A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I have a problem with the contention, always unsubstantiated, that morality can be objective and absolute.

Of course you do, because you also think that universal agreement is a necessary condition for morality. As long as you believe that, you will believe that there's no such thing as morality.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

The gods of Greek and Norse mythology, for instance, often acted immorally, and it was widely recognized that they acted immorally. They were gods not because they were always moral, but because they suffered little or no consequences when they weren't.

good point, well made!

i think it's in gnostism (please correct me if i'm wrong..i could be, but right now i can't be arsed to look it up.....in one ancient religion this is the case anyway) that they have 2 gods. the christian/judaic/islamic god, who was seen as immoral, as he created man in his own image, therefore displaying materialism and egocentricity, and the other god whos attributes i can't remember in all fairness, but thankfully are largely irrelevant to my point. i was more interested in the fact that "our" God was seen by an early pagan/christian religion as immoral.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

aahhhh arguement for agruements sake...classic strategy.

Awww, and here I was, thinking that you might learn something. Well, OK, if that's the way you feel, with you I'll just argue for the sake of arguing.

Berty McJock wrote:

social mores are derived from morality. i.e. our social values are derived directly from our sense of right or wrong, individually and collectively. so in essence, we are both talking about both.

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Mores might be derived from morality (although they're more complicated than that), but that doesn't mean they're the same thing.

Berty McJock wrote:

Quote:
So what?

wow that's quite weak...you could ask "so what?" of almost anything. try to flesh out your arguements...it helps to make you sound like you're older than 5.
SO...even amongst differing yet contemporary societies, moral values differ.

I'm not sure why I'm required to "flesh out" my replies more than you've fleshed out your arguments. You think that it's relevant that some tribes follow a different moral code. Unless you can come up with a reason why that's relevant, I think the proper response to that is "so what?"

Berty McJock wrote:

if you actually read what i posted you would notice i was trying to avoid the whole subjective/objective arguement.

Trying but failing. If you want to drop the whole subjective/objective thing, I'm perfectly happy to let it drop. On the other hand, if you keep bringing it up, don't be surprised if I respond to it.

Berty McJock wrote:

i also never made ANY mention of people thinking their opinions are correct. please don't try to ascribe things i never mentioned or made reference to, to me.

Yes you did. Here's what you wrote:

Quote:

"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.

1 Reply

JoefromChicago wrote:

Quote:

The gods of Greek and Norse mythology, for instance, often acted immorally, and it was widely recognized that they acted immorally.

I wonder...does that mean there has to be a universal moral absolute--and those gods not meeting that standard?

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

i think it's in gnostism (please correct me if i'm wrong..i could be, but right now i can't be arsed to look it up.....in one ancient religion this is the case anyway) that they have 2 gods. the christian/judaic/islamic god, who was seen as immoral, as he created man in his own image, therefore displaying materialism and egocentricity, and the other god whos attributes i can't remember in all fairness, but thankfully are largely irrelevant to my point. i was more interested in the fact that "our" God was seen by an early pagan/christian religion as immoral.

I think that comes close to Gnosticism, although I don't think the Gnostics were, technically speaking, duotheists, unlike, say, the Manicheans. There are bunches of demiurges, though, who are like semi-gods or aspects of god -- it's all extremely complicated and largely incomprehensible.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

You, on the other hand, appear to believe that, just because people don't universally follow a moral code, that must mean that morality doesn't exist. I think you're wrong, and that's why I used the example of the law as part of an argument by analogy.

This is a strawman. This is not what I am arguing at all.

The reason I believe in science and don't believe a unversal moral code exists is that there is no objectively testable evidence for a universal moral code..

If there were a objectively testable basis for a Universal moral code then whether people followed or not wouldn't matter. But there isn't.

2 Replies

I guess this is OT, but there is something really funny about someone ignoring you in a forum like this...especially when they are so anxious to show they are ignoring you that they rush to post a comment to someone else after you've posted.

I love a good laugh!

Thanks, Joe.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Where would you be without straw men to prop up your feeble arguments? I don't think that universal agreement is a necessary condition for morality. I have said nothing remotely like that. What i say, and have said many times, is that objective, absolute morality cannot exist; and i have acknowledged that if someone can provide unquestionable evidence of the authority for universal, absolute morality, then they will have established that it exists. I don't see you doing that, i just see you trying to pick apart the arguments of those who have dared to disagree with you.

The definition of morality from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philsophy, for example, does not necessarily specify an absolute, universal standard:

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or

2. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

3. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Of course, the article goes on to discuss what might be the specified conditions. The first two definitions are pretty straight forward, and refer to a conception of morality, not to some independently existing moral absolute. The third definition is fraught with the specified conditions.

But i'll ask you two questions, and then we can play your favorite game of who asked whom first, and who has to answer before the other will deign to answer. If you assert that there is an absolute morality, what is the source, the authority for that absolute morality? How do you know that to be true?

People who rant on about objective, absolute morality speak as though it were some noumena existing freely in the cosmos. I am unconvinced, and have yet to see any plausible argument for such a claim.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

JoefromChicago wrote:

Quote:
The gods of Greek and Norse mythology, for instance, often acted immorally, and it was widely recognized that they acted immorally.

I wonder...does that mean there has to be a universal moral absolute--and those gods not meeting that standard?

Eggs-acktly . . .

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank:
"But if you are correct there, JL (and of course, you do not really know if you are or not)....but if you are correct......that would be the objective truth."

JL" Yes, you've got half of it. The other half is that that's how it appears to you (and to me: for us its an intersubjective fact).

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

I think the "god who is always moral" model is a Judeo-Christian construct. The gods of Greek and Norse mythology, for instance, often acted immorally, and it was widely recognized that they acted immorally. They were gods not because they were always moral, but because they suffered little or no consequences when they weren't.

True. And when you look at the actual behavior of Abraham's God in the Old Testament, the Judeo-Christian God is really no different. He puts a child through a mock-execution just to test Abraham's loyalty, encourages the summary execution of Job's family just to win a friendly bet with Satan, and helps Joshuah commit genocide against the innocent citizens of Jericho. That's a lot of morally-questionable choices from the putative source of all morality. Jews and Christians just don't call him out for them because they find it prudent to suck up instead. But that's not an act of morality, that's just looking out for Number One.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Mores might be derived from morality (although they're more complicated than that), but that doesn't mean they're the same thing

true, but you also can't talk about the value or existence of one without inferring the other.

Quote:

I'm not sure why I'm required to "flesh out" my replies more than you've fleshed out your arguments. You think that it's relevant that some tribes follow a different moral code. Unless you can come up with a reason why that's relevant, I think the proper response to that is "so what?"

fair enough.
SO...if different cultures across the same species can have different morals, and by extension moral values, the absolutism of morality comes into question. who is right or wrong?? and who decides this? if we try to define something as morally absolute, that can only be from our viewpoint, as an individual, or society. if you discovered something to be morally absolute but disagreed with it, it couldn't be morally absolute. so if differing cultures have differing morals, it follows that none are absolute.

Quote:

On the other hand, if you keep bringing it up, don't be surprised if I respond to it.

no i didn't, i responded to you.

Quote:

Yes you did. Here's what you wrote: Quote:

"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.

i only said they were wrong from our viewpoint, not that we are correct, but fair point. we probably seemed just as immoral to the "savages".

Quote:

Awww, and here I was, thinking that you might learn something.

maybe i will, but what makes you so special that you need to teach me it, and why am i so stupid?

Quote:

Well, OK, if that's the way you feel, with you I'll just argue for the sake of arguing.

no need to make a special case out of me.

anyway, any chance we can stop this tit-for-tat childish nonsense now? i'm as guilty as you, and it's getting rather embarassing.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

That's a lot of morally-questionable choices from the putative source of all morality.

I think you are missing the whole point of having a "source of all morality". If God is the source of all morality, then whatever he says is moral is moral by definition. Obviously if you are the one who decides what is moral an what is not moral, everything you do will be moral.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

I think that comes close to Gnosticism, although I don't think the Gnostics were, technically speaking, duotheists, unlike, say, the Manicheans. There are bunches of demiurges, though, who are like semi-gods or aspects of god -- it's all extremely complicated and largely incomprehensible.

that's what i thought when i read it, and i really was naive and ignorant back then.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

The reason I believe in science and don't believe a unversal moral code exists is that there is no objectively testable evidence for a universal moral code.

Again, what's the distinction between moral absolutism and factual absolutism? On what basis should you believe whatever there's evidence for, rather than what the Bible says? There are people who are fully aware of science and the evidence it delivers, that are fully aware it contradicts much of the Bible --- and then move on to discard science. Why are they wrong? Why aren't they just having a different taste than yours when it comes to things to believe in?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I was surprised he put that out there. It seems to defeat his argument for moral absolutes.

If the gods do not set the standard...who or what does?

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5265070)
Frank:
"But if you are correct there, JL (and of course, you do not really know if you are or not)....but if you are correct......that would be the objective truth."

JL" Yes, you've got half of it. The other half is that that's how it appears to you (and to me: for us its an intersubjective fact).

You might be right about THAT, JL (of course we really do not know if you are or not)...but if you are correct that "the other half is that that's how it appears to you (and to me: for us its an intersubjective fact)"...

...then THAT is the objective truth.

Not trying to be a wise-ass here, JL...truly. But the path you are on is a circle.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I think you are missing the whole point of having a "source of all morality". If God is the source of all morality, then whatever he says is moral is moral by definition.

But he isn't. That's my point. I don't know what the term "source of all morality" even means, just as I wouldn't know what the term "source of all reality" means. If I can nevertheless believe in an absolute reality, I don't see why I can believe in an absolute morality --- which I am possibly wrong about, but that's another matter.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

The key phrase in my argument is "objectively testable".

Science is based on things that are objectively testable.

The Bible, or any other system of "absolute" morality is not based on things that are objectively testable.

Once something is objectively testable, whether individual people choose to accept it or not irrelevant. But for things that aren't objectively testable, there is no measurable difference between having the right answer and the wrong answer.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well, i've asked him that. We'll see whether or not he answers. The attitudes of the Greeks toward the gods were many and complex. I don't know, however, that they expected morality from them. For the Norse, i'd say that a concept of morality had no meaning for them beyond the limits of community. Within your community, you knew what was expected of you and what was permitted, and you knew you transgressed at your peril. That doesn't mean that no one transgressed, only that to do so they must either be very powerful, or willing to accept outlawry.

0 Replies

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know