Absolute Morals?

[LiamOS]

Although this thread was inspired by seeing one of Winepusher's usergroups, all are free to express their opinion.

For debate:
Are there absolute morals? How do we know what these are? can you give examples?

[Goat]

Although this thread was inspired by seeing one of Winepusher's usergroups, all are free to express their opinion.

For debate:
Are there absolute morals? How do we know what these are? can you give examples?

If there were absolute morals, there would be no need to discuss morals, since they would be an absolute, and therefore unrecognized as something other than 'that is just the way things are'.

[WinePusher]

Although this thread was inspired by seeing one of Winepusher's usergroups, all are free to express their opinion.

For debate:
Are there absolute morals? How do we know what these are? can you give examples?

Argument For Absolute Morality
-Taken From One Of My Earlier Posts

1) Person A kills Person B
2) Person C witnesses this murder and condemns it as bad
3) Person A sees nothing wrong with murder and thinks it is good
Therefore:
4) If morality were purely subjective, we has human beings, could not distinguish between right and wrong.
5) Humans can distinguish between right and wrong
Therefore:
6) Morality is not pureply subjective or relative, but objective.

Explanation For Premise 4

I think we all would agree humans have a voice in their head that allows them to distinguish between right and wrong. I contend this conscience is God Given, as "good actions" (such as Charity, generousity and kindness) seem to follow Jesus' teachings, and no natural explanation can be provided for it.

Explanation For Premise 5

There is pretty much a consensus amoung the human race of good deeds and bad deeds. Charity, generousity, and kindness are good; stealing, murder, lying and cheating are bad. The explanation, IMO, for this uniformity is either that morality is indeed objective and prescribed by a moral law giver. You'll notice that the murderers and serial killers are generally psychopaths and lack a "conscience" such as Charles Manson.

[LiamOS]

4) If morality were purely subjective, we has human beings, could not distinguish between right and wrong.

This is not true; morality can be conditioned, and one can be taught what 'right' and 'wrong' are.

5) Humans can distinguish between right and wrong

But peoples' ideas of right and wrong differ not only culturally, but depending on their upbringing.

Also, if morality is "God given", then why does God leave some without? In fact, God doing this would almost certainly condemn that person to hell; an evil move on Gods part.

Finally, do you have an example of an objectively immoral or moral act?

[JoshB]

Isn't moral objectivism a sort of "is or is not" theory? If there is an ultimate truth out there, shouldn't it be naturally instilled in us?

Im just saying that different views on right and wrong should be proof enough that moral objectivism doesn't exists, since moral objectivism seems to be a "is or is not theory".

I think that if we rely on anything to find a "greater good", it must be majority opinion. What the majority holds to be right or wrong. And I mean worldwide majority. And I have some hunches as to what may be a "greater bad" (something majorly held to be wrong). Cold-blooded murder. Infanticide. Cannibalism. Though these are not held to be bad by 100% of the world, I think that the majority would agree they are bad.

...But then again, how can I speak for the world majority?!

And I do agree with Aki when he says moral perspectives rely on culture and upbringing.

[Slopeshoulder]

My undergrad minor was in applied ethics, and my grad degree concetration was in ethics.

So here's one man's brief take on it (in the West):

- the ancient hebrews said god revealed it, and in great detail, both to glorify god's plan and to ensure human flourishing.

- the greeks said we can discover it through reason (not sure they were for 'absolutes' though; I forget).

- Rome falls. Christians say god revealed it, and he tells us in both the bible and through our reason. This is called natural law.

- Medieval christianity falls, giving was to renaissance and enlightenment: back to reason.

- luther puts on the brakes and says back to bible; god revealed it.

- around 1600 through sometime in the 20th century, thinkers seek a universal foundation for ethics. This is called meta-ethics, or ethical theory, or the foundationalist project. Kant, Mill, McIntyre, many others. None work absolutely. None convince everyone, so they're not universal or absolute.

- the varieties of world culture make it harder to call ethics universal or absolute. Situationalism and Relativism take a crack at it. Postmodern suspicions regarding power make it even harder to nail down. Localized truth takes on meaning.

- a shift to pragmatism occurs: what do people actually do? what works?

- a shift to evolutionary psychology occurs: are we evolved to be ethical?

- convergence: multi-disciplinary alignment behind empathy as the foundation of ethics, or morality. Neo-natural law makes the claim that we universally recoil from the idea of setting a child on fire at random just for laughs. Whether god, civilization, or evolution put it there, it IS there and it represents a reliable foundation for a universal and sometimes absolute ethic.

Absolute? At the level that empathy is a shared attribute (aside from sociopaths): yes. But in application we rely upon mores, beliefs, political process, pursuasion, etc. to navigate situations. Life's messy, we live, learn, we debate, we listen, decide, and respect difference. And we celebrate convergence.

[JoeyKnothead]

My undergrad minor was in applied ethics, and my grad degree concetration was in ethics.

That don't mean nothing if you didn't gettem hahahahahaha.

Oh, please forgive a stoner.

Here's where we gotta pay attention and quit goofing around...

So here's one man's brief take on it (in the West):

- the ancient hebrews said god revealed it, and in great detail, both to glorify god's plan and to ensure human flourishing.

- the greeks said we can discover it through reason (not sure they were for 'absolutes' though; I forget).

- Rome falls. Christians say god revealed it, and he tells us in both the bible and through our reason. This is called natural law.

- Medieval christianity falls, giving was to renaissance and enlightenment: back to reason.

- luther puts on the brakes and says back to bible; god revealed it.

- around 1600 through sometime in the 20th century, thinkers seek a universal foundation for ethics. This is called meta-ethics, or ethical theory, or the foundationalist project. Kant, Mill, McIntyre, many others. None work absolutely. None convince everyone, so they're not universal or absolute.

- the varieties of world culture make it harder to call ethics universal or absolute. Situationalism and Relativism take a crack at it. Postmodern suspicions regarding power make it even harder to nail down. Localized truth takes on meaning.

- a shift to pragmatism occurs: what do people actually do? what works?

- a shift to evolutionary psychology occurs: are we evolved to be ethical?

- convergence: multi-disciplinary alignment behind empathy as the foundation of ethics, or morality. Neo-natural law makes the claim that we universally recoil from the idea of setting a child on fire at random just for laughs. Whether god, civilization, or evolution put it there, it IS there and it represents a reliable foundation for a universal and sometimes absolute ethic.

Absolute? At the level that empathy is a shared attribute (aside from sociopaths): yes. But in application we rely upon mores, beliefs, political process, pursuasion, etc. to navigate situations. Life's messy, we live, learn, we debate, we listen, decide, and respect difference. And we celebrate convergence.

I see this angle as "We are sentient, relatively compassionate, and obligated to 'sort it out'".

I have no objections to the philosophy.

[SailingCyclops]

For debate:
Are there absolute morals?

My answer is no. An action can be judged to be moral or immoral only based on the circumstances involved.

Here is an example:

Stealing for instance, can not be deemed to be absolutely immoral in all circumstances. Sometimes stealing is the moral thing to do.

When Hurricane Katrina trapped thousands of people without food and water, was it immoral for those trapped to steal food and water from abandoned stores? I say it was perfectly moral given the situation.

One can consider many situations where what would be immoral at one time, would be moral at other times. It all depends on the situation.

Bob

[Slopeshoulder]

For debate:
Are there absolute morals?

My answer is no. An action can be judged to be moral or immoral only based on the circumstances involved.

Here is an example:

Stealing for instance, can not be deemed to be absolutely immoral in all circumstances. Sometimes stealing is the moral thing to do.

When Hurricane Katrina trapped thousands of people without food and water, was it immoral for those trapped to steal food and water from abandoned stores? I say it was perfectly moral given the situation.

One can consider many situations where what would be immoral at one time, would be moral at other times. It all depends on the situation.

Bob

I agree with your example, and incline toward yout POV. But this presents us with a few challenges:
- is there a general articluable principle that covers when moral prescriptions are to be overuled?
- are there other acts that are not absolutely proscribed, e.g. rape, regardless of situation? If a nation, tribe, family or DNA strand needed procreation to survice and women refused, is is morally acceptable to impregnate them forcibly? My conscience recoils at that.
But how, philosophically, does rape differ from stealing regarding situtional context? How do we justify stealing but not rape? How to we protect against rape absolutely without denying Jean Valjean (and the children of New Orleans) a loaf of bread?

[LiamOS]

Although most of us recoil at the thought of rape(I hope...), I'm almost certain that it is justifiable in some circumstances.

For my sake and everyone else's, I'll not go there, and would urge you not to to.