A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@tsarstepan,

Of course it counts.

And, like most vodkas...it kicks ass!

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

And Joefromchicago will support the practice of rape, as long as it is acceptable under the Universal system Morality.

Sure, why wouldn't I? I have no problem approving behavior that is morally good and condemning behavior that is morally bad. Furthermore, I'd be willing to bet that, in certain circumstances, you would approve of rape as being morally permissible.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This would not change my personal conviction that such a creator is wrong to make such arbitrary rules that cause pain to people I care about.

Morality isn't necessarily about what you believe, it's about how you behave. So your distinction makes no relevant difference to me.

maxdancona wrote:

Since such a creator could presumably know my thoughts, I understand this might be a problem. I wouldn't commit rape even if God tells me to.

I find your rape example slightly manipulative because of a logical contradiction in it: Rape, by definition, is a particular kind of wrongful sexual intercourse. (Violence is not a necessary element of it, by the way.) So in effect, what you're saying is, "I wouldn't commit wrongful sexual intercourse even if it was objectively rightful." Why of course you wouldn't --- it's logically impossible! Your example, then, need not trouble anyone who believes in moral absolutes.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

This would not change my personal conviction that such a creator is wrong to make such arbitrary rules that cause pain to people I care about.

Or in other words, you disagree with one premise of my hypothetical, which is that the creator is the source of all morality. How do you know that there still are objectively-true ethical principles, on which you and the creator simply have a difference of opinion?

If it helps, think of it as an analogy between Galileo's and the Catholic Church's disagreement on the nature of our solar system. I think you would agree there are objective facts about the solar system, even though different people have disagreed about what they were.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Morality isn't necessarily about what you believe, it's about how you behave.

I strongly disagree with this Thomas. There have been a couple times in my life that I have done things that I "knew" were wrong. Morality is a set of rules for conduct. You can break even your own rules.

Quote:

I find your rape example slightly manipulative

I have no intention of being manipulative. The definition of rape I am using is forced sex (i.e. sex against the will of one or more participants).

I think this is a particularly good example of something that is strongly condemned in my culture (i.e. modern Western culture) but is acceptable in other cultures and even accepted in my own culture in earlier times.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Or in other words, you disagree with one premise of my hypothetical, which is that the creator is the source of all morality

No I am not disagreeing with this premise.

I am saying that even assuming the creator is the source of all morality, my personal convictions are more important.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I strongly disagree with this Thomas. There have been a couple times in my life that I have done things that I "knew" were wrong. Morality is a set of rules for conduct. You can break even your own rules.

Let's keep "is" and "ought" separate here. Sure, you can break moral rules, including your own, but you ought not. It's still wrong to break them, isn't it? Conversely, if you do the right thing for the wrong reasons, you're home free. Think of a German World-War-II soldier who deserts for his own safety and as a side effect ends up not participating in a war of aggression. This soldier is doing the right thing even though he believes in nothing more lofty than his own survival. By your theory you should disapprove of him. Do you? I don't.

maxdancona wrote:

I have no intention of being manipulative. The definition of rape I am using is forced sex (i.e. sex against the will of one or more participants).

In that case, I'm pro-rape in some situations. I'm a Utilitarian, so for purposes of this thread at least, I will uphold Bentham's Principle of Utility as a moral absolute. If I ever found myself in a situation where I could save lives, but could save them only at the cost of raping a woman, I would rape her.

maxdancona wrote:

I think this is a particularly good example of something that is strongly condemned in my culture (i.e. modern Western culture) but is acceptable in other cultures and even accepted in my own culture in earlier times.

Well, I don't know about rape, but how about infanticide? Utilitarians from Bentham to Singer have maintained that infanticide need not trouble the conscience of anyone who endorses the killing of animals smarter than a newborn human child. Based on strong personal emotions, I have long considered this a limitation of Utilitarianism. But after a long examination of my premises and these philosophers' reasoning, I have come to the conclusion that they're right. Killing babies may wrong their parents, their family, maybe even society as a whole, and that may well be reason enough to criminalize it in most circumstances. But it does not wrong the killed babies. Cultures like that of Ancient Greece were objectively right to practice it --- and our own culture is objectively wrong to be as squeamish about infanticide as it is. So even on terms similar to yours, I still yield to objective morality against my own instincts.

2 Replies

You're making comparisons among people's views of morality, and with ancient civilizations. That's not objective morality. If is was once wrong, it will always be wrong, if one alleges that morality is objective.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta, whom and which post are you addressing?

0 Replies

I was addressing your last post. If morality is objective and absolute, than people can only disagree about it if one or both of them are being dishonest. If morality is objective and absolute, it's the same for us as it was for the ancient Greeks.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

If morality is objective and absolute, it's the same for us as it was for the ancient Greeks.

But that's what I'm saying about infanticide. It isn't as wrong as our Western norms suggest, and never was. The Ancient Greeks were well within the limits of objective morality to practice it, and we are wrong to be so squeamish.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Which doesn't address my point. Either they were wrong, or we are wrong, or both are wrong. My point is that this is not a discussion of absolute, objective morality, but just what people think is moral. I'm not blaming you for anything here. I have refrained so far from this thread because the concept is so idiotic. People who believe in an absolute, objective morality may admit to sinning in small matters, but they already believe that they know what the important mattes are, and that they are right with the system. You're not going to convince them that they're wrong and get them to change their behavior.

Forgive me, this entire concept just makes me want to throw up. Whence absolute moralkity? "God?" Can you show me a picture of "god," or give me her address? Please . . .

(Again, nothing personal here.)

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Sure, you can break moral rules, including your own, but you ought not. It's still wrong to break them, isn't it?

You misunderstand the point. I merely saying that "morality" has nothing to do with my behavior. I can understand that having sex with that drunk girl is wrong and still do it based on something other than morality. The fact that I do it doesn't change my conviction that it is wrong.

There are many times that people choose to act in a way they understand to be immoral. Morality is an understanding of what is right or wrong. Whether you choose to do the right thing is another topic.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I will uphold Bentham's Principle of Utility as a moral absolute. If I ever found myself in a situation where I could save lives, but could save them only at the cost of raping a woman, I would rape her.

This is a very good, direct, answer to my question. Personally I find this troubling but I accept your position.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

My point is that this is not a discussion of absolute, objective morality, but just what people think is moral.

I think that's a false alternative. While I do believe infanticide isn't as immoral as our society thinks, it's perfectly possible that I'm wrong to believe that. One can be both right to believe in the existence of moral absolutes and wrong about the particular absolutes. These are separate discussions; both of them are worth having.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

In that case, what is the source of the absolute morality?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

In that case, what is the source of the absolute morality?

In my opinion, the source of absolute morality is the Principle of Utility: Approve of all actions to the extent that they cause more happiness than suffering; disapprove of all actions to the extent that they cause more suffering than happiness.

More relevant to this thread, however, I contend that this opinion of mine is right or wrong, in the same sense as my opinion about the source of truth in astronomy is right or wrong.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Then your morality is not absolute, because there will always be disagreement about utility. Furthermore, the religious may well disavow your notion of less suffering than happiness if it involves what they consider sin. I don't think you've met the burden of defining a source for absolute morality. There's an awful lot of leeway in that judgment. You wouldn't be a sailor, would you?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Then your morality is not absolute, because there will always be disagreement about utility.

How does that follow? There may always be disagreement as to the origin of the universe. That doesn't mean the actual facts about the universe and its origin aren't absolute. All it means that we haven't yet established what they are. If this is true of theories about positive facts, I don't see why it shouldn't be true of theories about normative facts.

Setanta wrote:

Furthermore, the religious may well disavow your notion of less suffering than happiness if it involves what they consider sin.

They most certainly may. In which case at least one of us will be wrong.

Setanta wrote:

I don't think you've met the burden of defining a source for absolute morality.

Maybe I haven't. So what? It doesn't mean that there are no absolute normative facts, only that I have failed to get a grip on them so far.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

I contend that this opinion of mine is right or wrong, in the same sense as my opinion about the source of truth in astronomy is right or wrong.

That makes no sense whatsoever Thomas.

Trying to maximize happiness and reduce suffering is as good a standard as any, but it is still just an arbitrary standard. There is no reason to believe that maximizing happiness is a better standard than any other.

A subjective standard that you chose as the metric of value with no testable evidence of why it is value is not a science. You are simply providing your personal definition of the word "morality". It certainly doesn't reflect my moral values.

This is nothing like a measurable and testable science like astronomy.

... or did you mean to say astrology?

1 Reply

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know