Locke’s Essay: Concerning Human Understanding (2)
The Myth of the Given
Some perceptual states are Given. Perceptual states are the basic sense data that directly connects to reality.
This idea separates the sheer percept (the raw data that our sense take in) and our conceptualizations (how we interpret the data).
The argument is that the sense-data can not be incorrect, it is objective, but our conceptualizations/interpretations are where we can make mistakes.
The Dilemma
This prompts us to answer a question,
Does the Given have conceptual content or not?
If it does have conceptual content, then one can be mistaken to have it.
If it doesn’t have conceptual content, then it cannot set a standard of correctness.
(We will see this argument again next week)
Moral Knowledge
This may seem like a different kind of knowledge.
Some claim that there are innately-known moral rules. For example,
- One must: keep one’s promises.
- Parents must: preserve their children.
Counterpoints to Innateness
One counter to the claim that moral knowledge is innate is that one can ask for reasons/justification for moral claims.
Another is that there is no universal assent.
But if those moral rules were innate...I can't see how anyone should ever confidently and serenely break them.
Furthermore, this is also applicable to entire cultures who share different moral beliefs than others.
It seems clear that self-evident moral statements differ from other self-evident claims. To ask for a reason why a speculative self-evident statement is true is weird. Consider,
Why is it so that whatever is, is?
This is confusing and seems somewhat pointless to ask. But for supposedly self-evident moral statements, this is different. Take,
Why is it that promises must be kept?
Or,
Why is it that parents must preserve their children?
These questions seem much more reasonable to ask, so there must be some distinction between the supposed “self-evident” moral claims and other self-evident statements. Does there exist a moral claim that does not admit a good faith Why?
Discussion
- what is the difference between “practical” (moral, being about behavior) and “speculative” (being about how things are) principles?
- Could there be such a thing as absolute moral truth, given that there does not seem much universal assent?
- Is “that one should keep one’s promises” similar to “a triangle has three sides”, in that both are true in virtue of nothing more than the meanings of the words? Is either statement amenable to some kind of empirical test?