A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

That is a great question which I think gets at the realist position. I assume that there is an ontic (something real) reality. The only way to learn of that ontic reality is through the 'how of knowledge' (epistemology). Epistemology being the method of discovering knowledge. That knowledge being used to discover things about the ontic reality.
The realist position is not the only one, of course. Some deny the existence of an ontic reality, for instance.

That is pretty accurate description of ontology. Ontology is one aspect of metaphysics. Metaphysics is in simple terms a broader category which also includes understandings of cosmology/cosmogany, theology, nature of consciousness, etc. The definition of metaphysics is actually pretty muddy.

That is one way to think about it, though the knowledge that it studies is more along the lines of 'what can be used as a method of gaining knowledge'. If this is what you mean by justification, then yes.
Yes they are very much intertwined. As I mentioned above some even deny the very existence of an ontic reality. Such intertwining may make someone question whether it is meaningful to draw a distinction. I still find the distinction useful, thus my realist position.

I am caught in the mire of Anti-Realism.
It is debatable if whether holding unproved beliefs about the world is necessarily harmful to anyone, but the way I see it, the debate between realists and antirealists is important in terms of how they understand the aims of science.
A separate question I have is how to decide between rival theories that make the same predictions.

I feel the same way. As I have said before (on other threads) I feel much more confident in the "truth" value of something if that "truth" can be reached as the consequence of differing assumptions.
For instance I think that the "Law of excluded middle" can be shown to have its challenges in mathematics/logic (Godel's Incompleteness Theorem), quantum mechanics (non-locality, wave particle duality, etc), and by 'philosophical' examination of the subjective/objective dichotomy.
A major focus (for me) is the examination of apparent dichotomies, most collapse under careful examination.

They can’t be less important than animals, so they must be of equal importance, the same must be true for everything else i.e. humans must be as important as everything else. So, they are important… equally as important. You must agree on this surely? I’ll assume you agree.


So, if humans are equal to everything then there could still be a moral absolute as long as it applies to other sentient life e.g. animals. This follows from what you've said.


In the example I gave they ‘don’t’ make a decision the ‘moral absolute’ is there and is broken when one kills the other.. the human race ends and that is objectively true.

If there were only two animals and one killed the other then that species of animal would become extinct the ‘moral absolute’ of not killing would again have the objective result of ending a species of animal. The fact the animal isn't able to know this will be the consequence only backs up that killing is a ‘moral absolute’.

So, as I said earlier if in the simplest scenario.. two animals/humans who are fertile and who could produce offspring which could go on to populate the planet as long as the planet can support them, doom the future generations if one kills the other. The moral absolute is just there, no need to create it or think about it subjectively, and it is broken as soon as the kill takes place.

If this is true then having more people/animals doesn't change that.

amendment to last post 'typo':

[not] killing is a ‘moral absolute’.

First of all, I believe that humans are more important than any other animal. This is my subjective opinion. But I live in such a way that this moral standard is pretty clear. I eat animals every day, and often kill insects without a second thought. When we had a rodent infestation in our apartment, I put down traps that were deadly and effective without any hesitation. I would never consider eating or killing a human (except maybe in the most dire of hypothetical situation and I would still feel immoral doing it).

By my subjective morality, humans are more important than any other type of animal. This is a matter of who I am as a person (of course informed by the society I live in). I don't have any objectively testable reason to say that human beings are important. It is simply the moral code that I live by because of who I am.

Dead or not dead is objectively testable. Extinct or not extinct is objectively testable. Good and bad aren't.

You could describe a situation where all humans are factually dead in an objective sense. You can't tell me why this would be good or bad without relying on an subjective opinion on the value of human life.

Neanderthals are extinct, and it is possible that they died in a contest with modern humans over resources. Neanderthals probably would think this was immoral. Being a modern human who values modern human life, my perspective is that this extinction was a good thing. I doubt, other than Neanderthals and humans, anyone has an opinion on the matter.

Ok Max, I took my example and ran with it for a bit. I believe it helps to take a simple but extreme example as there 'might' be something fundamental there I quite liked how it looked but... who knows?!

You've made several good points but... I thought 'moral absolutes' was about 'right and wrong' not 'good and bad'?

Does it matter? ... maybe.

...updated previous post, slightly.

If you can't say if death is good or bad, how can you say if killing is right or wrong?

If life is fundamental then the extinction of life must be fundamentally wrong... that statement makes sense to me. If it's fundamentally wrong then to avoid it is a 'moral absolute'. That doesn't mean you have to know this or avoid it... it just 'is' whether it is known or not.

This is true.

However whether life is fundamental or not is a subjective value, not a moral absolute. There is no objectively testable fact to support the assertion that life is fundamental.

Do you think it is a coincidence that everyone who believes that life is fundamental is alive?

Igm says that he believes "... that humans are more important than any other animal." He acknowledges that this is his subjective opinion." I share that perspective, and would go further to say that this applies to ALL of my values. And I justify this perspective by agreeing that it reflects my particular nature--"who I am as a person"--and the culture in which I have been formed.

My take on Moral reduces it to an operating system which is in place to maximize group productivity in the evolutionary process thus being somewhat acceptable to speak in several moral layers of moral competence...that being said such system seams to require an Universal frame for its progressive unfolding. It is not that Moral is relative but rather that there are several group layers for moral competence and of course different potency's don't match together but are nonetheless interrelated in the math of moral as a unified whole...translating, Moral is Absolute but not linear !...

There are a couple of problems with that Fil.

1) Evolution doesn't maximize group productivity, it selects for survival value. I don't know exactly what you mean by productivity, but there are species that are quite destructive and wasteful of resources. A species where the female must eat her mate to survive isn't an example of efficiency.

2) If morality proceeds from evolution, then every thing that is the product of evolution is moral by definition. Rape, war, racial hatred are all products of evolution that exist because at some point in our history they were traits with survival value.

3) Evolution is a process of random mutations selected by chance features of a particular environment. Evolution has no purpose. It is just proceeding on for no reason.

There are no absolutes in evolution.

One would measure the moral competence of a Civilization or a given culture through the overall productivity of social interactions from which the economic development is only one of multiple possible measuring markers applying to the whole of population and not to a specific group...thus measuring the wealth of a country on its own is irrelevant if overlooking the balancing in the distribution of wealth...although obvious I am making this remark because the demagogic yet tempting confusion possibly done mistaking a wealthy nation with a highly moral developed nation is all to evidently false and nevertheless a dangerous perspective for a wrong interpretation of my understanding in this matter...if anything analyzing the extension of a wealthy solid middle class would be a far more correct approach.

No Max...there are 2 forces in evolution which are apparently at odds but not necessarily...the individual interest and the collective interest and even these two work in layers as groups form themselves a unity which will react and defend itself as if an individual...you ought to remember the most recent theory's in Evolution reconciling cooperation with survival of the fittest as for instance described in Ants or Bee Nests...even Rape must have a purpose if you ask me, that is, the evolution of such a trait must fit a very specific very particular niche in the group survival strategy for extreme situations...obviously it sounds outdated today and is on its way to extinction or so it seams as aggressive males are no longer the favorite main choice of many women...in the least such extreme trait is mostly used in wars or in cases of social chaos and mostly reduced to a very small functional number which in turn means its usefulness is very reduced and very context specific. I suppose is a fair assumption believing that less aggressive males are not so prone to rape temptation even in extreme situations or so we hope...

PS - By "productivity" I meant the best algorithm, the shortest least energy consuming path, for developing complex cooperative tasks...that is, the motor of Civilization !

The subjective/objective distinction seems very important to your position. Could you please explain how the realities are different. How is a subjective reality different than an objective one?

Fil, do you feel as though there could be behavioral patterns which transcend the substrates or differing levels of organization?
Individual, to tribe, to society, to inter-society. Heuristics which tend toward optimization at all levels?