Absolute Morality

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. Here's my take on absolute morality--it's basically utilitarianism dressed up in an evening gown.

The golden rule, which you could credibly boil most absolute morality down to, turns out to be a very useful way to live one's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more with this. If absolute morality could be boiled down to the Golden Rule, I wouldn't have a problem with it. How do you boil down "homosexual sex is evil" to the Golden Rule?

[Aver-aging]

Oh Joy! This is just the idea I've been coming up with.

Thank god (I'm an atheist) that people here know a little game theory. If you don't know much about the Prisoner's Dilemma, or PD tournaments, and you haven't heard of Evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments please see this http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/ if you want to understand what I'm going to be talking about. Read the introduction and skip to the 'Evolution' part of the page.

Anyways, my own personal way of understanding ethics and morality is this: I see ethics as a mechanism to sustain co-operative behavior amongst individuals who have their own best interest as their primary focus. I wrote a theoretical history paper that attempted to establish a connection between effective co-operative strategies in the Prisoner's Dilemma and real life forms of ethical practices. Surprise, surprise, what do I find? Cultures that were under more ecological pressure (like small hunter/gatherer groups that live off of low-subsistence) took on more efficient forms of co-operation and defection than larger societies that were under less ecological/environmental pressure. Small societies relentlessly employed ethical strategies that were similar to the Evolutionary Prisoner's Dilemma's top effective strategies: Tit for Tat - they co-operate by default and they reciprocated both positive and negative behavior; Generous Tit for Tat - they acted the same as Tit for Tat, but eventually tried to make reparations when a negative cycle of reciprocation began in order to create new co-operative bonds; GRIM - they co-operate initially but never co-operate with a group again after negative behavior is seen; and PAVLOV - they do not co-operate initially, and only start to co-operate when the other person retaliates (the least efficient of the top strategies, and coincidentally practiced by societies with large amounts of resources to spare).

So, if you want to figure out for yourself if something is morally/ethically wrong, ask yourself "Is doing -insert action- going to be strategically conducive in sustaining co-operation amongst all human beings or will it be strategically harmful?" Once you get the answer, you discovered an aspect of absolute ethics (well, as long as your rationale is flawless both in its underlying information and in its logical cohesiveness).

Here is an example: Is it wrong to murder a good person for no reason?

Yes. Because if you murder someone, there is a high likelihood that you will commence a cycle of negative reciprocation. His loved one's might try to kill you, and then one of your loved one's might try to kill the person who killed you, and so on - a cycle of actions that does not serve to sustain co-operation among people. Even if he has no loved ones, it is still wrong because bringing a good person into your co-operative network by co-operating with them will eventually bring yourself and your group a larger benefit then if you had just killed that person.

I also forgot to mention 'Downing' a very successful strategy in some forms of EPD that co-operates initially, then defects, and repeats that cycle over and over. It's actually attributed to being essential in keeping selfish strategies from having success. So be grateful the next time someone you know stabs you in the back and begs for your forgiveness, just remember, its for the good of co-operation. You know what the most interesting part about these EPD tournaments? That the only way to successfully sustain co-operation in an environment that is subject to randomization (think of changes in economy, the environment, ideology, social leadership and social awareness as the 'elements of randomization' in the real world) is through the intricate balance of many different ethical strategies. So, the most ethically incorrect thing to do would be to make everyone's ethical behavior uniform. Cool, no?

If anyone is interested I can e-mail them my paper that I wrote on the subject.

[samsonite2100]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. Here's my take on absolute morality--it's basically utilitarianism dressed up in an evening gown.

The golden rule, which you could credibly boil most absolute morality down to, turns out to be a very useful way to live one's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more with this. If absolute morality could be boiled down to the Golden Rule, I wouldn't have a problem with it. How do you boil down "homosexual sex is evil" to the Golden Rule?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wasn't talking about all the weird little snippets from the Bible and Koran, etc. I thought we were basically discussing ten commandments-type general morality--which can mostly be expressed in terms of the golden rule.

I'm frankly so disinterested in silly stuff like "don't eat oysters," "don't lay down with men," "grow weird sideburns," that I didn't even think to include it in my post. What I (and OP, I believe) am interested in is why religious people think their rational, useful behavioral norms must be codified as objective truths.

[Aver-aging]

Seriously, someone better read/reply to my post at the top.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

the theory that God makes right things right - runs straight into Plato's Euthyphro dilemma


[/ QUOTE ]

Getting rid of God doesn't solve Euthyprho. If you posit an impersonal absolute standard you have the same problem.

Most theists say Euthyprho is a false dilemma because God says what is right, not because of a standard above Him, nor is something right by arbitrary fiat - the solution is that God's nature is the standard, He says what is right because He is righteous.

Another problem with your position is it's difficult to see how an impersonal standard can obligate. We are obligated to an Absolute Person, not some absolute, impersonal standard.

[DonkBluffer]

Haven't read whole thread, but I don't believe in absolute morality or inherent value or meaning of things or events.

Question: If I
1) do not believe some thing or action to be wrong and
2) when I do it, am not in any way affected, and do not experience it as wrong
3) will not experience any (negative) consequences of the thing/action in the future
then how can it be 'wrong' or 'bad'? Basically you're assuming there are unknowable, absolute standards. But if they can't be known, how do they have meaning? (I'd say they don't exist, and we just made them up, but w/e) The only way these absolute standards can have meaning is if an afterlife exists, and then you will experience the consequences of your actions (hell).

[DonkBluffer]

IMO, saying some things are absolutely immoral is like saying some things are absolutey scary, or absolutely embarassing, or absolutely tasty.

[SitNHit]

[ QUOTE ]
Haven't read whole thread, but I don't believe in absolute morality or inherent value or meaning of things or events.

Question: If I
1) do not believe some thing or action to be wrong and
2) when I do it, am not in any way affected, and do not experience it as wrong
3) will not experience any (negative) consequences of the thing/action in the future
then how can it be 'wrong' or 'bad'? Basically you're assuming there are unknowable, absolute standards. But if they can't be known, how do they have meaning? (I'd say they don't exist, and we just made them up, but w/e) The only way these absolute standards can have meaning is if an afterlife exists, and then you will experience the consequences of your actions (hell).

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets say your Fat and are only around fat people and also assume being fat doesn't change ur health. Since being born you eat a lot, everyone else does and it's normal, it doesn't effect them cause nothing is telling them it's different or that there is better way to live. Now someone comes into where they live and is in great shape, not fat, he looks different and everybody is fascinated.

They ask him wow, how do you feel being that small , he says it's great. They ask how he got like that, he says by changing the way you eat and look at food, by moving your body around a lot and by being more active.

Lets say they start doing this and feel great and keep doing it, now that's how they are living their lifestyle cause they feel the benefits. They woulnd't know unless they tried, so once exposed to this particular something that was different, those who did what the person taught them, who were willing to explore a possiblity of a lifestyle that was working for him and try something knew, did it and saw the benefits and a whole new way to live life.

They are happier cause of it where as they wouldn't be if they just looked at this small person as weird or crazy and went on living their own lifestyle they are used to.

I think some things come in our lives for positive reasons and negative reasons and we choose which ones to explore. How can know the effects on us of different beliefs and ways of life if you don't explore some possiblities.

What makes sense to me may not to you so I apologize if it looks like I just wrote jibbrish.

[DonkBluffer]

The formerly fat people now felt better because their health was better and they looked better. I don't see how this is ontopic. They could experience the benefit of their actions.
My whole point with absolute morality was that it assumes something can be bad, even though there's no way to tell it's bad.

[SitNHit]

Yeh, I was just sharing first thing that came to mind by the chance that it could be meaningful to the discussion.