A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Again you have that backwards.

You are completely over simplifying and confusing absolute ethical principles with absolute ethical dicta.

You seem to think that all moral systems must be legalistic rather than principled. This is something that thankfully even our enlightenment "forefathers" in the United States understood when they created in the constitution the ability to adapt to future understandings, and changing "conditions on the ground".

Quote:

If you accept that people in different cultures are equally moral, in spite of the fact they have different beliefs, you will be less likely to go to war against them.

So in this system how does one handle crimes against humanity? In this system how does one cope with a dictator who commits genocide. How does a theocracy interact with a democracy or a socialist state?
The happy go lucky, "I'm OK. You're OK. Lets all hold hands." view on the society level does not work. Genocide is not OK. Government sponsored rape is not OK. Predatory trade policies with weaker nations are not OK. The only reason you are even having any difficulty in seeing the not OK-ness of this is because you happen to belong to the society that is the toughest kid on the playground (with respect to the other societies).

1 Reply

For anyone whining about votes on posts, Ice Demon's post was voted down almost immediately. I clicked on Matt's post before Ice Demon's name even appeared on the new posts list, and his post (Ice Demon's) had been voted down. It now has been voted up again. There are loonies here who go around voting posts down for whatever pleasure it gives them. Attempting to allege that anyone who is actually a participant in a thread is doing this is rather silly. Come in early in the morning (U.S. time zones) sometime, you can see that someone has gone from thread to thread voting down the most recent posts in those threads. I don't vote on posts, and don't care about the votes--but it has been obvious for months that one or more members go from thread to thread voting down posts.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Thanks for the insight Setanta. Very Happy

I have been recently puzzled by similar phenomena on the Buddhist self-thread.
I know we have our animosities, so please don't take my "thank you" as sarcasm.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

So Thomas, you are saying that because Kant claims that one can come to the conclusion that there is a moral absolute by straightforward deduction of what he considers an uncontroversial feature of morality…then we must accept that moral absolutes exist?

No, not because Kant claims it, but because it follows logically from common usage of the word "moral". Since you insist on bashing this strawman even after I repeated my actual reason to you in boldface, I don't see what more I can do to make my point clear to you.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your judgment was seriously skewed in suggesting this "tactic" to Joe at a time when he was the troll.

If that's what you think about Joe's behavior in this thread, then I suggest the same tactic to you. And this exhausts what I have to say about this sub-thread.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I don't vote on posts, i think it's puerile. There are some people who vote on posts because they like or dislike what was posted, or the person who posted it. There are also some people who just obsessively vote down posts. I saw your name as the last person posting in this thread, so i clicked on your name to see what you had to say. In that short space of time, Ice Demon had posted, and someone had voted own his (?) post. That's just mindless voting.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

That's exactly what i intend.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5266755)
Frank Apisa wrote:
So Thomas, you are saying that because Kant claims that one can come to the conclusion that there is a moral absolute by straightforward deduction of what he considers an uncontroversial feature of morality…then we must accept that moral absolutes exist?

No, not because Kant claims it, but because it follows logically from common usage of the word "moral". Since you insist on bashing this strawman even after I repeated my actual reason to you in boldface, I don't see what more I can do to make my point clear to you.

If you are not able to explain it more clearly than it has been "explained" so far, I suspect that is because you do not understand it yourself, Thomas.

I am unable to imagine an "uncontroversial feature of morality" any more than I am able to imagine a moral absolute.

If you can...give me an example so that I can consider it.

You apparently agree with Kant. So if you cannot explain Kant's position on this issue better...perhaps you can explain yours so that I can understand why you are in agreement with him that there is an "uncontroversial feature of morality" upon which to base the remainder of the argument.

Otherwise...the conclusion is contained in the premise.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

The happy go lucky, "I'm OK. You're OK. Lets all hold hands." view on the society level does not work. Genocide is not OK. Government sponsored rape is not OK. Predatory trade policies with weaker nations are not OK. The only reason you are even having any difficulty in seeing the not OK-ness of this is because you happen to belong to the society that is the toughest kid on the playground (with respect to the other societies).

This is a strawman Matt. I ever said "I'm OK. You're OK. Let's all hold hands.

Obviously a militarily superior culture has the ability to impose its moral rules on militarily inferior cultures. This was true in the time of the Roman Empire (where the Pax Romana coexisted with slavery and cruel gladiatorial combat).

It is also true today, where the the culture with the dominant military, which committed genocide, imposes morality using prison camps and drone strikes.

Military strength is an absolute. Morality... not so much.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Ok. Then, if you'd be so kind, explain to me how moral relativism does address inter-societal conflicts.
What is the meta-societal morality employed in that situation?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

I don't think moral relativism addresses inter-societal conflicts at all. As I said, a country with military power can impose its moral values on any other culture and countries with dominant power often have.

Military power is the dominant factor whether there is a absolute morality or not.

If you believe that you are fighting a war on an absolute moral principle it may make it easier for you to justify the costs of war. Wars fought on absolute moral principles have been bloody and brutal.

But of course you can wage war no matter what your view on the question of morality.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

But of course you can wage war no matter what your view on the question of morality.

This I think is at the crux of our disagreement. I think that there do exist moral principles which transcend the societal substrate.
You deserve a more thorough explanation, though.
I have to run in a bit.

To be continued later.......?
I hope. Very Happy

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

If you can...give me an example so that I can consider it.

Before I get to the example, let me make a point about English usage. People say often use phrases like, "the moral principle x" or "this is the moral thing to do in this situation". By saying that they imply, at a minimum, the statements "the principle x, which I wish everyone adhered to", and "this is what I wish everyone would do in this situation", respectively. So far, there is no deep philosophical insight involved. It's just an observation about everyday usage of the adjective "moral".

The philosophical insight is that we can take the definition implied in common usage and use it as an empirical test. And that's what brings us to the example you ask for.

For instance, suppose I was to say, "the moral thing to do about waiting lines is to cut right in front". You disagree. Would you and I just be having a subjective difference in taste then? No. You would be right. And what's more, you could refute me as follows. First you'd ask, "Why would you be cutting in line?" I'd answer: "to get ahead and save time." (That would make "getting ahead and saving time" my maxim in Kantian terminology.) And now you could say, "But Thomas, if everybody was to cut in line, nobody would get ahead or save time. Your stated maxim self-destructs when everybody follows it. Therefore, cutting in front of other people in line isn't the moral thing to do, at least not for this reason. You're wrong, Thomas". And indeed, your moral judgement would be objectively right, and mine would be objectively wrong.

Does that make the point clearer?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

For instance, suppose I was to say, "the moral thing to do about waiting lines is to cut right in front". You disagree. Would you and I just have a subjective difference in taste then? No. You would be right. And what's more, you could refute me as follows. First you'd ask, "Why would you be cutting in line?" I'd answer: "to get ahead and save time." (That would make "getting ahead and saving time" my maxim in Kantian terminology.) And now you could say, "But Thomas, if everybody was to cut in line, nobody would get ahead or save time. Your stated maxim self-destructs when everybody follows it. Therefore, cutting in front of other people in line isn't the moral thing to do, at least not for this reason. You're wrong, Thomas". And indeed, your moral judgement would be objectively right, and mine would be objectively wrong.

Does that make the point clearer?

No Thomas

Waiting in lines is only applicable in specific human social contexts. I don't know of any other species that waits in line. I suspect that there are plenty of cultures where waiting in line doesn't exist.

I suspect that your feelings about the justness of waiting in line is in line with modern Western society. You were taught it as a child and now it seems like the moral thing to do (like anything else you were brought up with).

Waiting in line is a perfect example of a social contract.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Come to think of it Thomas... doesn't waiting in line contradict a Ulititarian point of view?

A line enforces a "first come, first served" policy (correct me if I am mistaken about your understanding of this). Why is this optimal? It is rather random if you think about it.

There are lots of other models that would make more sense from a utilitarian point of view -- for example, "greatest need, first served" or "busiest person served first".

Your moral intuition is perfectly understandable given my assumption that you were raised with a modern Western sense of fairness.

But it doesn't even make sense with your stated philosophical beliefs.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Waiting in lines is only applicable in specific human social contexts. I don't know of any other species that waits in line.

Obviously, you have never seen a pack of lions after killing a gazelle, waiting their turn to eat their share. But even if you were right, that wouldn't be a problem for my position, because only humans have morality (on this planet), by virtue of being self-aware, rational, and social.

maxdancona wrote:

I suspect that there are plenty of cultures where waiting in line doesn't exist.

Plenty? Name two.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

A line enforces a "first come, first served" policy (correct me if I am mistaken about your understanding of this). Why is this optimal? It is rather random if you think about it.

It is optimal because it avoids a problem known as rent seeking. If I cut in front, my positional gain is your positional loss, so it's a zero-sum action as far as positions in line are concerned. But I have to extend effort to make my move and elbow my way in front, whereas you have to extend effort to defend your position in line. It is this wasted effort that constitutes a social loss to the community of waiting people, and that makes cutting in front a bad thing to Utilitarians.

maxdancona wrote:

There are lots of other models that would make more sense from a utilitarian point of view -- for example, "greatest need, first served" or "busiest person served first".

That's fine, as long as you have some generally-known way to prioritize. But whatever the specific rules of this way are, cutting in front of people who have higher priority than you causes more harm than good, and will be a bad thing from a Utilitarian perspective.

maxdancona wrote:

Your moral intuition is perfectly understandable given my assumption that you were raised with a modern Western sense of fairness.

Having travelled to China for a week to attend a conference, I am in a position to say that the principle of my example applies in this Eastern culture, too. The details are different; instead of a line, you have a bulk of people waiting in front of the counter or whatever it is. Those people enter the bulk on the outside and slowly make there way in until they reach the counter. But if you push inward too forcefully, people will call you out, just as they would if you cut in line in the West. So yes, the specifics are different, but the principle is the same.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

No Thomas,

First of all lions follow social order. The most powerful eat first, the least powerful eat last. This is not compatible with modern Western culture.

Second of all, you are starting with the conclusion you want, and then stretching evidence to make it fit.

You are ignoring the fact that there are lots of ways that human societies decide who goes first. Many ways that were part of moral codes for centuries are now considered unjust by you and I. Social rank (nobility or caste) a practice that modern Western culture frowns upon. Gender, "Ladies first" is falling out of favor, but is not completely gone.

There are even cases in my culture where first come first served isn't followed.

When getting on the bus or train here in Boston there is no queuing and we don't get upset or worried about who gets on first. People get upset when someone knocks over an elderly person, but that's just about it.

When things are crowded, urgency makes a big difference in who gets on now, and who waits for the next one.

This system very well because logically it makes sense. The people with the greatest need get on first. When I am running late for a job interview, I can I get on the train. When I am going for a bite, or if I am early I don't mind the frazzled people pushing ahead.

From what I understand from my British friends, Americans act immorally when it comes to queuing by British standards.

So here is a cultural difference in moral standards between two very similar cultures.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

First of all lions follow social order. The most powerful eat first, the least powerful eat last. This is not compatible with modern Western culture.

You are being overly pedantic about the details of establishing priority in a priority queue. The essence of waiting in line isn't first-come, first-serve, it's that you have to wait your turn. Lions wait their turn. Any individual lions who didn't wait their turn would be rebuked by whoever they cut in front of. But I won't pursue this point any further because, as I noted before, nonhuman animals do not possess morality.

maxdancona wrote:

So here is a cultural difference in moral standards between two very similar cultures.

I have no problem with universal standards that contain hooks to which cultural specifics can attach. You're an American engineer. In your work, you may use nuts and screws that are manufactured to imperial specifications. In Continental Europe, nuts and screws are manufactured to metric specifications. Nevertheless, there are universal engineering truths about the matter. "Local screws must fit into local nuts whatever the location is" would be one of them. The fact that a universal rule has different implications in different contexts does not make it non-universal.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Do you mean to claim that a moral code that says that "men go before woman", and a moral code that says "first come first" served basically the same?

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know