A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5274057)
Nonsense my point was quite another how does any of that presupposes that no dominant moral system exists...

Oh, you were talking about "dominant moral systems"...but we were talking about moral absolutes.

If you want to discuss "dominant moral systems"...I would suggest you do it with inmates in prisons...where the dominant moral systems are much more interesting to study and contemplate.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I said that fact and not belief is the token for considering which moral code is on top, and assert that if there is a hierarchy at a given time frame there must exist a bottom and a top of the list, equally I also so said, had you understood it, that the justification for such dominance must exist through a factual better working algorithm in a given environment in place (Universe), and yes, that works for prisons also...the criteria for absolute is the most enduring the best explaining set of rules that brings the best possible social productivity for social cooperative tasks.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5274065)
I said that fact and not belief is the token for considering which moral code is on top, and assert that if there is a hierarchy at a given time frame there must exist a bottom and a top of the list, equally I also so said, had you understood it, that the justification for such dominance must exist through a factual better working algorithm in a given environment in place (Universe), and yes, that works for prisons also...the criteria for absolute is the most enduring the best explaining set of rules that brings the best possible social productivity for social cooperative tasks.

The criteria for "absolute"...should be "absolute."

If you want to change the definition in order to make your assertions more palatable...why not simply change the definition of an moral absolute to...

...whatever Fil Alburquerque says it is.

That'd save a lot of rigmarole, wouldn't it?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:

The principle that life should not be taken by another and this should never be violated if the scenario was that: only two sentient beings exist and they could repopulate the universe if one did not kill the other, is a definition of a ‘moral absolute’ in this simple scenario. The reason is that life is fundamental and to extinguish life would be remove the fundamental reason for the universe. Without life the universe is meaningless as there is no life to give it meaning; If this is true then it remains ‘objectively’ true for however many sentient beings there are. Therefore it is ‘always’ a moral absolute, regardless of ‘subjective’ religions, philosophies or sciences.

Can you or someone convince me otherwise or show my reasoning is ‘subjective’ without just saying: ‘it’s subjective’ and not putting forward a clear argument that shows that to be the case.

igm wrote:
Without life the universe is meaningless as there is no life to give it meaning;
...

...is a subjective consideration.

Without it...your entire thesis fails.

So the entire thesis is dependent upon a subjective consideration.

And you 'know' it is subjective because...?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

And you 'know' it is subjective because...?

I deem it to be subjective until you give any kind of evidence that it is objective.

YOU are the one asserting that "without life the universe is meaningless as there is no life to give it meaning."

I respectfully suggest this is pure subjective. Nothing objective about it at all.

At one point...(what you call) the universe...was totally without life.

Can you show definitively that it was "meaningless" at that time?

Could we not suggest that getting to where we are...was its "meaning? (Not that I am suggesting a "meaning" is even necessary.)

If every living thing in (what you call) the universe were to die...would that necessarily (objectively) mean that the universe has no "meaning?"

Once again, I am not saying "meaningness" is necessary...or that "life" means "meaning", but since "life" came into existence from not-life...could it not come back into existence?

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You've made a string of assertions there Frank... none of which have you shown any evidence for.

You haven't offered an argument against my assertion that is based on evidence.

Where is the agnostic Frank? The one who used to say for example in this situation: You can't say that an absolute truth exists and you can't say it doesn't exist. I do not have enough evidence to show either way. But now you know that an moral absolute does not exist...???

You're appear to be just a ex-military man who never wants to lose a battle... at all costs.

Debating with you is like drinking salt water to quench a thirst... never satisfying and always later (not that much later) regretted.

Max, came back with something I could debate with how refreshing that was.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

As I see it there are only two reasonable motives that can rightfully justify Action...

1 - The legitimacy of a more complex set or system that try's to encompass another smaller set.
2 - The Legitimacy of any set or system to defend itself so long it lacks knowledge or the capacity to recognize a bigger set.

No Fil, There is only one reasonable motive that can rightfully justify Action...

...superior military force.

That is the way the world has worked since we first learned to make weapons by sharpening the end of sticks.

Morality is an interesting philosophical passtime I suppose. But when it comes to interactions between different cultures, military strength is all that matters.

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5274105)
You've made a string of assertions there Frank... none of which have you shown any evidence for.

I have not made a "string of assertions, igm. List the ones that I have...and I will substantiate them or withdraw them.

Quote:

You haven't offered an argument against my assertion that is based on evidence.

What “evidence” do you have that "without life the universe is meaningless as there is no life to give it meaning?”

HINT: None, igm. None at all.

Quote:

Where is the agnostic Frank? The one who used to say for example in this situation: You can't say that an absolute truth exists and you can't say it doesn't exist. I do not have enough evidence to show either way. But now you know that an moral absolute does not exist...???

I said that I could not conceive of a moral absolute…unless a GOD exists. Stop building straw men, igm.

Quote me…and deal with what I actually said.

Quote:

You're appear to be just a ex-military man who never wants to lose a battle... at all costs.

Debating with you is like drinking salt water to quench a thirst... never satisfying and always later (not that much later) regretted.

Max, came back with something I could debate with how refreshing that was.

If you say so. I enjoy debating and discussing with you…and I do it. You apparently do not like debating and discussing with me…yet you do it. Kinda weird on your part, wouldn't you say?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Max wrote:

..superior military force.
That is the way the world has worked since we first learned to make weapons by sharpening the end of sticks.

The way the world has/does work!
What world are you living in?
If you don't see the success of cooperation even in the work that you do as an engineer (advanced stick sharpening), how do you doublethink yourself into that assertion?

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

There is nothing fundamental in their counter...the fact that when dominance is established is very easy to shortcut the end result and jump a few steps and thus act immorally doesn't change the argument that dominance must be established in the first place...what they are doing is small peaking the general underlying principle...I am off...I was expecting that sort of approach sooner or later...

Understandable. Inconsistency in cognition is as frustrating as inconsistent algorithms.... not that algorithms can be inconsistent, but I imagine that if they were, that would be equally frustrating. Wink

Perhaps one should expound on constraint learning algorithms to alleviate frustration.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Matt, are you really having trouble understanding this, or are you just being difficult?

I exist in a modern Western culture. I cooperate with people who share much the same culture values that I do. I personally don't have much contact in my professional life with other cultures, but there are plenty of cultures with similar cultural values that my country gets along with.

We are right now dropping bombs on people with a very different view of morality. The only thing that matters is that we are the dominant military power.

200 years ago we were firing cannons and shooting guns at Native Americans, again a people with a very different view of morality. Right now there are almost no Native Americans near where I live (although we were nice enough to name a nearby lake after them).

The culture with the greatest military force always wins the moral argument. It doesn't always lead to a complete destruction, but you don't see any examples where a militarily weaker culture gave its moral values to a stronger one (and don't even think about trying to argue that Ghandi wasn't part of the Western culture he was raised and educated in).

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max I require no convincing of the moral futility of violence.
That is not the question under discussion. If you think that inter-cultural violence is wrong, then explain to me what is wrong about it.
So far you maintain that "morality" is defined by culture.
How then, can you speak of "morality" applying inter-culturally.

Quote:

Matt, are you really having trouble understanding this, or are you just being difficult?

I think I understand quite clearly how you want to define "morality". You want to define it as social mores.
That is not morality, that is a tendency toward conformity.
If you believe that conformity is virtue, stop complaining about the actions of your(our) culture. Be "moral" and conform.

2 Replies

@MattDavis,

The only "inter-cultural morality" that has any basis in reality is military strength. Whenever two cultures have a disagreement about what is moral, the side with the strongest military wins the argument. Can you give me an example where this hasn't been the case?

How else has a disagreement between two distinct cultures ever been solved?

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Matt,

You want to define morality as what Western Civilization (which you are part of) says it is. This is why you are against cannibalism and for equality of women even though you can't give an objective reason for either one.

Good news for you is that Western Civilization is the dominant military power, meaning that we can impose our view of morality on the world just as you want. But as soon as military power changes so will the ability to pretend that your views should be applied to everyone.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Maxdancona wrote:

You want to define morality as what Western Civilization (which you are part of) says it is.

Quite frankly Max that is bullshit.
That is not what I want, that is also not what I have done. Your inference is inaccurate and insulting.
Return to your defense of moral-relativity.
You don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks, nor do you have to construct a staw man of my intentions.
If you would like to discuss the merits of your moral philosophy, that is what I am here to do.
If you want to participate in playground games, you are free to do so with someone else.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Quote:

This is why you are against cannibalism and for equality of women even though you can't give an objective reason for either one.

Can you think of an objective reason why I should not take a knife to your limbs and dismember you and cook you up for dinner?
If you were a woman can you think of a reason why I should not be able to rape you and make you submissive to me?
Why shouldn't I have the right to impose a Stockholm syndrome on you?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

igm wrote:
And you 'know' it is subjective because...?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I deem it to be subjective until you give any kind of evidence that it is objective.

I gave you a ‘reason’ why it should be thought of as objective. You should counter with how my reason is unreasonable and then we can move forward. I gave a reason then you said it was subjective I then asked you to show how you ‘know’ that and you just replied because it’s subjective until you show evidence that it is objective. Can you see a problem with your debating style?

My reason was that: sentient beings are the only objects capable of requiring ‘meaning’ if there are no sentient beings then the universe is de facto meaningless.

You should then reply: no the universe isn't meaningless if there are no sentient beings because…

Instead you reply with what amounts to a repeat of ‘you tell me’. That’s to me is not a debate. Most people here are able to debate in the way I’ve pointed out but you will not for some reason. So, it always ends the same. I’d say that your style will eventually lead to no one debating with you or at least very few replies to your posts. This is only a problem in the philosophy and religion forums as far as I can tell.

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

First of all, it is accurate. Tell me what part of absolute morality contradicts what is normal in modern western civilization. Tell me one thing.

Second of all, you are being a little hypocritical. You launch weak personal attacks on "Moral Relativist" straw men and then can't take responses in kind. Glass house, meet stone.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Can you think of an objective reason why I should not take a knife to your limbs and dismember you and cook you up for dinner?
If you were a woman can you think of a reason why I should not be able to rape you and make you submissive to me?
Why shouldn't I have the right to impose a Stockholm syndrome on you?

That's the whole point. There is no objective moral reason why you shouldn't eat me, or rape me (whether I am a woman or not), or make me submissive. I can't give an objective moral reason any more than you can.

Human cultures have allowed all of these things. The reason they aren't allowed now is because the militarily dominant culture thinks it is wrong.

If the ancient Mayans had been more powerful than the Spanish conquistadors, you would be arguing in favor of cannibalism as a moral absolute.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

Are you not advancing a "moral relativistic" definition of morality or not?

"Modern western civilization" is a bit of a conflagration of disparate cultures. Modern American culture (yours and mine) condones violence as the preferred method of conflict resolution particularly with respect to cultural "others". This is in violation of absolute moral principles.

Are you advancing that non-hypocrisy is an absolute moral principle, or are you persisting in your childish name-calling?

0 Replies

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know