Moral Objectivity And Its Limit

Good life means an example life which is worth to follow, no matter for a particular life, or community life. Which life is good life is not a problem at former modern society. Both politics and religion provided a few concrete life-styles which are normativity and common validity, what people need to do is just his responsibility. But after the Enlightenment, Modern democratic society is in one kind of "reason pluralism "difficult position. Philosophy cannot give direction for personal or collective life designs.The fact of reasonable makes human being's morality life to have been in hot water. The first puzzledom is that we cannot achieve moral conssuns. It mainly exhibit two respects, the one is codes of ethics's fragment-rization at Public Sphere,the other one is the ultimate value is decided by person-self at private realm. The second puzzledom is we do not know what we should to make our to be moral. This also exhibit two respects. Firstly, ethics without good will. Ethics is a series principle to guide people to make choice and decision. According Hegel, it should include the dimensionality of moral, but in fact, people just follow these external rules. The moral decision by subject is placed in quilt hanging. Secondly, at private life, there is just a good will without any content. Thirdly, society will be instability because of various incompatible theory such as religion, philosophy and morality theory, working together.The origin of the moral crisis is the basis of morality rationality is destroyed. After being modernized, the effective basis of common morality tradition has totally lost, we occupy the situation without principle and basis. This caused two branches of the moral theory both to have the problem: On one hand, since the human does not need to redeem, also does not have any about the human nature prior hypothesis,"why should we be the morals"become a question. On the other hand, we already cannot depend upon the religion authority, also cannot rely on the ontology proof which expires repeatedly to direct our motion,"how do we become moral"become a question similarly. But these two questions are precisely the basic questions in ethics. Therefore this paper basically centers on these two questions to organize and to launch.How to resist the motivism, establish a stable rational foundation for the moral standards to become the question which the contemporary moral philosophers devote to solve together. If we want to solve this problem, we must guarantee that the moral standards have the certain extent determinism and the objectivity. According to the fact and value relation's different view, we may divide into three ways: First, if the fact and the value dichotomy is reasonable, there are two kind of points: First, intermediary method, namely seeks can cause the two to have the connection effective intermediary, thus guaranteed that the value has something to do with the fact. This point takes Macintyre as representative. Second method is to seek consensus, since ethics has nothing to do with the fact, we did not consider the fact attribute, achieves one kind of mutual recognition which can substitute fact objectivity. Lawls and Habermas adopt different solutions. Lawls advocated overlapping consensus which has nothing to do with the truth. Habermas insisted common sense of intercourse that establishes above the foundation of the truth. Second, The dichotomy of fact and the value is unreasonable, we need to show the relation between value and fact. This is the foundation of moral objectivity. Putnum may regard as represents. Through the above three ways, we may discover that the solution of the contemporary morals philosopher to solve the moral rational foundation have the common characteristic:First, they all try to rebuild moral objectivity. Although their thought veins are different, even are in sharp opposition, they pursue one kind non-individual, non-emotion-like objective morality. Second, they all adopt a view of inter-subjection.The moral objectivity is no longer one kind of subjective arbitrary opinion. Thirdly, refuse the ultimate goodness. Their no longer preinstall any tradition metaphysics pursues achievement ultimate concern ultimate good. They no longer preinstall any ultimate good that traditional metaphysics pursues. They use the view of historicism that regards moral rule's formation as a historical, invariable process which does not have the ultimate aim and the ultimate condition.The above common grounds base the Post-metaphysical horizon to solve the moral objectivity problem that provides a very good direction of advance for us. But these theories actually also have respective knottiness which urges our further research.Rawls' political liberalism is a advisable solution to guarantee society's stability effectively. But overlapping consensus is just a usable method which get up the question that"why we should be the morals". This kind of ingenious evasion means giving up any kind of moral theory.The question of moral objectivity relates closely with its limit. The objectivity without limit either reverse cultural relativism or reverse ethical absolutism. Both of them will cause the following difficult position: first, which life is a good life is a metaphysics question that cannot speak. Second, the true source of moral is actually in autonomy. In my opinion, The essential question lies in what is the good life is not originally by the discussion decided that but decides by the life itself. The article major point is as follows: 1. The objectivity is a reasonable acceptability. It is not an absolute, eternal concept, but a concept that may be improper and be possible to examine. It forms in the life practice process.2. It can achieve moral objectivity. There is not a insurmountable gap between fact and value.3. The moral objectivity has the limit. Although we can obtain the truth about values, it only tells us what values is significative for formal life. These various kind of values which are not harmonious does not have the ranking number. They coexist in the society, thus leave behind the space for moral subject to choice.4. The impetus of moral choice for subject lies in others. Others cause me to realize me share world with others. So my authority and free is limited. But others have not eliminated selfhood. On the contrary, it is the condition for selfhood autocephaly: it causes me to realize my freedom is given. Freedom will not have the goal and the foundation without others. Therefore, the subject should undertake to his responsibility.5. The subject needs moral judgment which is the product moral and ethics unify carry on moral choice.