A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

as I don't ever recall people having any other kind of personnel moral schema that they don't believe it to be more or less Universal

This is clearly incorrect. I don't believe my personal moral schema is in any way Universal. There are many other people on this thread who have said the same thing.

This key point in your argument is clearly false.

You also hint at the biggest problem in moral absolutism. If lots of people believe that their moral beliefs are Universal, almost all are wrong (since absolutism means at most one can be correct). If you believe that your moral beliefs are Universal, and yet you are almost certainly wrong about that, then what's the point?

1 Reply

I want to give a direct answer to Utilitarianism. The appeal of Utilitarianism is that it has a clear standard which lends itself to logical reason. A clear standard is the way to go if you want to argue a moral absolute.

The problem with Utilitarianism is that it is completely arbitrary. Why is "happiness" the thing we try to maximize? There are hundreds of other things to maximize that are equally logical. Why not longevity? Why not pride? Why not productivity? Why not lust? (From a scientific standpoint lust would make the most sense for survival value.)

Utilitarianism, like any other system of morality, is based on something arbitrary that can't be supported by reason.

Of course, the other problem with Utilitarianism. is that it conflicts in several key areas (rape for example) with my personal system of morality. My personal sense of morality is the only morality that is sacred to me.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

You also hint at the biggest problem in moral absolutism. If lots of people believe that their moral beliefs are Universal, almost all are wrong (since absolutism means at most one can be correct). If you believe that your moral beliefs are Universal, and yet you are almost certainly wrong about that, then what's the point?

I don't see how this is a greater problem for moral absolutism than it is for factual absolutism. Once upon a time, for example, nearly all humans believed that the sun rotates around Earth, and that this is true in an absolute sense. As it turned out, they were almost all wrong about what rotates around what, but were right about the truth of the matter being absolute. Philosophically, then, the fact that almost everyone was wrong about the solar system is irrelevant to the case for factual absolutism in the matter. What makes you think it's more relevant to the case for moral absolutism?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The problem with Utilitarianism is that it is completely arbitrary. Why is "happiness" the thing we try to maximize?

As I said in my earlier post: If this is your problem with classical Utilitarianism, you can leapfrog over the concept of happiness and go straight to "what we try to maximize". Preference Utilitarians do this by drawing on people's revealed preferences as the measure of "what we try to maximize". Then they identify the concept of "good" with preference satisfaction, aggregated over all of humanity.

To be sure, the devil is in the detail with this approach; there are plenty of details left to clear up in practice. For example, how exactly do we aggregate? Or, do we go for total or average preference satisfaction? But I don't see this as a show stopper, because the same could be said of the medical profession's concept of "health". That doesn't keep doctors from practising medicine in a scientific way. In the same sense, I would argue, the philosophical wiggle room in the preference utilitarians' concept of "good" does not thwart the ability of ethicists to practice ethics in a science-like way. Preference-utilitarian philosophy may not be as rigorous as Euclidean geometry, but its standards are far from arbitrary.

0 Replies

The problem with utilitarianism as a basis for morality is that it is so manipulable. A capitalist might set up a manufacturing operation in a central American country with few or no fair labor standards laws, and few or no environmental protection laws because it's going to be cheaper and increase his profits. A person might object that he is polluting the environment and endangering people's lives. He can then say that a few hundred people might suffer, and suffer for a few months, but that many hundreds more, or even thousands of people with have jobs for many years, so that the benefit to them far outweighs the harm to those who suffer from the environmental pollution.

It's too easy to play games with such a standard as a basis for morality.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The problem with utilitarianism as a basis for morality is that it is so manipulable.

I don't see the part of your example where someone manipulates utilitarianism as a standard for morality. Can you elaborate?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Certainly. The capitalist knows that a utilitarian standard of the most good for the most people (i'll say out of that previous discussion on how that is determined) will be applied to judge his actions. So he intentionally chooses a location where the law will not interfere with his plan, and then dismisses moral objections to his operation by alleging that he is doing the most good for the most people. It seems to me that this utilitarian basis is pretty paltry, and can so easily be "played" by those who wish to avoid imputations of moral turpitude.

Do you agree that this capitalist has exploited the simple utilitarian concept, or do you think there is a valid utilitarian objection to his plan? Do you consider his plan moral?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Do you agree that this capitalist has exploited the simple utilitarian concept, or do you think there is a valid utilitarian objection to his plan?

There is a valid moral objection to his plan --- even under the most capitalist-friendly version of Utilitarianism, which you may know by the name Law and Economics (*). Start with endangering people's lives. Human lives have a value. Law-and-economics types measure it in natural experiments where humans trade off increments of their own safety against increments of income. Measured amounts typically come out at a couple million dollars per life (though empirical data is always scattered in the social sciences). Endangering this value constitutes a cost of the capitalist's decision, and is a moral argument for deciding differently.

Similarly, the health problems from lax work safety standards are a tangible human cost. It is measurable in human lives shortened, medical treatments paid for, pain and suffering incurred in spite of medical treatment, and productivity lost to sick days. Damage to the environment, in turn, has many of the same costs that lax work safety does. Additionally, pollution depletes Central America's natural resources, which is a tangible loss. Finally, the disemployment of American workers has costs in productivity lost, retraining necessitated, mental-health problems arising, the medical bills for dealing with them, and many others.

Bottom line, the capitalist's decision inflicts tons of tangible human costs. Put them all together, and there's your moral case against the decision.

Setanta wrote:

Do you consider his plan moral?

That would depend on its details. I morally disapprove of it in proportion to the costs to workers I just listed. I morally approve of it in proportion to the benefits to the capitalist. (*) I would make my final decision by looking at all consequences of the capitalist's decision, and then weighing the pros against the cons.
______________________
(*) Law and Economics hinges on wealth-maximization exclusively. Other versions of Utilitarianism, including my own, would also account for wealth distribution: They would approve of any redistribution from rich to poor, disapprove of any from poor to rich. Considering equity would mostly, but not entirely, cut against the employer's decision. I omitted this part because I wanted to tilt the playing field in favor of your criticism.

0 Replies

Well, a good deal of your argument falls by the wayside because the capitalist chooses central America precisely because he can operate within local law and custom while not paying for health care, and reacting to lost days by simply firing the employee and hiring someone else. My point was that it is possible to argue either for or against the morality of any action by assigning values, which are personally derived, to the costs and benefits. So i can't really see your utilitarianism as a basis for an absolute morality. I take it you are not alleging that all utilitarians are going to apply your standards?

2 Replies

there can be no such thing as a moral absolute.

morality is the conditioning of the human sense of right or wrong as defined by society. many things once deemed morally sound are now seen as morally objectionable, sexism, homophobia, the taking of a life are just a few examples.

also for something to be morally absolute, it must cross all living species, or it is just a human ideal. e.g. i doubt very much a lion has ever regretted killing a gazelle, because it thought it was morally dubious.

morality is nothing more than a measure of human society, how we as individuals fit in to that society, and a display of how we would expect to be treated by society....do unto others and all that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Well, a good deal of your argument falls by the wayside because the capitalist chooses central America precisely because he can operate within local law and custom while not paying for health care, and reacting to lost days by simply firing the employee and hiring someone else.

A cost is a cost. Someone always pays the cost of lax work safety, on-the-spot hiring and firing, and environmental pollution. By deciding that this someone is not the capitalist, Central-American law does not abolish the cost; it merely shifts it onto the factory's workers and neighbors. The workers and neighbors, in turn, may pay the cost in medical bills and depleted savings (if they can afford it) or in increased pain and suffering (if they can't). Either way, someone pays the cost of the capitalist's decision in some form. And as long as this cost outweighs the benefits, Law and Economics will disapprove of the capitalist's decision because of them.

Setanta wrote:

I take it you are not alleging that all utilitarians are going to apply your standards?

I am not. But I am alleging that all other Utilitarians would use even less capitalist-friendly standards than the Law-and-Economics branch, which I used to address your scenario. So if Law and Economics disapproves of your capitalist's decision, you can bet that any other given Utilitarian would, too.

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

there can be no such thing as a moral absolute.

morality is the conditioning of the human sense of right or wrong as defined by society.

Well, if that's the way you want to define "morality," then I suppose you could say there's no such thing as a moral absolute, although I'd be more inclined to say that, under that definition, there's no such thing as morality.

Berty McJock wrote:

many things once deemed morally sound are now seen as morally objectionable, sexism, homophobia, the taking of a life are just a few examples.

Change in beliefs regarding morality isn't evidence that there are no moral absolutes, just as change in beliefs regarding the earth's place in the solar system isn't evidence that the sun might revolve around the earth. If people now believe some conduct is immoral which was previously believed to be moral, that may be because the people who previously believed that were wrong.

Berty McJock wrote:

also for something to be morally absolute, it must cross all living species, or it is just a human ideal. e.g. i doubt very much a lion has ever regretted killing a gazelle, because it thought it was morally dubious.

I agree that morality doesn't apply to animals. That doesn't mean, however, that morality is somehow subjective.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

My point was that it is possible to argue either for or against the morality of any action by assigning values, which are personally derived, to the costs and benefits.

Then you're setting up a strawman. A genuine utilitarian wouldn't assign values which are personally derived to determine whether an action is either utile or inutile. That's impermissible deck-stacking. Bentham, after all, didn't say that the principle of utility was different for each individual. There's only one principle of utility, and it is applied objectively as the sole measure of morality. Utilitarianism, therefore, is perfectly consistent with the idea of absolute morality.

1 Reply

Some though provoking discussion in this thread. Kudos to the participants.

Max, in his originating post, asks the question "What would you do if you found there was an absolute morality and what you believe to be moral, was in conflict with it?"

If I have read the posts of Chicago Joe and Thomas correctly, they responded in the only logical way possible, they would comply with the absolute morality.

Max has a problem with this because despite the clear parameters of his hypothetical he doesn't believe in absolute morality. This is all well and good but given the existence of it, as called for by his hypothetical, a refusal to comply with it has to be hubris in the extreme. I suspect that the Lucifer of Paradise Lost is one of Max's favorite literary characters.

I previously addressed the issue, in this forum, of the concept of absolute morality saying that the concept, absent faith, is difficult to defend, but for the benefit of society, defend it we must.

There is nothing conservative or liberal about this position. In order for us to thrive as a society we must have essentially immutable rules, which is not to say these rules cannot change over time, but that they cannot be subject, at any given moment, to subjectivity.

The difficulty, to the extent it even exists, is separating essential situational morality developed over time from the arguments, no matter how skillfully constructed, of the "anything goes" crowd.

If and when God makes himself and his will known, there will be an absolute morality. I don't see this happening any time soon, but if it should, I doubt even Max would persist with his treasured iconoclasm.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Well, if that's the way you want to define "morality," then I suppose you could say there's no such thing as a moral absolute, although I'd be more inclined to say that, under that definition, there's no such thing as morality.

i don't know. i think morality can still exist, but only as a human perception of how a functional society should operate. if we see 2 humans fighting, most "decent" people would see that as "wrong". when we view it in "nature" it's seen as territorial, part of "the pecking order", or sexual (i.e. over a mate). this can also apply to theft and vandalism, as 2 examples off the top of my head.

Quote:

If people now believe some conduct is immoral which was previously believed to be moral, that may be because the people who previously believed that were wrong.

yeah, that's kind of what i'm saying...but they were wrong from the viewpoint of society today. there are still (admittedly very few) primitive tribes out there who even 100 years ago we would have regarded as "savages", but to them in their society they are not morally wrong in things we percieve them to be.

Quote:

That doesn't mean, however, that morality is somehow subjective

someone has to witness, or be affected by an event for morals to even enter the equation. the questionability of good vs. bad makes it subjective surely.
to be honest, i hate subjective/objective arguements, mainly because i'm no good at them, but also because, as i even used in this reply, if you can question somethings value, or even existence it becomes subjective. it's about your perception of it. therefore everything is subjective, including objectivity.

i think Razz

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Change in beliefs regarding morality isn't evidence that there are no moral absolutes, just as change in beliefs regarding the earth's place in the solar system isn't evidence that the sun might revolve around the earth.

There is a really big difference between science and social construct. Science depends on things that are objectively testable.

An absolute morality makes no sense from a scientific point of view. Not only is there no objective tests possible but

1. The fact is that your moral views are very similar to the views of the society and time that you were brought up in, and very different from the views of other societies and other times.

As a scientist, this is exactly what I would expect if morality was based largely on society.

2. There is nothing outside of human society that gives any evidence for a system of morality. Moral rules only apply within human society, and are vastly different from human society to society.

Humans have only been around for 1/100,000 of the lifetime of the Universe and they exist on a single speck of dust orbiting a rather insignificant star. The universe takes away life all the time, and even human life without any regard for a moral system. Other animals are quite barbaric.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Of course, Finn, if there is a God, than there is an absolute morality. I don't believe in God, which leads to my disbelief in absolute morality. It shouldn't surprise you that my logical arguments against moral absolutes are the same as my arguments against the existence of God.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Of course, Finn, if there is a God, than there is an absolute morality.

On reflection, I actually don't see how that follows. Why couldn't gods be just as wrong about absolute morality as everybody else?

5 Replies

@Thomas,

because God is God silly...........if you believe

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I agree a diety does not make absolute morality an easy question.
The god could be mistaken.
The god could know it but be opposed to the absolute morality.
The god could know it and not care about the absolute morality.
The god could even know it, not be opposed to it, care about it, and still for some other reason not wish to share that knowledge with humanity.

Granting or assuming a diety does not make morality simple.
It may make obedience simple, if the diety happens to be very powerful and also a good communicator.

0 Replies

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know