Abel Nelson
Sep 6, 2018 · 2 min read

This is an interesting take. It sort of seems like (my very hazy understanding of) quantum physics in reverse; with physics, as you zoom in things become more and more unpredictable and inconsistent, whereas zooming in on morality here takes us from contradictory cultural values to more consistent contingent values that may even be objective on the level of a single person.

I’m not sure that contingent truths will really help resolve moral disputes. You say that anything that is contingent on a scale greater than humanity is effectively objective, and thus the disputes between various moral philosophies are all based upon formalizations of principles that are contingent to humanity as a whole, like “hurting others is wrong”, or “silencing people is wrong”. But a utilitarian might say that hurting others is not wrong if it leads to a net increase of happiness in the world, and a Christian might say that silencing someone is not wrong if that someone is spreading false doctrine for their own gain.

The point of many moral philosophies, to my lay understanding, is to take actions that are generally considered good or bad and find out why they are good or bad. The utilitarian sees these situations, and says that they show that increasing humanity’s net happiness is good; the Christian sees these situations, and says that they show that following God’s law is what is good; etc. The problem is that these underlying principles are not contingent to humanity as a whole, but only to specific subsets of humanity. Thus, while it is possible to say that something is moral or immoral within the context of certain philosophies, the problem of determining which philosophy is best still remains.

Regardless of my own misgivings, this is a very interesting idea, and I hope to see how you expand upon it.