Can morals exist independently of the minds of moral agents?

[blowfly]

If morals do not exist independently of the minds of moral agents, then morals are relative to the moral agent by definition.

If morals DO exist independently of the minds of moral agents, then that begs the following questions:

* Ontology: in what fashion do they exist? In space? In an abstract realm? What constitues them? What structure do they have?

* Causality: how do they interact with our minds and influence our actions? What connection to they have with our neural network (presumably starting with the brain)?

In my experience, it becomes awfully tricky and difficult very quickly to defend the notion of morals existing independently of the minds of moral agents. Yet the only alternative to this is (descriptive) moral relativism.

Cheers,
-the independent blowfly

[James]

If morals do not exist independently of the minds of moral agents, then morals are relative to the moral agent by definition.

In my experience, it becomes awfully tricky and difficult very quickly to defend the notion of morals existing independently of the minds of moral agents. Yet the only alternative to this is (descriptive) moral relativism.

Cheers,
-the independent blowfly

Can you explain why you think it's "tricky and difficult" to defend absolute morality?

James.

[Ncik666]

any morale we have is determined by the society you live in, and your personal opinion thrown in there for good measure.
Ex/ Close to every society believes it is bad to kill people (at the very least of their own race).
Ex/ I believe that while killing people is generally wrong, violent criminals should have the death penalty.
It's all in peoples mind. If someone has different values however it doesn't excuse them from societys values. For instance if I went on a vigilante mission to kill violent criminals I am still subject to societys values of not killing people until a neutral body (courts) decide.

[Fisherking]

any morale we have is determined by the society you live in, and your personal opinion thrown in there for good measure.
Ex/ Close to every society believes it is bad to kill people (at the very least of their own race).
Ex/ I believe that while killing people is generally wrong, violent criminals should have the death penalty.
It's all in peoples mind. If someone has different values however it doesn't excuse them from societys values. For instance if I went on a vigilante mission to kill violent criminals I am still subject to societys values of not killing people until a neutral body (courts) decide.

... and where did society get its morals from?

[Ncik666]

In all probability morals came an evolutionary predisposition. For instance, to kill someone else while it may help your own genetic heritage it doesn't help the society as a whole and it certainly doesn't help the group or society that you live in, less people is more easily preyed upon. For instance you don't usually see primates in social groups offhandedly killing each other. There is always a provocation.

[Fisherking]

In all probability morals came an evolutionary predisposition. For instance, to kill someone else while it may help your own genetic heritage it doesn't help the society as a whole and it certainly doesn't help the group or society that you live in, less people is more easily preyed upon. For instance you don't usually see primates in social groups offhandedly killing each other. There is always a provocation.

You don't see primates volunteering for the navy either.

"Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys....
The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts."C.S. Lewis

I believe morals exist independently of the minds of moral agents.
As C.S. Lewis said, "We cannot see light, but by light we can see things".

[Confused]

Because morals are relative to the society in which they are being evaluated, I fail to see the need for the overall hall monitors. I would have to consider the fact that each society has overriding morals that are distinctly different than other societies, proof that morals are independent. Now if we are regarding the individual society as the moral agent, then I might have to revise this thought.

[WelshBoy]

As C.S. Lewis said, "We cannot see light, but by light we can see things".

Well C.S. Lewis was wrong - ALL we can see is light, the light reflected from objects.

[Confused]

As C.S. Lewis said, "We cannot see light, but by light we can see things".

Well C.S. Lewis was wrong - ALL we can see is light, the light reflected from objects.

Are you implying my strawberry and banana smoothie (light of course, ) is really only a reflection of light? No wonder it doesn't fill me up. I think I will have to modify this for my own brain and say that we can see light and we can see objects, but without light, we cannot see objects. (I know, I am to simple minded for my own good, perhaps re-education is my only hope ).

[WelshBoy]

Heh, no problem Michelle, I was perhaps being too pedantic here and opening a pandora's box.

Our eyes detect light; the cells in our eyes respond to photons hitting them. Those photons have a source, say the sun or a light bulb, from which they spread out in every direction and then bounce off objects in every direction, some of which head into our eyes. The reason something red looks red is because all of the other colours of light are absorbed by that object, apart from the wavelengths of light which are red. Black objects absorb all of the coloured light, and white objects reflect all of it. So we are actually SEEING the reflected light, not the object itself. Our brains decipher the strength of light, the shadows, the colour and so we work out the shape of the object that way.


Here endeth the lesson.