Morality and Normativity from Michael J. Perry's Lecture

Lecture by: Michael J. Perry
Availability: Can be downloaded from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection.

The essay elaborates on a specific morality, particularly focusing on human rights morality.
Ground-of-Normativity Question: This refers to questioning the basis of moral normativity with respect to human rights.
Religious Response: The essay presents a religious perspective on this question after acknowledging skepticism about secular responses.
Critical Commentary: Comments on John Finnis's secular responses and implications if secular responses are deemed implausible.
Philosophical References: Engages with Friedrich Nietzsche's views on morality and critiques from moral philosophers like Philippa Foot.

Recognition of multiple moralities in the world, defining “morality” as claims regarding how human beings ought to live.
Examples of conflicting moralities:
- Hitler vs. Mother Teresa's moralities.
- The notion that moral normativity is understood through impartiality and equality.

Moral skepticism posits that all moral claims are false rather than asserting just one true morality exists.
The focus on impartiality leads to acknowledging multiple moral frameworks.

Human rights morality has become globally recognized, transcending other moralities.
International Bill of Rights: Comprises three pivotal documents:
1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
2. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
3. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).
Core Claims of Human Rights Morality:
1. Inherent Dignity: Every human being possesses inherent dignity, as stated in foundational documents.
2. Normative Force: Such dignity necessitates living in alignment with respecting dignity.

Dignity: Recognized as the inherent worthiness and value of individuals, unlinked to societal status or achievements.
Inviolability: Individuals must not be violated, maintaining respect for their dignity.

This can be applied to assess the truth of moralities.
To affirm the morality of human rights entails asking why any individual ought to respect this dignity.
Religious response: A Christian perspective, asserting all beings are sacred, shapes the call to respect dignity based on divine love.

A hypothetical believer exemplifying the moral stance on respect and dignity based on religious conviction.
God’s Love: Recognizes every human as sacred and articulates moral imperatives based on this recognition.

Skeptical Consideration: Acknowledges difficulties in deriving moral imperatives without religious grounding.
Discusses philosopher John Finnis's attempts at secular arguments that claim universal moral truths and social benefits achieved through human rights adherences.
Highlights the inadequacy of secular responses in sustaining the claim of inherent dignity within a void of existential meaning and traditional morality.

Claims of fundamental impartiality and the avoidance of harm are scrutinized for lack of underlying justification, especially from a non-religious perspective.
Finnis advocates that our pursuit of fulfillment necessitates goodwill towards others.

Kant vs. Natural Law Tradition: Explores whether Kantian moral philosophy provides solid secular grounds for moral obligations, emphasizing the uniqueness of human rationality.
Critique of Kant: Links moral obligations back to self-interest, which diminishes altruism’s role in morality.
Human moral nature is intrinsically tied to social and relational contexts unaccounted for by Kant’s hygiene.

Hypothesizing a world where both religious and secular grounds for morality failed, leading to questioning the meaning and implications of legal and human rights.
References to how such scenarios lead to reverting moral obligations to societal conventions, abandoning deep moral commitments and absolutes.

Reflects on critical ethical dilemmas arising from historical atrocities like the Holocaust and the inherent conflicts in valuing human dignity without a stable metaphysical or theological foundation.
Czeslaw Milosz's View: Questions the survival of a moral framework based solely on individualistic sentiments removed from historical and cultural grounding.

The essay concludes contemplating profound questions of morality's foundational beliefs—whether religious or secular—and their implications on understanding human dignity and moral obligations.
It raises essential reflections on the sustainability of human rights claims amidst philosophical skepticism about the intrinsic dignity of individuals without transcendental guarantees.