A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@MattDavis,

These are your values, and these are my values. It is not surprising that we share values given the fact that our experiences and culture are undoubtedly quite similar (given the broad spectrum of cultures and experiences throughout human history). However these values aren't objectively testable. And you haven't suggested any objective way to determine whether these values are "correct" or not.

The only objective measure of moral values we have seen in this discussion is Thomas idea that "absolute moral values are accepted by almost every human being". The only problem is that he contradicted that in the same paragraph by saying "people have been universally wrong".

Suggest a single objectively testable value.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272206)
Suffering is a negative value. Eudaimonia is a positive value.
Value as defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_%28ethics%29

"Being happy or content" is, in my subjective opinion, a positive thing. That is not a universal by any means (you might investigate Savonarola on that point.)

"Being unhappy or suffering" is, in my subjective opinion, a negative thing. That is not a universal by any means (check out masochism).

Respectfully, Matt...what is your point. How do we get to a "moral absolute" from there?

By the way, the Wikipedia article acknowledges its verification and substantiation shortcomings.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Eudaimonic persons perform better in life by objective measures of self reported happiness and signs of physical and mental health.
Suffering persons perform worse in life by objective measures of self reported happiness ans signs of physical and mental health.

Now if you are going to go back to:
"How do I know they aren't lying?"
I ask you to follow that to its logical conclusion which is called solipsism, which basically means you assume that you are the totality of reality.
Solipsism is irrefutable and unfalsifiable, because in it all of your perceptions are constructs. Returning you back to narcissistic nihilism (I am all, I am alone.)
Which you seem to take as an insult, however, in the interests of clarity that is the term.

Subjective morality is not necessarily narcissistic nihilism, you could simply claim that everything is arbitrary without circumlocution and be left with absurdist nihilism. (Nothing really matters.)

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Masochism is not exactly suffering, it is taking pleasure in pain or humiliation.
However that doesn't really make much difference, because truth is not democracy. People might all think that eating your neighbor is perfectly acceptable healthy behavior, it does not make it moral.
Psychological evidence suggests that masochists are less eudaimonic than those who do not have such a disposition/compulsion.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The article was provided for you to have a working definition of value, Frank.
It's use in moral philosophy is slightly different than the one used in casual conversation.
Would you like to discuss the shortcomings of the concept of value?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Eudaimonic persons perform better in life by objective measures of self reported happiness and signs of physical and mental health.
Suffering persons perform worse in life by objective measures of self reported happiness ans signs of physical and mental health.

Now if you are going to go back to:
"How do I know they aren't lying?"
I ask you to follow that to its logical conclusion which is called solipsism, which basically means you assume that you are the totality of reality.
Solipsism is irrefutable and unfalsifiable, because in it all of your perceptions are constructs. Returning you back to narcissistic nihilism (I am all, I am alone.)
Which you seem to take as an insult, however, in the interests of clarity that is the term.

Subjective morality is not necessarily narcissistic nihilism, you could simply claim that everything is arbitrary without circumlocution and be left with absurdist nihilism. (Nothing really matters.)

Matt…forgetting for a moment that you are perilously close to presenting a tautology in questionable) substantiation of your position, the fact is that the supposed “signs of physical and mental health” are not only subjective findings, in this case they seem to be gratuitous and arbitrarily self-serving. Essentially you are saying that the way people who are happy are…is a sign of physical and mental health; and the way people who are not so happy are…is a sign of a deficiency in physical and mental health. Those assessments are, by their very nature, subjective.

Name a moral absolute.

Let’s discuss whether it is indeed a moral absolute…and in so doing, show that it is not an absolute…that in fact it is subjective.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272240)
The article was provided for you to have a working definition of value, Frank.
It's use in moral philosophy is slightly different than the one used in casual conversation.
Would you like to discuss the shortcomings of the concept of value?

I would like to discuss an example of a moral absolute...which, after all, is what this thread is about.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank sometimes I truly question your desire to discuss anything.
Value is a concept that must be understood (by my reckoning) to understand the distinction between moral principle and ethical maxim.

I honestly don't know where to start any discussion with you Frank, because the fallibilistic stance is vacuous. There is no ground from which to discuss anything with you. You don't believe in anything. Tell me something that is true, and then we can move forward.
You continually returning to "there is no way to know" is tedious and is ground we have already covered on multiple occasions.

You have no method of epistemology (how to know) therefore no one can have a discussion of ontology (what is real) with you.

Frank I do like you, I just get frustrated when our conversations seem to repeat themselves. Very Happy

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272267)
Frank sometimes I truly question your desire to discuss anything.
Value is a concept that must be understood (by my reckoning) to understand the distinction between moral principle and ethical maxim.

I honestly don't know where to start any discussion with you Frank, because the fallibilistic stance is vacuous. There is no ground from which to discuss anything with you. You don't believe in anything. Tell me something that is true, and then we can move forward.
You continually returning to "there is no way to know" is tedious and is ground we have already covered on multiple occasions.

You have no method of epistemology (how to know) therefore no one can have a discussion of ontology (what is real) with you.

Frank I do like you, I just get frustrated when our conversations seem to repeat themselves.

Unfortunately, when discussing questions of this sort with people who have studied philosophy...the discussion often devolves into a kind of appeal to authority pissing contest.

I treat those kinds of contests the way I treat someone telling me "the Buddha taught"...or "Jesus said"...or "the Bible says."

Please, Matt...name a moral absolute. Forget about "value" or "moral principle" or "ethical maxims." That is the for people who think speaking of those things points to being scholarly...and learned.

You are in a public Internet forum...where people talk about the size of their cocks...and where questions are asked about how to go about ******* their mothers.

Get off the bullshit...and name a moral absolute...and let's discuss it.

If you truly prefer to play these other academic games...go on. I will comment when I see reason. (Which I did above...and am still waiting for a response.)

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Eudaimonic persons perform better in life by objective measures of self reported happiness

This is amusingly self-contradictory.

The fact that you have failed to provide a single objectively testable moral principle after all this discussion doesn't bring us anywhere close to solipsism. There are plenty of objectively testable principles (including scientific principles) that don't involve morality.

The basic problem is that you have provided plenty of subjective values (i.e. happiness and mental health). I suspect that many of these values would contradict your own moral code if we put them to the test. If I could show that the ancient Huns self-reported they were happier than our modern society, would it change your principles? I doubt it.

But the problem you continue to have is that you fail to give any reason that your moral principles are universal principles (other than "every human holds them except when they are wrong").

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

The problem ultimately hinges upon your subjective/objective reality distinction. Most contemporary scientists and philosophers think that the distinction is a false dichotomy. You of course are free to feel however you want about it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I did respond, but ultimately all knowledge must be broken down to some basic assumptions. Give me a shared starting place with you and I will happily discuss anything related to 'truth'.
Any one could of course storm into a discussion and say how can you KNOW that people don't lie about how they feel.
How do you KNOW anything Frank? Do you know anything? If not take a pass.

If you think this is an intellectual game, why are you playing?
If you don't like the rules, tell me what the rules are?

I am not being pedantic.
I have never refused to explain even the tiniest detail to you.
But I can't explain something to someone who holds absolutely nothing as truth (even tentatively).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

What is the difference between subjective and objective reality Max?

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272281)
I did respond, but ultimately all knowledge must be broken down to some basic assumptions.

What you have NOT done, Matt...is to give me, or anyone else here, an example of a single moral absolute.

I respect you...and obviously you are learned in this area. But you HAVE NOT given anyone here an example of a moral absolute...and what you seem to be doing it to try to stack the deck in a way that when you finally turn up the card on top...it will be the card you predicted.

The thought that I might have something valuable to add to this thread is something that must seem a laugh to you.

I assure you, if you think that...you are wrong.

Stop underestimating and demeaning what I am contributing by asking the questions I am asking.

If you want to discuss my skepticism...we can do that elsewhere. It truly has no relevance to what I am asking here.

Name a moral absolute...we'll discuss it...and if you can make a reasonable case that the predicates you are calling for are necessary, I will make them. But they cannot be predicates that simply stack the deck.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max Dancona wrote:

This is comical.

There is a statistical tendency for statements to be true if they are accessible to reason and generally believed. The general belief among reasonable people is that they're better off not murdering in return for not getting murdered. This means that murder is probably wrong.

But that's just a statistical tendency, not a natural law, so the statement that murder is wrong is only probably true, not necessarily.

If this distinction appears comical to you, as you say it does, then you don't understand the first thing about evidence and logic. In this case, I hope you're lying when you say you're an engineer. At the very least, I don't want to be anywhere near a machine you have engineered.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

The way you throw around the word objective is interesting, but I don't think it is accurate.
Subjective reality simply means that "reality" exists only in your mind. This is the only way it can be since the so-called "reality" is only one of perception. In other words, other than what you can perceive with all of your senses, there is absolutely no way to prove that anything objective actually exists out there. So the "world," or "reality" is subjective to your mind and your mind alone. In that sense the sense of objectivity exists only in your mind.
Even if there is a true objective reality, we can not prove that it exists from our subjective viewpoints, and thus we shouldn't assume that it exists. It's an unprovable assumption. I don't reject objective reality but I don't assume it either. Reality for me is that which I perceive.

1 Reply

Earlier in this discussion I mentioned that I couldn’t even conceive of a moral absolute.

I have thought about it a lot…and I can now conceive of one.

IF there is a GOD…and IF the GOD were the kind of GOD that would decree moral absolutes…then “moral absolutes” could exist.

Just wanted to clear that up.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Can we agree to a method of knowledge? If so please tell me.
If you deem the question worthy of answer you may tell me here or back in the fallibilism thread.
I have to go help by brother for a bit....I'll check back later.

1 Reply

@Ice Demon,

I thought you said you were leaving.

Ice Demon wrote:

Before I even joined this thread, you made the claim that absolute moral truths exists.

Really? Show me where I did that.

Ice Demon wrote:

You show me the proof and verify it with hard evidence and I'll decide if I want to agree with what your believe.

In the context of this discussion, what would you accept as "hard evidence?"

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272292)
Can we agree to a method of knowledge? If so please tell me.
If you deem the question worthy of answer you may tell me here or back in the fallibilism thread.
I have to go help by brother for a bit....I'll check back later.

We can certainly agree on this much about knowledge:

On several occasions I have indicated that I am willing to accept the notion of knowledge in the sense of "I know I am sitting at my desk typing at my keyboard." For the nitpickers, I am willing to amend that to, "I know that I am sitting at my desk typing at my keyboard...or I know the illusion of that exists."

I know my name on my birth certificate is "Frank (not Francis or Franklin) Apisa. I know my golf game normally is in the low 90's to high 80's. I know I work at a golf course in Somerset County. I know I was in the Air Force in SAC during the 1950's...or for nitpickers, I know the illusion of all that exists.

I do NOT know the nature of REALITY; I do not know what must be included and what must be excluded.

Not sure why my stating that bores you, Matt. It seems to me to be the honest thing to do.

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know