Ⅲ．On The Legitimacy of Asking Normative Problems

The nature of normative questions differs from that of the facto questions. Should I be moral? Can I lie? When we ask questions concerning normative problems, we are looking for a potential agreement that can be utilized by a certain group of people in practice. In other words, by nature,normative problems entail practical purposes. The legitimacy of normative questions is achieved only if normative questions can form practical guides and hence direct our actions. The first challenge to the answers of normative questions is Moral Relativism and even Moral Subjectivism. That is, there is no objective moral truth since humans are limited beings, and all we have is nothing more than an opinion. Some even propose an extreme version,known as Subjectivism, which argues that every person has a unique system of value, so questions that involve moral judgements toward other agents should not be asked at all since one can only judge upon her own values but not others. This philosophical doctrine has gained popularity. As Richard Werner notices, “If there is an objective perspective, it would be the God's eye point of view, the view from nowhere... It envisions what things would be like if we were completely rational, that is, if we existed outside of space and time... But of course none of us is outside of space and time.”( How to Outrun the History Train-Meaning in a Soulless World ) In other words,the indefensible weakness of Moral Objectivism is that no one is God, and hence no one can be absolutely objective.

It appears to be plausible that there's no objectivity, but is it really the end of agreements? Humans not only have differences, but also similarities and agreements. For instance, the vast majority of people from the United States, Europe, and China all agree that, in a normal state, killing others ought to be punished. The establishment of morality does not necessarily require a universal agreement of every person in the world, but only an agreement among a particular group. A group of people can form intersubjective agreement that applies to its members of this particular group. By doing so, moral rule is constructed by humans without needing to invoke an objective moral truth. Therefore, the attack toward objectivism does not eliminate the ability for people to ask normative problems. By forming intersubjective agreements that can direct actions of moral agents,normative questions are both helpful and necessary.

Some opponents who advocate to limit the freedom of speech,including Aristotle, propose another challenge toward the legitimacy of asking normative questions. That is, there are certain moral questions that we should not ask because they would be harmful for the overall society.For instance, we ought to forbid questions that challenge the evilness of the Holocaust. This question is harmful for the public because allowing people to argue for the position that “genocide is not bad” may encourage antisocial political agendas and violent behavior.

Though the initial purpose of banning socially dangerous questions is understandable, but its actual outcome can bring drawbacks. This problematic outcome is empathized in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty . Mill argues that if the expression that a government or an authority forbids is correct, then a great harm is generated by silencing public expression since humans lose a chance to learn the truth. For instance, the government had upheld the doctrine of Slavery and completely forbid the anti-conventional questions asked by anti-slavery reformers, slavery would never be abolished. In this case, the truth is shrouded. Humans, as fallible creatures,need to examine our histories and faults in order to prevent mistakes from happening again. By asking controversial questions, we encourage critical discussions that help build moral consensus.

Certainly, humans 'intersubjective agreements are fallible in many scenarios of the history (Slavery, Nazism, and etc.). However, the nature of intersubjective agreements is not a permanent standard, but a constant process of progress and renewing through constant questioning.

Distinct opinions represent different positions. Liberals and Conservatives may form opposite answers, and no side is absolutely correct. When an authority engages and forbids some questions, a barrier of knowledge is created, oppressing people who holds different opinions.Therefore, pragmatically speaking, there should be no limit of proposing questions in normative questions.