A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Quite the antithesis. If I wanted you to accept me as an authority, I wouldn't bother responding to any of your arguments. I'd just say "take my word for it." On the other hand, when you cite the Stanford encyclopedia to me, you are saying, in effect, "take Stanford's word for it."


Nor is it evidence that I'm wrong. It's just not evidence at all.

Why must objective morality be contradictory?

Have fun, Joe, playing your word games. I've made my point, i don't care whether or not you agree with me, and i've better things to do.

I think what you are getting at is the difficulty in "stepping outside" of yourself to reflect objectively upon your conception of morality.

This is "objective" conception is at the heart (I think) of much of the debate surrounding objective/relative morality.

Relativists maintain that "stepping outside" of yourself (your person, your culture, your society) is fully impossible and therefore meaningless.

Moral realists can take one of two positions:

Pre-Enlightenment
The absolute morality has some outside correlation to "something else" (God/the good of the species/the teachings of a certain person).
-or-
Enlightenment
There exists a moral reality, but we can never be "sure" of it. We can try our best to look at things objectively and this is the proper goal. It is impossible to be entirely objective (pragmatically) but the goal is the important part. The striving for moral truth.
This was (from my understanding) the original enlightenment position. That is the position prior to cultural relativism.

Cultural Relativism ("I'm ok, you're ok, we're all ok.") fad of the modern era.
We can't be objective, so there no such thing as morality.
This is the deconstruction of morality.
I think this fad is patently ridiculous. There are things in cultures that are quite rightly NOT OK. It is an act of intellectual and moral cowardice to make excuses for it.

Take ball; go home.

You are exactly backwards on that.

Moral Absolutists always believe that their moral values are Universal. And conveniently, the Universal Moral values they believe in almost always work fine in the context of the society they are living in (except in rare cases like Ted Kaczynski).

To understand that different societies have different moral standards requires you to reflect objectively and step out of your own cultural context.

You can be a moral absolutist without even acknowledging other cultures exist.

Play stupid word game, declare self winner.

I was talking to Thomas, and you inserted yourself into the conversation. Nothing other than a misguided sense of civility lead me to engage in your typical rhetorical game.

At this point I still disagree with you on that.

Really Ted Kaczinki is your anecdotal evidence?

My anecdotal evidence:
Thankfully there are also those who transcend (rather than violate) their social mores.
Just taking some classic examples off the top of my head:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_David_Thoreau

My peer-reviewed scientific evidence:
Have you heard of pre-convential, conventional, and post-conventional morality?
This is a psychological theory developed on more than just anecdotal evidence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

I totally agree. There are two ways that one could be a moral absolutist. (see the comment you responded to)

I put those two positions in terms of "enlightenment" or "pre-enlightenment".
We could also look at it in the more scientific Kohlberg model as:

vs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cultural relativism is actually this:

I find it hilarious that you list that old phony Thoreau among your examples. Thoreau was added to the Concord tax rolls in 1840 (well before the Mexican War, despite his subsequent protestations of moral virtue with regard to that war). He refused to pay the church tax, and was threatened with jail, but someone else paid the tax. In 1846, he was arrested for having failed to pay the poll tax, spent a night in jail, and then was released when, guess what, someone else paid the tax on his behalf (probably his aunt). He pulled that Walden Pond stunt on Emerson's land, and dined almost every night at Emerson's table. It's pretty easy to be principled when someone else is paying the bills.

Thanks for the history lesson Setanta.
Guess that shows the value of anecdotal evidence.
Any thoughts though on the content of the argument, rather than the obvious dismissal of anecdotal evidence?
How do you feel about Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, for example?

When i consent to being interrogated by anyone who takes a notion, you'll be among the first to know.

Pleasure as always Setanta.
I hope you will also keep me among the first to know if you find value in conversation rather than interrogation.

If i run across anyone in this thread, other than Thomas, who seems to be genuinely interested in conversing, i may be interested.

This is not your thread. You didn't start this thread. Even Max, who did start this thread, has no power to compel anyone to converse on the topics which interest him. How even less is your right to attempt to compel anyone to talk to you about the things that interest you.

1. The "Moral Relativism", as we are discussig here would acctually correspond to Kohlberg's stage five-- "social contract", you accept the moral values of the society that you are a part of for the purpose of a good life in your society, recognizing that other societies have different values.

2. Kohlberg's work is interesting, but it is not objectively testable, nor is it considered science. Kohlberg's ideas have been criticized by peers, but since they aren't objectively testable they remain untested.

4. Kohlberg contraducts the argument that you and Joe have been making. He considered each of these stages as perfectly fine bases for moral systems. He claims that there are societies that function (and are perfectly moral) where no one operates above stage 3.

5. Your use of the term "enlightened" to describe your personal point of view, as if defining a term bolsters your argument, is very clever.

No, you declared me the winner when you walked away. That's how forfeits work.


Alas, I fear I have wounded your sensitive nature.

Thank you Max for your careful, reasoned and civil response.
I would love to continue our conversation, but I would first like to make sure I am not hijacking your thread by bringing psychological evidence into the fray.

It's hilarious that you admit that you consider this is about winning and losing. I don't agree with your point of view, and i am contemptuous of your rhetorical method. If that's winning, you're welcome to it.

There are people in this thread who claim there are moral absolutes.


Of them I ask: Name one…and tell us how it became a moral absolute?

Please proceed governor...

Lol, thanks Max
I will get back to you, today is little busy (girlfriend's birthday).

By the by, I used the term "enlightenment" in reference to Renaissance philosophical thinking, my apologies if it also slipped in some unbiased connotations.