Absolute Morality

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

Post Extras


[/ QUOTE ]

Well then a great deal of seemingly good, seemingly rational human beings would be immoral. Would this be a bad thing from strictly our human perspective? After my mother’s bishop listened to my rebuttal, he smiled at me and pleasantly told me that I was hurting his head. I can certainly share his sentiment in regards to this type of discussion. My whole point is if I did something bad, then discuss it with me. Driving while drunk is a horrible thing. But don’t point a finger at me and try to invoke your will on me by pretending to understand absolute morality. It is something that can’t be understood, if it exists at all.

[kevin017]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. morality is based on logic. the reason your example makes sense is because we cannot fathom how rape could possibly be moral. If we were provided with a logical explanation for why rape was moral, i bet society would change its position.

ok, let me go back to my original question. I kill your wife. You lock me up. What gives you the authority to lock me up, and why is that ok? What makes you correct for doing anything at all to me? It seems to me as though your original answer is saying "I am deciding that your morality is not suitable to me so I will judge it wrong and lock you up." or did i get that wrong?

[mvdgaag]

It seems most religious people tend to think concepts like morality cannot exist without it's creator (a lot of morality is claimed by religion). Therefore they believe that atheist people lack all the morality that originated (or is claimed to originate) from that religion and are beasts. Sometimes I think what they really mean to say is: "If I'm not bound to my religious morals I am a beast."

Most strongly religious people cannot see that they can have moral opinions if they were not religiously obligated ones. Therefore they cannot understand that morality is not absolute (because the truth of their religion is absolute for them) and therefore they choose to battle against any other morality. This goes as far as waging war.

Morality in a religious sense leads to war.

[Guyute]

There are ethical issues at two levels of abstraction here.

At one level are questions of normative ethics - what is right and what is wrong. I have made no claims about normative ethics, and no claims that I know what is right and what is wrong.

One level up, however, are questions of meta-ethics - is there right and is there wrong. It is here that I am making my claim that there is in fact a right answer when it comes to moral questions. I make these claims not based on the belief or hope that my moral beliefs are absolutely true, but rather because it seems to me that the arguments are much stronger for a non-relativistic morality. It is only a non-relativistic morality that captures much of what it seems needs to be captured by a meta-ethical theory: tolerance of some communities, no tolerance of others, the capacity for genuine moral disagreement, the capacity for moral progress.

It seems to me that the only position other than absolutism about morality is the one chezlaw seems to be advocating, one of no moral truths at all, sometimes called emotivism. I personally find this theory untenable, but there are decent arguments supporting it that are quite difficult to respond to. However, if it turns out that the arguments are stronger for emotivism, I would be forced to change my views.

[Aver-aging]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just want to go along with nature, and the process of life. I realize that we have the potential to say 'No' to nature, but really, can we? Do most people? Do most people NOT have sex? Do most people NOT care about survival?

I want to make a theory of living that is accessible to EVERYONE. The fact is, everyone possesses (well, aside from those incredibly different genetic anomalies that eventually don't have success in reproducing) the innate things that drive a human being, or any living organism - genetic survival.

Why create a lifestyle based on anything else? This one aspect of life that pervades every single society, and every single individual. Constructing an ethics system around anything but genetic survival would be the equivalent of ramming your head into a brick wall. Your reasoning, and many others is this "I mean, I know a sledgehammer works, but why not use your head to break it down?" I prefer choosing the path of least friction when attempting to build anything. Building a system of ethics is no different. Society requires a code of ethics to live by, it's ingrained in the dynamics of group behavior, so there's no avoiding it. If you build an ethics system on anything but genetic survival/procreation, you are literally fighting against the force that drives life. The desire to survive is universal throughout time, and no other belief or desire is. No matter what, nature will ensure that people who survive will be the people who want to survive.

By the way, my comment about literature is to be applied to it's acceptance as academic study. I don't mind people doing whatever they want to do in their leisure time, I have a many leisure hobbies that are... well, futile to my goals, but I enjoy them. But, I mean, how many hours have I wasted away in an English class throughout my entire life pouring over mundane, recycled arguments over what Hamlet felt? I didn't have a choice of whether or not I had to go, my education required it. I don't mind being introduced to English (or any leisure subject) as a topic of study, but eventually I get to age where it seems kind of futile if I don't want to put time into it. I am a very experimental person, I enjoy variety in life. I enjoy Love, Art, Poetry, Music, what have you, I just don't enjoy it when they are the focus of my education when many more important things should be (like staying happy, staying creative, staying knowledgeable, and having a desire to learn, understand and reason).

[Aver-aging]

[ 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

[/ QUOTE ]

If you haven't read my reply to RJT, I suggest you do so. My argument is to choose the path of least friction - which is designing an ethics system around the innate need for survival and genetic proliferation.

It is a form of absolute morality, mainly because this is the only form of ethics that can survive indefinitely. Nature assures that people who want to survive and pass on their genes are the ones who do so (want might not be the right word, because sometimes the knowledge doesn't have to be self-known for the strategy to be successful. In a sense though, the genes still 'want' to be passed on by adopting a covert strategy like that). A person may not 'want' to survive, reproduce, etc. (like a priest) but isn't that why they remain the minority? The success of this strategy if applied, understood and consistently revised is absolute.

If you can create the argument that there is another ethical strategy that is more pervasive, more simple to sustain and more efficient, I would like to hear it. In fact, I would probably abide by it.

You have to realize, that the form I am presenting you is incredibly basic. The real balance of strategies is incredibly difficult to understand, because its interrelated to so many other aspects of life. The ethics that you apply to a certain society might be different than the ethics you apply to a another type of society, it would be an issue of demographics, economy, genetic tendencies of the population, existing ethical systems, geography, social institutions, etc. The ethics to ensure the maximum likelihood of survival would look different when applied to different groups of people. Maximum efficiency through ethics is possible though, as the low-resource aboriginal tribes throughout the world can show us. The trick is just coming up with an ethics system in such a diverse and changing world. It would obviously, as demographics, economy, etc. change, be subject to constant revision and change.

I realize that this is what's already going on in the world, the selection of ethical ideologies, I just want to speed up the process by bringing it to everyone's attention. The moral revolution needs to catch up the technological revolution... it is waaaaayyyy behind. It's time we start understanding ourselves, and apply a goal that suits everyone unilaterally.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
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


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



If you haven't read my reply to RJT, I suggest you do so. My argument is to choose the path of least friction - which is designing an ethics system around the innate need for survival and genetic proliferation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I can't disagree with your choice, that's up to you but its of no particular relevence to me or most others. Survival is low down the list and I couldn't give a monkies about genetic proliferation - but that's just me. Truth, justice, tolerance etc would be on my list.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can create the argument that there is another ethical strategy that is more pervasive, more simple to sustain and more efficient, I would like to hear it. In fact, I would probably abide by it.

[/ QUOTE ]
more pervasive - people maximising their happiness.
simple - don't care much.
max efficiency - I'm against it's usually bad.

So even if your stratagies could achieve what you want, how do they handle those who want something completely different?

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
There are ethical issues at two levels of abstraction here.

At one level are questions of normative ethics - what is right and what is wrong. I have made no claims about normative ethics, and no claims that I know what is right and what is wrong.

One level up, however, are questions of meta-ethics - is there right and is there wrong. It is here that I am making my claim that there is in fact a right answer when it comes to moral questions. I make these claims not based on the belief or hope that my moral beliefs are absolutely true, but rather because it seems to me that the arguments are much stronger for a non-relativistic morality. It is only a non-relativistic morality that captures much of what it seems needs to be captured by a meta-ethical theory: tolerance of some communities, no tolerance of others, the capacity for genuine moral disagreement, the capacity for moral progress.

It seems to me that the only position other than absolutism about morality is the one chezlaw seems to be advocating, one of no moral truths at all, sometimes called emotivism. I personally find this theory untenable, but there are decent arguments supporting it that are quite difficult to respond to. However, if it turns out that the arguments are stronger for emotivism, I would be forced to change my views.

[/ QUOTE ]
but all those things you say are evidence of an absolute morality are at least as easily explained without one - they just aren't absolute.

and there's no source for this mythical absolutism whereas the emotivism is completely explained.

and, as has ben pointed out many times, even if an absolute morality exists there's no method of deciding which side of any disagreement is the absolutely correct one so we're stuck with whatver we believe is the absolutely correct morality which is, of course, exactly the same as the emotive belief.

btw: I think emotivism is misleading, there's good reasons why we have these emotions but its because they are a good solution not because of any absolute right or wrong.

chez

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Exactly, which is why these examples of "What happens if everyone decides rape is ok" are silly. The better counter to that example is, "Ok, well, what if rape IS absolutely moral?"

[/ QUOTE ]

This is silly. morality is based on logic. the reason your example makes sense is because we cannot fathom how rape could possibly be moral. If we were provided with a logical explanation for why rape was moral, i bet society would change its position.

ok, let me go back to my original question. I kill your wife. You lock me up. What gives you the authority to lock me up, and why is that ok? What makes you correct for doing anything at all to me? It seems to me as though your original answer is saying "I am deciding that your morality is not suitable to me so I will judge it wrong and lock you up." or did i get that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, you've got it exactly right.

EDIT: Except that of course, morality cannot be based on logic. Logic is a tool, and its application must be based on something. If morality is contingent on some logical conclusion from pre-existing premises, its not absolute. Why is homosexuality logically immoral?