A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

We must know what truths are and what makes them true. There are different levels of truths, such as facts, for example, being description of the physical world that serves a function to communicate.

And isn't epistemology concerned with the source of knowledge? You should be focusing on the metaphysics realm. Explaining the nature of truth becomes an application of some metaphysical system, and truth receives significant metaphysical assumptions along the way.
There are coherence , correspondence, and pragmatist theories regarding truth.
What do you suppose, then, is the existence of universal truth, if existing, derived from?

Matt...you cannot even establish the validity of either of the assertions at the linked posting.

You are begging the question there...which is what I thought you were setting up.

C'mon.

Come up with a moral absolute.

I think we at the very least should try.
To communicate what? Their facticity?
No. It is the study of the "how" of knowledge.

I don't ignore it. Is there something metaphysical you would like to discuss?
Incorrect, or at least not factual.
Yes there are.
I happen to be of the opinion that truth is a consequence of natural events in our universe, most likely the result of initial conditions or axioms. I am a realist, meaning that I do not think reality is dependent upon our assumptions regarding it. I believe that epistemology is the method of discovering ontological truths.

Frank I am here to discuss philosophy.
A subject of which you show no hesitance in disdaining.
I don't show up to golf threads and tell people what a waste of time golf is, and then piss and moan when no one wants to play golf the way I want to play golf.

This, to my understanding, is a philosophy thread. I have tried going to the former PhilForum, swallowed up by A2K. It seems as though very few people interested in philosophy remain here on the forums.
Why do you think that might be?
If you would like to play philosophy then learn the rules, I have been more than patient with you in explaining them.

You rail against disruptiveness and pissing matches.
Would you like to borrow a metaphorical mirror?

This will be my final post to you (at least for a while).

One...do not let the door hit you on the way out, Matt.

Two...I suspect you are not here to discuss philosophy as much as you are here to establish that you are eminently qualified to have a scholarly discussion of philosophy.

Three...asking questions and questioning responses that seem dismissive or evasive rather than truly answers is not being disruptive. That kind of thing normally is considered a reasonable contribution to philosophical discussions.

(ASIDE: The fact that you seem to think there are "rules" for how philosophy ought to be discussed and that I am "not following those rules" is an insult to the natural progress of philosophy over the centuries.

Four...if a Christian were to suggest that an atheist is an unwelcome intruder into a discussion of religion because the atheist refused to "follow the rules" set by the religious...the compliment of A2K would laugh the "Christian discussion" off the forum.

Your use of the language...and your (expected) regular appeal to authority arguments are impressive. You are knowledgeable. But that is not what philosophy is about, Matt--and most assuredly that is not what philosophical discussions on the Internet is about. You ought to come to grips with that.

Continue to play your game here...and I will stay in the margins. But when I deem it appropriate, I will question what I see to be ill-conceived assertions...as I have questioned previously. Feel free to evade them or pretend to answer them...as you have evaded and pretended to answer previously.

I'm sure we will still be friends in other threads.

Just to clarify: do you mean this in a descriptive or prescriptive sense? "Descriptive" would mean that reason can make you understand which moral opinions people will hold. "Prescriptive" would mean that reason can make you understand whether you ought to agree or disagree with those opinions yourself and act accordingly. As you know, the two are not the same.

It is important because I am trying to cover all bases of what it means for a moral code to be universally binding.
Then the next step is for me to inquire whether if reason purely objective. Reason is a methodological process of determining of favorable and unfavorable reasons against a set of values and desirables.
Irrespective of cultural and societal differences are the majority of values and desirables that remain the same, then what of the few values and desirables that vary across cultures and society. As such, decision making does not truly become an objective phenomenon in every case. A central problem for the possibility of objectively valid epistemic principles has to do with explaining how we might know what they are. How could that be if our only means of access to them is via an argument where argument of which the conclusion asserts something about an inferential rule that is used in the very same argument? To truely reason objectively,the self must be objective devoid from any spefic agent. Instead, in reality, there isn't really an objective detachment. In reality, interal competition between the two perspetives of emtion and reason within the self, this leads to a subjective perspective of morality. Just as math is objective but too often misapplied to give subjective information, without acknowledging the inherent biases in doing so, reason may be truly objective, however, in applying it to morals the output is riddled with inherent biases. The element of human is not a constant.

Then there is a matter of if the idea of a universal reason truly exist? How would one go about trying to prove that universal reason exists?

I don't understand why you'd use epistemology to answer ontological questions. The study of what exists and the nature of what exists is ontology, and basically, in short, metaphysics. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and justification. Trying to determine which Laws of Nature there are, and what they are in and of themselves is to do ontology (or, alternatively, to do metaphysics). A chicken and egg dilemma maybe. Some say ontology is an epistomological idea, while others say epistomology is an ontological idea.

I'm sure you can see just what a hypocrite you are, Matt.

Here's what I believe. I believe that if Jesus were to appear tomorrow, we would kill him before he could announce himself. The return of Jesus would be the death of Christianity, and you do not mess with people's beliefs no matter who you are. They get downright hostile.

Or simply put: Many people, when confronted with the realization that one of their core beliefs is wrong, will fight to hold on to that belief because it is so fundamental to how they see everything, and they don't know how to change.

It's kind of hard to argue with that. When Martin Luther rode to Worms in 1521 to attend the Imperial Diet and to confront the Emperor, he was accompanied by several knights. The overt reason the knights accompanied him was to protect him. The covert reason was that they were to kill him if he recanted.

The tone of Max’s initial post indicates he is not talking about philosophical concepts such has have been introduced by well-meaning folk like Matt.

Max’s OP dealt with easy to understand elements of what the common person would call “morals.” He specifically introduced “homosexuality” and “abortion” to illustrate the thrust of his question…which had to do with what each of us “thinks” we might do if an “absolute morality” were revealed.

I have inferentially been accused of hijacking the thread or making it less interesting BY DISCUSSING EXACTLY WHAT WAS PROPOSED…by asking questions about how such an absolute morality could exist.

Initially, I said I could not even conceive of an absolute morality, which I subsequently amended to acknowledge that IF a GOD existed and if the GOD were inclined to establish an absolute morality…that would be a concept of a moral absolute that I could accept.

Short of establishing that a GOD that has established an absolute morality…I can conceive of no other absolute morality.

All that is “on topic”…as were questions asking for an example of a moral absolute.

The only one who has responded to requests for an example of a “moral absolute” is Matt…and I consider his response defective for the reasons I’ve given. Essentially, his response amounts to a tautology: People who are happy are happy; people who are not happy are not happy. He leads that tautology into an unsupported area by suggesting that science has shown that happy people live longer lives than people who are not happy.

I suggested that the variables are so many that a true correlation cannot adequately be established between happiness and a longer life…and even if it were assumed rather than proven…who is to say that “living longer” is necessarily something “good” or “valuable.” Are we to accept that as a kind of “moral absolute” also?

Matt does not want to discuss this with me, apparently because I am not able to discuss it on the academic level at which he operates…and because I mention that I do not know the REALITY of existence so often, it becomes boring.

I acknowledge that I am not the brightest person in this forum…BY FAR…and I also acknowledge that I am insistent that I do not know enough about the REALITY to be making the kinds of assertions so many people here make. But that should not disqualify me or anyone else from participating. In fact, I suspect those qualities could easily make someone a more valuable contributor to the discussion.

On the Internet, discussions of life, existence, and what makes this world tick often degenerate into discussions of what philosophy is. Essentially people stop “doing” philosophy and engage in discussions of what philosophy is supposed to do…and what some philosophers have done. I see that as not nearly as interesting as actually philosophizing.

Some of the stuff I raise may seem trivial and besides the point...but I respectfully suggest that I am not attempting to be disruptive, but rather acknowledging that often, the devil is in the details.

Just sayin’!

Why not... what are your reasons?

Read the other 18 pages. Note that no other reason has been suggested even by people who claim to believe in one..

Not sure of how to explain my reasons for not being able to conceive of something, but...I just cannot.

If you have a moral absolute or two to suggest I consider...please offer them and I will...and I will let you know why I think you are correct that they are moral absolutes or not.

Yes, I didn't read every word but I believe you may be correct.... nevertheless it's been interesting to read the various views on the matter.

I'll state now that I'm exploring 'if' there could be one 'not' putting forward a belief that there are moral absolutes.

I'll have a think and get back to you... Frank. I have a meal to prepare and I'm quite hungry.

I’m not going to over think this, so I’ll start with my first thoughts and go from there.

The way forward might be to say that a ‘moral absolute’ is a code of conduct, which if broken, would in the most simple example and extreme scenario lead to the end of the human race.

Comments Frank?

Without thinking it through too deeply, igm...

...if the human race were completely exterminated...what difference would it make? If the entire planet were accidentally consumed by a black hole...what difference would it make?

Why would something as insignificant as the total extermination of this minor league system of planets circling a relatively insignificant sun in its entirety rise to the level of a moral absolute?

Unless...of course, this is the only place life exists...which we do not know.

My post was about a 'code of conduct' preventing the degeneration of society to the point where it can no longer be regarded as 'humane'. I'm not sure your reply addresses this... now that I've explained... do you have any comments or can you explain how your reply relates to my post?

I can't move forward with my line of thought if you're not on the same page as me.