Are Mystical Experiences the Source of Moral Knowledge?

Are Mystical Experiences the Source of Moral Knowledge?

P. Goff

Is morality objective? I think so. Slavery, for example, is objectively wrong. What determines what’s objectively good and bad, right and wrong? My view on morality is similar to my view on consciousness. I think moral facts, i.e. facts about what makes things good/bad/right/wrong, etc., are fundamental; they can’t be explained or reduced to any other kinds of facts. Just as there are fundamental laws of physics, so there are fundamental laws of value, e.g. all things being equal, pleasure is good and pain is bad.

...Tim Mulgan, in his wonderful book Purpose in the Universe (I have a 2022 review of Tim’s book on my website), is one of the few people who takes this problem seriously but doesn’t turn to God (at least not God in the tradition sense). Tim’s suggestion is that our knowledge of moral facts may rooted in mystical experiences. When somebody is having a mystical experience, it seems to them as if they are in direct contact with Ultimate Reality – with the ground or source of all existence. If Ultimate Reality is the source of not just of the physical universe but also of moral truth, then perhaps it is this direct contact with Ultimate Reality that reveals to human beings what the moral truths are. (I’d also love to interview Tim here in 2026.)

Many philosophers are uncomfortable with taking mystical experiences as genuine insights into the ultimate nature of reality, and prefer to think of them as merely hallucinations of some kind. I suspect meta-ethical non-naturalists, most of whom are atheists, would share this preference. But, in my view, non-naturalists are committed, whether they like or not, to thinking we’re somehow in touch with fundamental reality (as otherwise we couldn’t account for our knowledge of fundamental moral facts). Why not take seriously a common experience that purports to involve this...

Is Morality Objective?

P. Goff, M. Huemer

We are both moral objectivists, so in the first hour we are of one mind in building the case for moral objectivity. But in the final half hour there was disagreement. I feel most moral objectivists don’t face up to their epistemological obligations to explain how we know about morality, and Mike fits into this category IMHO.* I tried out on Mike the new solution I’m working on, connecting moral knowledge to mystical experiences (see this post), and he had some interesting responses that I’ll reflect on further.

Some Questions

1. Which of the positions in meta-ethics Mike outlines at the start is the most plausible?
   
   
2. Am I right that objectivists like me and Mike need to give more of an explanation of how moral knowledge is possible?
   
   
3. Is my (admittedly still very sketchy) proposal for explaining moral knowledge plausible?