A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@Ice Demon,

Ice Demon wrote:

In other words, other than what you can perceive with your five 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.

If you want to be that rigorous about it, be my guest. Notice, though, that even if you frame the issue this way, the truth or falsity of "is" statements and the truth or falsity of "ought" statements are still on the same footing epistemologically. Factual statements are probably wrong if they contradict what I perceive with my eyes. Moral statements probably are wrong if they contradict what I perceive with my conscience.

Of course, both our eyes and our consciences can be be fooled (by optical illusions, cultural conventions and so forth), so we need to correct for such errors with reasonable procedural rules. ("If your eyes tell you that two lines aren't the same length, but a ruler tells you that they are, go with the ruler. If your conscience tells you that parsimony is a virtue, whereas arithmetic tells you we can't all make more money than we spend, cherish parsimony only to an extent consistent with arithmetic and the Categorical Imperative.")

It's not my preferred way of thinking about morality and reality, but I have no problem with it, either.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Well unless you present any evidence contrary to my belief, is there any point in going around in circles?

And this is where you hinted at the notion of what your take on the matter was: Post: # 5,260,570. As such, I take it to mean that to believe in such a moral theory, then you must believe that there exists some moral system that exists universally independently of culture, etc. What is the universally unquestioned source where any such universally binding moral truths derive from?

Maximum messed up the definition in his OP, and I think he meant to address those who believe in moral universalism regarding objective morality.
As to the hard evidence, convince me that there exists a universally unquestioned source, and also an example of a universal moral truth. I'd imagine, you'll will run problems of subjectivity and objectivity, which I pointed out in a recent post to Thomas.
By the way, I haven't made clear my stance on the position as of yet. I believe in moral absolutism, however, not moral universalism or also called moral objectivism - unless you have some argument to convince me otherwise.

1 Reply

@Ice Demon,

Ice Demon wrote:

Well unless you present any evidence contrary to my belief, is there any point in going around in circles?

That depends. I still don't know what you would accept as "evidence."

Ice Demon wrote:

And this is where you hinted at the notion of what your take on the matter was: Post: # 5,260,570.

That was in answer to a hypothetical question that posited the existence of a universal morality.

Ice Demon wrote:

As such, I take it to mean that to believe in such a moral theory, then you must believe that there exists some moral system that exists universally independently of culture, etc.

With that I agree.

Ice Demon wrote:

What is the universally unquestioned source where any such universally binding moral truths derive from?

What do you mean "universally unquestioned?"

Ice Demon wrote:

As to the hard evidence, convince me that there exists a universally unquestioned source, and also an example of a universal moral truth.

How would I convince you? You still haven't explained what you'd accept as evidence.

Ice Demon wrote:

I believe in moral absolutism, however, not moral universalism or also called moral objectivism - unless you have some argument to convince me otherwise.

What's the difference?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

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

That's (kind of) what I said on page one of this thread.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, with all do respect that is not a method of knowledge. That is list of things about yourself, that you think are true.
If you want a digression on this, I would be happy to continue that on the epistemology thread regarding fallibilism: http://able2know.org/topic/208683-1

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Basically, where I'm getting at is what do you think is the source of universally binding moral values? Is it a God? Is it some inherently existing entity?
By unquestioned source, I mean an undisputed source. By that, I'm trying to formulate that if such a source existed, and was indisputable, then moral universalism wouldn't be labeled as a moral theory anymore, but gain status to become something that is known with absolute certainty and treated as an absolute fact.
The general difference between moral absolutism and moral objectivism (moral universalism) is made clear in this Wikipedia article.

2 Replies

@Ice Demon,

I don't think that anyone here is arguing for moral universalism.
But why would value require a source even if moral universalism were being advanced?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Science works with hypotheses, and those can be tested, sometimes inadequately, but tested. An assumption can be in the way on all this, including re how a test is set up.

(I'm an old research lab tech, and we had some surprises.)

Assumptions can be blindfolds re stuff that never occurred to you.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

My man Joe here is, I'm quite sure, is arguing for moral universalism.
And there should be some universal reason or entity that acts as a source, independent of the existence of characterizations like race, religion, nationality, society, etc. for moral universalism to exist. Such a source would also objectively act as the standard to which all measures of value be compared and contrasted.

2 Replies

@Ice Demon,

Is there an epistemological reason to presuppose that a moral truth requires a "source"?
Do other truths require "sources"?

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Thanks Osso,
I am speaking of assumption in terms of axioms used to derive knowledge.
For instance one might assume that empiricism has validity, one might assume the excluded middle in logic, one might assume that simpler models are truer models, etc.
I would be happy to hear any tales of woe from errors in assumptions regarding variables which were uncontrolled in experimentation. Or any other errors in assumptions, error is how we learn. Very Happy

1 Reply

@Ice Demon,

Ice Demon wrote:

Basically, where I'm getting at is what do you think is the source of universally binding moral values? Is it a God? Is it some inherently existing entity?

I believe that morality can be understood through reason.

Ice Demon wrote:

By unquestioned source, I mean an undisputed source.

Then you ask for too much. I doubt that there is a single statement of fact that is not subject to dispute. If you asked for an undisputed source for the statement "the earth revolves around the sun," for instance, I'm confident you would be unable to find one.

Ice Demon wrote:

By that, I'm trying to formulate that if such a source existed, and was indisputable, then moral universalism wouldn't be labeled as a moral theory anymore, but gain status to become something that is known with absolute certainty and treated as an absolute fact.

Why is that important?

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

I was talking about science in action instead of in philosophy.

1 Reply

@Ice Demon,

Actually your terminology again through me for a loop Embarrassed

I should have written I don't think anyone here is advocating for moral absolutism (which would have ethical maxims).
I do propose that there exist moral truths (truths which depend not merely upon subjective opinion). Truths which extend beyond the individual, and beyond societal levels. Principles independent of "substrate", whether that substrate is an organism or a collection of organisms.
This is primarily due to the false dichotomy between subjective/objective reality. The distinction between subjective and objective is based upon a somewhat arbitrary division used to define organism.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5272319)
Frank, with all do respect that is not a method of knowledge. That is list of things about yourself, that you think are true.
If you want a digression on this, I would be happy to continue that on the epistemology thread regarding fallibilism: http://able2know.org/topic/208683-1

I would suggest instead that you offer an example of a moral absolute.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Quote:

I was talking about science in action instead of in philosophy.

I thought so, but I didn't want to assume Wink

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

asked and answered

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

I do propose that there exist moral truths (truths which depend not merely upon subjective opinion).

Perhaps an example or two of these would be in order also.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

Quote:

asked and answered

Asked and evaded.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Here are the two: http://able2know.org/topic/208905-17#post-5272226

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know