A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Do you mean to claim that a moral code that says that "men go before women", and a moral code that says "first come first served" are basically the same since they are both dealing with queuing behaviors?

To me they are very different and from my cultural perspective the "men go before women" standard is morally unacceptable,

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

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?

That would be an exaggeration. But the difference between the two is much smaller than the difference between either and the absence of any priority queue at all.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I disagree Thomas. To my modern Western mind anything like a caste system is deeply immoral. However caste systems have been part of many cultures for millenia.

Morality is like language. Every culture uses one. They are quite different and there is no universal or superior language. There are elements of language that are similar, for example every language has nouns and verbs.

The idea that every language has verbs, or that every moral code has queuing behavior doesn't contradict with my understanding of them. And it certainly doesn't give me cause to say one language, or one moral code, is superior to the others.

But the point is that if I go to a place with a different language, I need to learn a completely new way of communicating to get along. Likewise if I go to a place with a different system of morality I need to completely new way of understanding right and wrong to get along.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I disagree Thomas.

Then at least one of us is wrong, Max.

maxdancona wrote:

Morality is like language. Every culture uses one. They are quite different and there is no universal or superior language.

I'm not sure if it's true that morality is like language. But your conclusion does not follow even if I go along with this premise of yours. Following Noam Chomsky's work on "universal grammar" 50 years ago, linguists have shown that the deep structure of all human languages is the same, and very likely has a hereditary basis in the human brain. If this field of inquiry seems interesting to you, I suggest you read up on Steven Pinker's books.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

That's funny Thomas.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Hey Max,
Do you understand the distinction between a principle and a rule?
I've been reading over Thomas' posts to you, and I don't know if I could make that any clearer than he has already done.
Do you see a distinction between the two, or no?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I agree regarding Chomsky and universal grammar. I think that it may appeal to you in that you seem to put a lot of stock in innateness. I think that unlike language morality should be derivable absent any innateness, but that's a whole 'nother ball of wax.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Thanks. And, I'm sorry I kept editing my posts even after you replied.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Go ahead...

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

The belief of a "Universal right and wrong" is just people with nothing else as a backup for when they have no other excuses.

Obviously this is just my opinion, but after 8 years in Military and Law Enforcement. The only consistent pattern, is that there is no "Absolute" right or wrong, we make decisions in a flash and have to live with or without the consequences for the rest of our lives.

With that said, when I find material that goes against what I think is right and wrong, I just accept it as another person's belief on the subject. I try and live my life by what I consider "right or wrong." While at the same time showing respect to others that differ from what I believe is right or wrong. Our lives dictate to us how we view our world, but with that also comes change, I try and always keep an open mind for that reason.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

I'm not sure if it's true that morality is like language. But if I go along with this premise of yours. Following Noam Chomsky's work on "universal grammar" 50 years ago, linguists have shown that the deep structure of all human languages is the same, and very likely has a hereditary basis in the human brain. If this field of inquiry seems interesting to you, I suggest you read up on Steven Pinker's books.

I like Steven Pinker. I have read his stuff.

A "universal moral grammar" wouldn't change my argument much. In the great variety of human languages no one is saying that there are better languages or worse languages. There may be moral similarities that arose from human needs or chance evolution, that doesn't change anything. There differences between human languages don't change their use in communicating.

Language doesn't reflect any Universal truth. It simply evolved with the human mind to meet a specific need of an intelligent social animal. You could imagine other communication forms that are equally powerful that don't involve human solutions (i.e. nouns and verbs) that evolved in another species.

Likewise morality is simply a trait that evolved to meet our needs as intelligent social animals. There may be similarities (i.e. social order) that meet similar needs.

But the two important points are that there is no objectively testable way to judge one system of morality as superior to the other (since they all evolved the same way) and there is no Universal truth involved in morality (since they are a human trait that happened to evolve to meet the unique needs of a specific intelligent social animal).

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

But the two important points are that there is no objectively testable way to judge one system of morality as superior to the other

The same is true for universal factual truths. If the empiricist / rationalist system of epistemology is superior in your opinion, whereas the look-it-up-in-the-Bible system of epistemology is superior in Pat Robertson's opinion, no argument that either of you will make is likely to persuade the other.

If this means to you that factual truths aren't universal either, I have no problem with your position on morals. But what's sauce for the factual goose is sauce for the moral gander, whatever the sauce is.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Perhaps I can try this way of explaining it....
A principle is sort of a method for deriving rules.
Thomas mentioned Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative.

Cat.Imp.#1 wrote:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.

He showed how this principle can be used to generate rules as needed for a situation (like the queuing problem). You brought up some cultural preferences, and Thomas explained how to then use the principle to create a new rule for the new situation. As the "conditions on the ground" change, the principle stays constant, but the rules it creates may differ.
Here is Kant's second formulation:

Cat.Imp.#2 wrote:

Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.

Let's now look at the situation of you (American engineer) being placed in Cambodia or India. In Cambodia about 30% of prostitutes are under 18, and about 40% in India. For all intents and purposes in Cambodia and India child prostitution is acceptable (not against social mores by my definition, not against social relativistic morality by your definition). Would it be wrong of you to use a child for sex in your new country? Of course not! Why? Because it violates the universal principle of using someone simply as a means to some end, this is using a person as an object. This is disregarding the interests of a child. It is even immoral by this principle for you to tolerate the behavior in others, you should stop if it is in your ability to do so. This is the moral justification for NGOs like SISHA to intervene in other cultures/societies/nations.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Because it violates the universal principle of using someone simply as a means to some end, this is using a person as an object.

You lost me there. This isn't a universal principle at all. This isn't even my a principle that is part of my moral code.

The exchange of sex for money between consenting adults is not immoral in my code (and this is a fairly common view in American society). Childhood is sacred and child prostitution is deeply immoral in my moral code, but that is because in my view children are not able to consent.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

If this means to you that factual truths aren't universal either, I have no problem with your position on morals. But what's sauce for the factual goose is sauce for the moral gander, whatever the sauce is.

The sauce is "objectively testable".

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The sauce is "objectively testable".

Pat Robertson would disagree with that. The Bible says that God created the world within one week 5773 years ago. Therefore, if radio-isotope dating suggests dinosaur skeletons 200 million years old, these fossils must have been part of what God created during the week of creation. So if you think dinosaurs actually lived 200 million years ago, that's because you were brainwashed in the paradigms of modern science, math, and engineering. It certainly isn't the objective Truth.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

The exchange of sex for money between consenting adults is not immoral in my code (and this is a fairly common view in American society). Childhood is sacred and child prostitution is deeply immoral in my moral code, but that is because in my view children are not able to consent.

So would it be against your moral code if you were in a culture where it was acceptable?
Would the ability to consent still be important to the morality of the exchange?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Do you really want to make the argument that science and religion are on equal footing?

I would say that science is objectively testable and that religion is not.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

So would it be against your moral code if you were in a culture where it was acceptable?

A person's understanding of morality is a product of their culture and their upbringing. I am certain that if I had been brought up in a different culture and time that my moral beliefs would be quite different.

500 years ago it was common for children to be sent to work in factories and no one would worry about a child being molested. Our views of childhood are drastically different now.

The age of consent in our culture is also arbitrary.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

A person's understanding of morality is a product of their culture and their upbringing. I am certain that if I had been brought up in a different culture and time that my moral beliefs would be quite different.

What do you think the explanation is for those who strive to overcome the limitations of their (social mores/socially relative moralities)?
Why do some people champion unpopular causes in spite of he acceptability within their cultures. Why would anyone come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, when indoctrinated by a society in which it is so obviously right?

I feel that you have a strong affinity for scientific reasoning. I feel that Kohlberg offers a scientific explanation.
I have a strong affinity for philosophic reasoning. I feel that Kant offers a philosophic explanation.
Thomas (perhaps?) has a strong affinity for theological reasoning. There are theological reasons for explaining the rightness of those individuals.

Do you think there is ever any reason to transcend social mores?

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

What do you think the explanation is for those who strive to overcome the limitations of their (social mores/socially relative moralities)?
Why do some people champion unpopular causes in spite of he acceptability within their cultures. Why would anyone come to the conclusion that slavery is wrong, when indoctrinated by a society in which it is so obviously right?

Sure Matt, I have been pointing out for a while that morality isn't static. It changes as social feelings and needs change. This certainly doesn't argue for an absolute morality.

And morality doesn't always go the way I want it to (I suspect the same is true for you). Drone strikes and terror prisons are becoming more acceptable in my society, a fact that I find extremely troubling. These things are becoming more acceptable as time goes on.

And "transcending" social mores by championing unpopular causes doesn't always go the way you want it to. Ted Kaczinsky championed an unpopular cause as do groups who support child molestation and the Oklahoma city bombers. Breaking social norms isn't necessarily good or bad.

0 Replies

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know