can be driven more by a will to power rather than genuine ethical considerations. This underscores the essential question of whether morality is inherently linked to power dynamics and if our moral decisions are merely reflections of societal hierarchies.
Objective Moral Truths
A significant portion of the debate revolves around the existence of objective moral truths, with proponents arguing that some moral principles, like the immorality of torturing babies for fun, are universally applicable. One philosopher contends that moral truths are independent of societal attitudes, asserting that even if a society condones immoral acts, those acts remain wrong. This prompted discussions about how societal norms can impede the recognition of these truths and how moral disagreements may reveal deeper philosophical divides. Critics caution that morality is often more about subjective perception than universal truth, leading to ongoing debates about moral relativism.
The Problem with Moral Objectivity
One participant challenges the notion of moral objectivity by questioning whether it allows for any moral truth to exist outside of human judgment. They express concerns that if moral truths are entirely independent, it could lead to situations where abhorrent acts could be deemed objectively acceptable. This position raises significant philosophical dilemmas about the implications of accepting objective morality and the potential dangers of enforcing such views without considering historical context. The discussion highlights a crucial balance between recognizing moral principles and understanding the fallibility of moral judgments shaped by cultural and temporal factors.
Moral Disagreement and Historical Context
The panelists discuss moral disagreement throughout history, noting that widely accepted ethical viewpoints have often shifted dramatically over time. One philosopher argues that as societies evolve, so do their moral understandings, leading to the potential for past moral atrocities to be challenged by future generations. This transformation invites scrutiny of contemporary moral standards and encourages questioning the ethical assumptions underpinning current societal practices. Ultimately, the conversation reflects on the necessity of humility in moral reasoning, acknowledging that today's beliefs could also be seen as misguided in the future.
The Function of Moral Language
The episode concludes with a discussion on the role that moral language plays in shaping societal norms and individual behavior. One philosopher suggests that morality provides a framework for community cohesion and conflict resolution, even if the underlying principles are subjective. The conversation implies that while specific moral codes may fluctuate, the need for moral discourse as a tool for social organization remains vital. Participants agree that revising moral language to properly reflect its function can aid in facilitating better societal goals without losing the emotional and normative force that morality conveys.
Is there such a thing as morality? And, if so, can we know what it is and act on it? Or is morality rather a shield for the powerful and a defence of their interest? The answer may have life-changing consequences...
Join a heated debate between three philosophers with three different perspectives on the meaning of morality and the role it should play in our lives: Tommy Curry, Chair of Africana philosophy at Edinburgh and a moral sceptic; Michael Huemer, Professor of Philosophy at Boulder and a moral realist; and Melis Erdur, Professor at the Open University of Israel and representing a compromise between realism and scepticism on morality. The debate is inconclusive, but opens important questions on how we should relate to morality and ethics.