A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Max, I've spent a lot of space on defending my position. Now let me ask you a question about yours: Do you ever say to other people, "you ought to do X", or words to this effect? If you do, what do you mean by that? If somebody ought to do X and does, then what? If somebody ought to do X and does not, then what? What does the sentence "you ought to do X" mean in concrete terms?

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Science is based on things that are objectively testable.

Only in your personal definition of "science". Theology, for example, has been an established science for thousands of years. And yet for the most part, it deals in things that are not objectively testable.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

That's a fair question.

I have a strong personal sense of morality (just as you do), and it is mostly in line with the society in which I live (just as yours is).

When I say "you shouldn't rape", I mean that rape is inacceptable to my personal sense of morality, and not accepted by society and that I won't support it (or permit it if I have the power).

I will use my personal sense of my morality (which I don't believe is universal) the same way that you would use your sense of morality (which presumably you think it universal).

The fact that I accept that my morality isn't a unversal truth doesn't change anything.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

Only in your personal definition of "science".

Do you have a different definition of science?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

What leads you to describe theology as a science? That was one of the more hilarious things i've read today.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: Thomas (Post 5265170)
Quote:
Only in your personal definition of "science".

Do you have a different definition of science?

Considering that Thomas apparently considers "Theology" to be a science...do you even have to ask that question of him?

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

When I say "you shouldn't rape", I mean that rape is inacceptable to my personal sense of morality, and not accepted by society and that I won't support it (or permit it if I have the power).

Do you expect that the person to whom you say it will care about your personal sense of morality, maybe even change his behavior because of it? Suppose he replies "But I'm personally pro-rape!" Would you really consider that no more than a difference in personal taste, just as some people like hip hop and some can't stand it? What would be the point in informing a pro-rape person about your personal distaste for it? Why should he care?

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..

But, as you've pointed out, science and morality are entirely different. So I will ask again: if they're so different, why do you insist on subjecting morality to scientific standards of proof?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't think that universal agreement is a necessary condition for morality.

Sure you do. Your entire argument against the existence of morality is that no moral code enjoys universal agreement. If you don't believe that universal agreement is a necessary condition for morality, why would you make that argument?

Setanta wrote:

If you assert that there is an absolute morality, what is the source, the authority for that absolute morality?

Human reason.

Setanta wrote:

How do you know that to be true?

See above.

Setanta wrote:

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.

And I would expect no less, given your definition of morality.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Joe, Joe, Joe . . . where would you be without the straw man? I don't argue against morality, i argue against the concept of an absolute, objective morality. You didn't bother to read the article i linked from Stanford, huh? I can accept that there is morality, i just don't see any evidence that it is absolute and objective. My position is not that there is no morality, just that all morality is subjective. It's tedious to have you constantly attempting to tell me what i think, the more so as you are so consistently wrong.

Human reason is the source for absolute morality? How then, do you account for the obvious disagreement among humans about in what morality consists? Doesn't sound very absolute to me. If it were, i think it reasonable to expect that there would be universal agreement among humans. As there clearly is not, i say that morality is subjective, and deny that it is absolute.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

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

Sure you can. It's really quite easy.

Berty McJock wrote:

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.

I'm not in a position to say which is right and which is wrong. I've disclosed many times on this forum that I find Rawls's "original position" argument very persuasive, but I'd like to think that I remain relatively open-minded on the topic. But then I'm not saying that one particular version of morality is the best, only that, if there is such a thing as "morality," then there must be an objective morality. That's because a subjective morality is logically incoherent.

It doesn't follow, then, that disagreement over morality means there's no such thing as morality. That argument presupposes that morality is subjective -- which, as I mentioned, is a logically incoherent position to take. I don't need to be an advocate of one particular brand of morality in order to be quite certain that, whatever brand of objective morality one might favor, it is logically more defensible than any version of subjective or relative morality.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

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.

Yeah, god was a real bastard in the old testament. He lightened up considerably after his no-account hippie son got into trouble with the law.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't argue against morality, i argue against the concept of an absolute, objective morality.

And thus you prove my point.

Setanta wrote:

You didn't bother to read the article i linked from Stanford, huh?

Sorry, I didn't. Not that I feel the need to read it -- after all, I'm not the one who is the skeptic here. But I do have a job, and occasionally I'm expected to do some work, so I can only devote so much time to pointless internet arguments. That, by the way, is why I post in short bursts. If I don't respond immediately to you, I hope you'll take that into account.

Setanta wrote:

I can accept that there is morality, i just don't see any evidence that it is absolute and objective. My position is not that there is no morality, just that all morality is subjective. It's tedious to have you constantly attempting to tell me what i think, the more so as you are so consistently wrong.

If you think morality is subjective, then you don't believe in morality. You believe in something else -- arbitrariness, most likely.

No, don't bother linking to the Stanford article again. Although, if you have the time, you might want to look up argumentum ad verecundiam.

Setanta wrote:

Human reason is the source for absolute morality? How then, do you account for the obvious disagreement among humans about in what morality consists?

Human error.

Setanta wrote:

Doesn't sound very absolute to me. If it were, i think it reasonable to expect that there would be universal agreement among humans.

And you would be wrong.

Setanta wrote:

As there clearly is not, i say that morality is subjective, and deny that it is absolute.

Well, I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it!

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

whatever brand of objective morality one might favor

thus rendering that particular objective morality subjective.

but i really am trying to avoid this as i think, as i have said, that everything is subjective, including morallity, and it is therefore not absolute, and cannot be in any shape or form.

1 Reply

Apparently Joe, you expect me to accept you as an authority, and then chide me for arguing from the authority of the philosophy mavens at Stanford. I don't mean to wound your sensitive nature, but given you as a source for a definition and given the mavens of Stanford as the source for a definition, i'm going to go with the Stanford mavens. That you don't agree with them is not evidence that they are wrong. (Again, i don't mean to wound you in your self love.)

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Quote:

That's because a subjective morality is logically incoherent.

i don't understand.
if subjective morality is incoherent, then all morality must be objective and therefore contradictory. we can't all be right.

2 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

Quote:
Re: joefromchicago (Post 5265193)
Quote:
whatever brand of objective morality one might favor

thus rendering that particular objective morality subjective.

but i really am trying to avoid this as i think, as i have said, that everything is subjective, including morallity, and it is therefore not absolute, and cannot be in any shape or form.

Well, as I've said a couple of times here, I can't even conceive of a moral absolute…so I certainly agree with you that morality is not absolute.

But I do take issue with the notion that “everything is subjective.”

IF “everything” were subjective…then the objective reality would be that everything is subjective.

We’ve discussed that paradox in several threads. I would aver that REALITY is objective; what IS…IS.

And, in my opinion, morality is one of those things that is not objective, but rather is subjective.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Yeah, god was a real bastard in the old testament. He lightened up considerably after his no-account hippie son got into trouble with the law.

As they say: A liberal is a conservative who got arrested --- or in this case, whose son got arrested.

0 Replies

Quote:

If Absolute Morality is just about everyone doing their hardest to prove that their views are the Universal views, and no one changes their views to conform with Universal morality...

... then what is the point?

We wouldn't have anything to fight about?

If we assume the Moral Absolutes came from a creator, that begs the question: Where does free will come from? Why would the creator have absolute morals and then create a creature that can violate them?

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Berty McJock wrote:

Quote:
That's because a subjective morality is logically incoherent.

i don't understand.
if subjective morality is incoherent, then all morality must be objective and therefore contradictory. we can't all be right.

This is not to speak for Joe, but the argument is that subjective morality is logically incoherent, i.e it's not logical.

Not everything that is called moral is actually moral.

If two things that are called moral contradict each other then one or the other isn't really moral.

0 Replies

A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know