Absolute Morality

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for your comment is about how my ethics approach is similar to an economists approach, you are quite correct. Ethics can be perfected, just like the economy can. It just takes a rigorously detailed understanding of it to come to the correct methodologies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whilst this is probably untrue in that perfect methodologies probably don't exist any more than perfectly combed balls do, it's also missing the point.

Methodologies can only begin to be applied once you have decided what you're trying to do, so a simplistic utilitarinan might try to maximise happiness for all and work out methodologies for doing so, but whether or not we want to maximise happiness for all in this way is the moral question we need to answer in the first place.

There's also the necessary theoretical bit which is where economists proves stuff like increasing the money supply is inflationary or Jill will tumble down the hill with Jack. Philosophy is often concerned with similar matters, I think that's the bit RJT is interested in.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

My contention is that the purpose and aim of ethics has already been decided by nature, and we just have to take the courage to semantically define our goal with ethics and align it with nature's. I can make the argument (and have, several times) that ethics are specific to a culture's need to maximize resources and increase the likelihood of survival for everyone in that society (and without sacrificing individual welfare) while sustaining co-operation amongst all separate bodies, whether it be between societies or individuals. Low-resource aboriginal groups exemplify the aspects of a society with 'perfect ethics' (albeit lacking in the modern world, slightly) because of the extreme ecological pressure imposed on them from their low-subsistence lifestyle. The answer to the question of deciding what you're trying to do has already been answered by nature, and all it takes is the ability to just look back at history and make the connection.

And perfect methodologies do exist, but its the combination of different ethical methodologies that sustains co-operative behavior. The ultimate ethical methodology is to influence people to behave using slightly different ethical strategies (genes that direct people in certain ethical directions have already taken care of half the battle). My contention is that society should sustain a mixture of ethical strategies similar to the most effective strategies in EPD tournaments (GRIM, TFT, GTFT, PAVLOV and DOWNING) in order to maximize resources (afterwards the issue becomes managing those resources), increase the likelihood of individual survival, and doing this while sustaining co-operative behavior as best as possible (and this gets extremely tricky, because sometimes it means being uncooperative). I'm not advocating a Golden Rule, I'm advocating Golden Rules. Flexibility and variation are the most important aspects of sustaining co-operative behavior, it's just that it needs to be narrowed down to the proper combination of a few strategies.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
My contention is that the purpose and aim of ethics has already been decided by nature, and we just have to take the courage to semantically define our goal with ethics and align it with nature's

[/ QUOTE ]
Others will disagree with your view, I agree that its been decided by nature but almost certainly disagree with you about what has been decided.

This is the subject of morality. Just insisting you're right will get you nowhere and your methodologies (even assuming they exist in principle) will fail in practice because of the need to coerce those who profoundly disagree with you.

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, my contention is that people who study literature that has been looked over by countless individuals (like Shakespeare) are wasting their time. I hate literature, and I hate the typical approach that it takes. I consider wastes of mental energy like that to immoral, if you care about society. There are better and more productive things to think about than literature and pointless philosophical arguments.

[/ QUOTE ]

No there aren’t more important things. Love, beauty, passion, art, theater, music - that is life. Man cannot live by bread alone. Perhaps, I should say I don’t want to live by bread alone. I don’t want to live in an ivory tower even if everyone on earth lived in the same ivory tower. I want color and drama - I want Caravaggio and Delacroix and Scorcese.

Your stoicism and your goals relative to it are admirable. But, it is only one way to approach life and society. Your goal seems to be to form a perfect society. To what end? It seems to me for the longevity of the human race - for survival.

I have on a number of occasions asked here on SMP why folk are so concerned with man’s survival. If I am understanding you correctly - and this is THE question you are concerned with, then let’s start a new thread and talk about it. I have been wanting to discuss this idea for some time - you sound like the perfect apologists for such a position.

Basically, what we are talking about is this: What is/should be man’s ultimate goal(s) in life?

Sample answers - survival, procreation, help others, make money, sex/drugs and rock and roll, cure diseases, get into Heaven.

p.s. Regarding ethics already being decided by nature - even if this is the case, we are thinking animals. We are not bound but what nature has decided. We have the ability to say NO to anything that we have been “programmed” to be.

[Guyute]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am an athiest, but i can't understand relative morality, even a little bit.

Let's say I kill your wife/spouse/significant other, because I felt like it. That's cool with you?

and where does a relativist get off condeming religions for believing whatever they want to believe regarding morals and relativism? who cares if catholics hate gays or condemn you by their standards, they're right for believing what they believe at the time, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not cool at all. Its immoral, according to me and the society I live in. Yer ass is getting thrown in prison. At your trial, I will be unable to say what you did was absolutely immoral. I won't miss it.

[/ QUOTE ]


But Kevin's point still goes through, though on a wider level. If your entire society deems random killings acceptable (or systematic mass killings of an arbitrary class of people), then the relativist is committed to saying that the what is actually morally right is to follow the society. Only an absolutist about morality has the ability to say that an entire society is acting immorally.

I don't doubt that in this fictional society where random killings are permissible that people will not think of the actions as wrong, but from an outsider's perspective, I think we can be fairly certain that the society has immoral practices in place.

The point can be made with reference to our own countries ethical practices over time. It used to be that women did not have equal rights and African-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a person. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. But the relativists who thinks morals are dictated by the standards of the community is committed to the claim that there has been no progress in our ethical practices over time, since morality just is whatever the community says it is. It is only if there is a extra-community standard for morality that we can have genuine moral progress as well as genuine moral disagreement.

[Guyute]

"to our own country's ethical practices". sorry.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
The point can be made with reference to our own countries ethical practices over time. It used to be that women did not have equal rights and African-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a person. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. But the relativists who thinks morals are dictated by the standards of the community is committed to the claim that there has been no progress in our ethical practices over time, since morality just is whatever the community says it is. It is only if there is a extra-community standard for morality that we can have genuine moral progress as well as genuine moral disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Doesn't it just mean there is no objective progress?.

We can still have moral disagreements, e.g guantamalo bay causes much moral disagrement but doesn't imply objective morality.

chez

[Guyute]

Could you clarify what the alternatives are to objective moral progress? When I think of moral progress, I think of a community whose moral practices are getting closer in line with the correct moral practices (whatever those might be, I don't know). I'm open to other notions of progress, just not sure what they are.

And the problem of moral disagreement is that I just don't see how we can be having a disagreement about morals unless there is a standard outside of community. The relativist, it seems to me, is left saying that the disagreement about the morality of the acts Gitmo are just disagreements about what our own society thinks about those acts, since it is the opinions of the society that in the end determine what is and is not moral. This seems to mischaracterize the nature of the debate; it seems to me that the disagreements are over whether those actions are permissible given the circumstances.

(disclaimer: I am not making any claims on what actions are moral, only on the status of moral properties and moral claims.)

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you clarify what the alternatives are to objective moral progress? When I think of moral progress, I think of a community whose moral practices are getting closer in line with the correct moral practices (whatever those might be, I don't know). I'm open to other notions of progress, just not sure what they are.

[/ QUOTE ]
The alternative is people prefering one thing to another. considered slavery - considered freedom - prefer freedom hence believe it was progress to abolish it.

[ QUOTE ]
And the problem of moral disagreement is that I just don't see how we can be having a disagreement about morals unless there is a standard outside of community.

[/ QUOTE ]
Call it agreement if you like. We can agree that some 2+2ers think its wrong not to nuke N.Korea and other think its would be wrong to nuke N.Korea.

[ QUOTE ]
it seems to me, is left saying that the disagreement about the morality of the acts Gitmo are just disagreements about what our own society thinks about those acts, since it is the opinions of the society that in the end determine what is and is not moral.

[/ QUOTE ]
Society doesn't determine anything about morals though many are influence by the society in which they live. Rape isn't immoral because its illegal, its illegal because the overwhelming opinion is that its wrong.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i am an athiest, but i can't understand relative morality, even a little bit.

Let's say I kill your wife/spouse/significant other, because I felt like it. That's cool with you?

and where does a relativist get off condeming religions for believing whatever they want to believe regarding morals and relativism? who cares if catholics hate gays or condemn you by their standards, they're right for believing what they believe at the time, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not cool at all. Its immoral, according to me and the society I live in. Yer ass is getting thrown in prison. At your trial, I will be unable to say what you did was absolutely immoral. I won't miss it.

[/ QUOTE ]


But Kevin's point still goes through, though on a wider level. If your entire society deems random killings acceptable (or systematic mass killings of an arbitrary class of people), then the relativist is committed to saying that the what is actually morally right is to follow the society. Only an absolutist about morality has the ability to say that an entire society is acting immorally.

I don't doubt that in this fictional society where random killings are permissible that people will not think of the actions as wrong, but from an outsider's perspective, I think we can be fairly certain that the society has immoral practices in place.

The point can be made with reference to our own countries ethical practices over time. It used to be that women did not have equal rights and African-Americans were considered 3/5ths of a person. Fortunately, this is no longer the case. But the relativists who thinks morals are dictated by the standards of the community is committed to the claim that there has been no progress in our ethical practices over time, since morality just is whatever the community says it is. It is only if there is a extra-community standard for morality that we can have genuine moral progress as well as genuine moral disagreement.

[/ QUOTE ]

His point doesn't 'still stand.' He is right, I cannot say that those actions are absolutely wrong. Nor can you, of course. You might think that you can, but you are almost certainly wrong. You just make the CLAIM that you can. I don't. And we both agree that it doesn't matter a lick in practice.

If everyone agreed that random killings were ok, they would be ok, for all intents and purposes. Heck...they might actually BE ok. I don't think they are, but I don't know what the absolute morality is. What is random killing and rape really IS absolutely moral? Would that matter to you? What if we found out that God and an absolute morality DO exist, and that rape is absolutely moral. What does that do for us as a society? Do we legalize rape? I doubt it.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
His point doesn't 'still stand.' He is right, I cannot say that those actions are absolutely wrong. Nor can you, of course. You might think that you can, but you are almost certainly wrong. You just make the CLAIM that you can. I don't. And we both agree that it doesn't matter a lick in practice.

If everyone agreed that random killings were ok, they would be ok, for all intents and purposes. Heck...they might actually BE ok. I don't think they are, but I don't know what the absolute morality is. What is random killing and rape really IS absolutely moral? Would that matter to you? What if we found out that God and an absolute morality DO exist, and that rape is absolutely moral. What does that do for us as a society? Do we legalize rape? I doubt it.

Post Extras



[/ QUOTE ]

This is deja vu. When I recently got my dui, my mother’s bishop descended on me and gave me a lecture on absolute morality ( after I told him I was agnostic ). He brought up the exact scenario, of what happens if everyone in a particular society deems it ok to randomly kill fellow members? His point was that only God can be the final arbiter, in such a situation, of absolute morals.

My response was similar to a response long ago on these posts, by Maurile. I told him that his God could make rules. Those rules may be good for some, but bad for others and I gave him some examples of bad Mormon rules, apparently dictated by God. I acquiesced that it is possible that certain situations may have absolute morals attached to them, but if so, those morals would hold true regardless of what anyone in the universe thought, including God. If absolute morals exist, which I doubt, then certainly they exist independently of the Mormon God or the orthodox Christian God, or any other God that man has created.