A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@Ice Demon,

Explain.

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Are you sure? The notion of such an attempt looks like any garden-variety reductio ad absurdum to me.

I'm not so sure about that, but my point is that, if subjective morality can be established by reason alone, it's inconsistent to claim that objective morality can't. After all, the same empirical tests that supposedly disprove objective morality would be equally fatal to subjective morality.

That makes sense. While I can imagine myself being dissuaded of objective morality, the logical alternative would be moral nihilism, not moral relativism or subjective morality.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Like the laws of number and logic were what morality was based, then eternal truths would absolutely constrain all possible behaviors. Then if that was the case then all problems of ethics would have settled to a solution on a calm and rational basis once and for all, as written in stone. Vanished would tribal dissimilarity, behavior would naturally conform to ethical norms, and doings of evil would become as rare as arithmetical errors.

And if I give you the benefit of doubt and agree that morality is like mathematics, then just as mathematics, the regress of reasons will end in something unproved. And the notion of equality of intrinsic worth, is deduced from this general principle, of something unproved. And unlike mathematics, a person, on a daily basis, comes to base his judgments on his own understanding, not on the dictates of external eternal authority. Also, one must acknowledge that distinction between emotion and reason, being that emotions are prone to distorting our understanding of one of the most important "facts" about the ethical, the "facts" that we often understand by being moved by what others do or say.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Maxdancona, I agree completely. For me too "My values come from who I am as a person. I can hold to my own values without insisting they are the only possible values."
While most of my values have been affected by my past and on-going cultural conditioning (I am, afterall, a social animal), they are also subject to change based on my own private experience and thinking. My interests change more frequently than my values, and I often have to decide if particular actions and decisions based on interests are consistent with my values.

0 Replies

@Ice Demon,

Ice Demon wrote:

Like the laws of number and logic were what morality was based, then eternal truths would absolutely constrain all possible behaviors. Then if that was the case then all problems of ethics would have settled to a solution on a calm and rational basis once and for all, as written in stone. Vanished would tribal dissimilarity, behavior would naturally conform to ethical norms, and doings of evil would become as rare as arithmetical errors.

I think you misunderstand. I used algebra as an analogy for something that was true but that had to be learned. If you think that absolute morality is false because it has to be learned, then you need to explain how algebra is different.

Ice Demon wrote:

And if I give you the benefit of doubt and agree that morality is like mathematics, then just as mathematics, the regress of reasons will end in something unproved.

Morality and algebra are alike in at least this respect: they are both true and they both must be taught. I don't claim that they are similar in all respects.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

While I can imagine myself being dissuaded of objective morality, the logical alternative would be moral nihilism, not moral relativism or subjective morality.

Exactly. This is the dilemma naturalists such as myself must face.

As Camus put it:

The Myth of Sisyphus wrote:

There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest – whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories – comes afterwards. These are games; one must first answer. -- Albert Camus

Moral relativists must confront their nihilism.
If they want to take it as an insult, that is on them.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Even from that aspect, I will agree to disagree. Mathematics, must be taught -sometimes self-taught- because it's not an absolute truth, rather it is a useful invention.
In that regards, I see morality as a useful invention for self preservation. Without the existence of rational creatures, the concept of morality is nonexistent.
And my final thoughts on the discussion of moral absolute truths is that the burden of proof is on you, because you claim to believe that such truth exists. Not one has yet to verify, understandably so, on account of the difficulty in verifying such a belief, but best of fortune on your path.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

The Myth of Sisyphus wrote:
There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy.

Albert Camus was full of ****, as suicide poses no philosophical problem at all. As long as I find my life worth living, I won't commit suicide. If an when that changes, I will. That's just me having my personal preferences and acting on them. Where's the philosophical problem?

On second thought, don't answer that. Even if suicide did raise philosophical questions, I have no idea what that would have to do with moral absolutism vs moral relativism. So why bother?

2 Replies

@Thomas,

It is the question of whether value is inherent in being or whether it is not.
Value not inherent to being ---- nihilism.
You obviously do take being to have inherent value, as do I.

Relative morality does not take value as inherent to being, it is a house of cards built on a non-existent table.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

On second thought, don't answer that.

Sorry too late Wink

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The difference is that absolute physical laws can be objectively tested. As I have said many times, that is a big distinction between science and religion (or any non-science).

Really?

Perhaps absolute physical laws we understand and accept as such can be objectively tested but do you really think that we have identified all the absolute physical laws that exist? If so, why are you waiting to publish your paper on Unified Theory?

Sometime being a science teacher is not enough.

Quote:

However absolute moral laws may have a similar strength to their physical counter-parts in that if "obeyed" or "followed" they will lead to bliss, peaceful harmony or fill in the blank with your favored state of being for individuals and humanity as a whole.

Max wrote:

This demonstrates the problem.... is the goal to maximize "bliss" or is the goal to maximize "peaceful harmony" or is the goal to maximize "fill in the blank"?

It doesn't matter. What is the goal of planets spinning around a star? Can you define the goal of absolute physical laws? Whatever it is, I'm certain it can apply to human behavior.

Max wrote:

But no one has even hinted at a way to decide on underlying core values that isn't completely arbitrary.

Buddhists would disagree,

Max wrote:

There are an infinite number of systems of morality that are based on an infinite number of possible core values.

That there are an "infinite" (not quite) number of moral systems, in no way implies that there isn't one true one.

Max wrote:

My personal system of morality maximizes liberty, dignity and the value of human life (as I define them). Other systems of morality maximize "family values" or God's will or social order. As we see different underlying values leads to different moral codes.

With all due respect, no one cares (in this discussion) what your personal moral system might be. It's fairly clear, though, that you can't discuss this topic without referencing your personal moral beliefs.

Max wrote:

The problem is that there is no way to determine which moral values have any intrinsic value. No one has proposed any way to measure this and no one has even hinted at an experiment that we could do to choose which underlying values to follow.

The problem is that there is no way for humans to determine what might be the absolute laws for morality.

At this point in time, the failure to arrive at a determination of absolute physical laws would, by your reasoning, suggest that it will never happen.

Your resistance to the notion of an absolute moral law is predicated far more on ideology than reason.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Perhaps absolute physical laws we understand and accept as such can be objectively tested but do you really think that we have identified all the absolute physical laws that exist? If so, why are you waiting to publish your paper on Unified Theory?

What has that got to do with what Max said, Finn?

Quote:

Sometime being a science teacher is not enough.

Evidently, sometimes even being a native speaker is not enough.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

Perhaps absolute physical laws we understand and accept as such can be objectively tested but do you really think that we have identified all the absolute physical laws that exist? If so, why are you waiting to publish your paper on Unified Theory?

Finn, you are missing the point.

There are no moral values, not a single one, that can be objectively tested. (Or can you suggest one?)

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Compassion (concern for others) leads to higher objective measures of the reports of others on scales meant to assess their happiness.
So if you can get over the subjective/objective distinction for half a second and make the ASSUMPTION [gasp!] that the subjects are not lying about being happy.
Here is one of many studies demonstrating this:
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Of course, once you make assumptions than you can construct an absolute morality (pretty much any absolute morality you want).

Many people who make the assumption that the Bible is the Word of God and the source of all moral truth. That leads to a certain set of moral beliefs. There are people people who make the assumption that human happiness is the source of all moral truth. That leads to a different set of moral beliefs.

Once you have a sufficient set of assumptions which you accept by faith is fact, it is fairly easy to build on that with logically consistent and even testable conclusions.

The fact remains that the assumptions you make at the core aren't objectively testable. This doesn't really add anything to our discussion.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

You can't have any knowledge (including all "scientific" knowledge) without assumptions Max.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

Who is the nihilist now?

Everything in science is objectively testable and based on experiment. To be accepted as scientific truth an idea has to fully explain the results of experiment and any alternative explanations are explored. At the core of Science is what we see, or touch or experience as we interact in the Universe.

You can't say that about morality or any type of religious belief.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I admit that I make assumptions.

Quote:

Who is the nihilist now?

Well, not I, if that is your implication.
By definition, I am not a moral nihilist.
I believe there is inherent negative value in suffering, and inherent positive value in eudaimonia.

Regarding assumptions:
Inductive reasoning makes assumptions as well.
The empirical method, experimentation, do you you think those don't rely on any assumptions?

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

The empirical method, experimentation, do you you think those don't rely on any assumptions?

As soon as a ground, a "resolution", is required as working background for experimentation, assumptions are being made at the very root of computing any explanation...it is so obvious it is almost embarrassing the need to bring it up.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Matt, This part of your argument troubles me.

You are excluding those of us who say "I value compassion based on who I choose to be as a person" from morality. We do the exact same things that a person who believes that compassion is an "inherent value", we care about the people around us, act responsibly and do extra to help people in need. These are the same things that you do and feel and believe, right?

If a person is compassionate, why does whether they believe it is "inherent" or not matter at all? To me, morality is what values I hold to and the ways that I act to people around me. My abstract philosophical or religious beliefs might influence me if I had any, but they aren't necessary for me to act morally in the same way that you do.

Are you really implying that people who don't agree with you on this theoretical point are immoral in spite of the fact they act the same way you do?

2 Replies

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know