Absolute Morality

[Aver-aging]

Chez,

You are missing my point. I am saying that there is a perspective that you can take on ethics that encompasses all other approaches to moral theory. Genetic proliferation and survival are simply it's basis - because they are so pervasive. The fact is, you can still believe in truth, justice, empathy, and live your life by those standards, but your actions can also be explained through a method of genetic proliferation.

My contention is that no matter what form of ethics is behind it, it can be deduced beyond your immediate desires. What you want is only the skin covering the skeleton. It can be broken down (and believe me, if you explained your life story to me and your perspective of those events, I could deduce all the components of your moral framework, without hearing your opinions on any moral issue).

In a sense, I am claiming that people's morality is a predictable aspect of nature, just like everything else. You shouldn't believe that you have choice in the matter of deciding your morality, because ultimately you do not, regardless of your opinion, because the circumstances of your life determine how you interpret every following circumstance that you encounter.

We all assume the position (not the action) that is ultimately best for ourselves, and our actions fall from there, even if that means doing things that aren't good for ourselves. There's an inherent structure to moral decision making, and that's what I'm preaching we should teach people about.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
In a sense, I am claiming that people's morality is a predictable aspect of nature, just like everything else. You shouldn't believe that you have choice in the matter of deciding your morality, because ultimately you do not, regardless of your opinion, because the circumstances of your life determine how you interpret every following circumstance that you encounter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very hard to predict, I doubt you can even if its deterministic. Yes, I have no more choice over my morality then any other aspect of my nature but knowing that doesn't help you with anything.

What has any of this to do with morality. Yes I will behave the way I'm evolved to behave given the life I have led -that's just a truism but so what?

This doesn't seem to be about morality at all. Why not tackle one of DS's problems with your methodology and let's see the meat. I haven't answered the cat in the microwave - you predict what I believe is right and why.

chez

[Aver-aging]

[ QUOTE ]

Very hard to predict, I doubt you can even if its deterministic. Yes, I have no more choice over my morality then any other aspect of my nature but knowing that doesn't help you with anything.

What has any of this to do with morality. Yes I will behave the way I'm evolved to behave given the life I have led -that's just a truism but so what?

This doesn't seem to be about morality at all. Why not tackle one of DS's problems with your methodology and let's see the meat. I haven't answered the cat in the microwave - you predict what I believe is right and why.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

I am saying that there is a predictable framework behind moral behavior, and teaching people this predictable framework will allow them to more knowledgeable moral choices regardless of their moral perspective. When people are equally informed they make similar moral choices - which is what creating an absolute form of morality is all about (something everyone can agree on). I am preaching that people need as much information as possible so that morality can have a shot at being standardized. This also involves understanding the inherent structure of ethical and moral decision making - because there is one, I've written papers showing that structure to moral and ethical dilemma's does exist, I can make a very solid argument for it. My contention is that choice is based on knowledge, and once you give people equal amounts of knowledge, and as much as possible, you see standards of behavior that develop. The more knowledge that these standards are based on, the more uniform they eventually become (consider this process to be a natural selection of ideas, and the human mechanism that weeds out the weak ideas is curiosity).

What is one of DS's problems anyway? And you know I can't predict your opinion on a moral subject, because I don't really know you. Don't try and shove that point in my face, because both you and I know it's invalid. You're better than using a cheap tactic like that.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
What is one of DS's problems anyway? And you know I can't predict your opinion on a moral subject, because I don't really know you. Don't try and shove that point in my face, because both you and I know it's invalid. You're better than using a cheap tactic like that.

[/ QUOTE ]
I meant give an example of how he methodology would work. What would you need to know about me to predict my answer?, make us some stuff if you like and show us how this methodology works. Pick any example you like.

[ QUOTE ]
I am saying that there is a predictable framework behind moral behavior, and teaching people this predictable framework will allow them to more knowledgeable moral choices regardless of their moral perspective.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's true but again its just about what causes morality (which is nature+nuture we agree on that, doesn't everyone). facts are great, knowledge is great but its not morality as you seem to acknowledge when you talk of peoples individual moral perspective.

You just seem to be arguing for education, well I agree with that, most do except a few weirdos who seem to rejoice in ignorance.

I don't have any idea if we actually disagree about anything except what morality is about.

chez