proving absolute morals exist...

LionShare

JoeDawg, I'm trying to clarify his one liner statement. If he answers "No, it is not wrong" then I'm clear on the view and can continue with the argument. So just let it go. I'm not trying to use any tricks here. He didn't seem to have an issues with it.

Moving Finger, the scenario is a hypothetical event. How we got there, doesn't really matter to the question at hand. But if you need to know, It could be in the future. We could be those green aliens you spoke of and not "people". IT DOES NOT MATTER for the issue at hand! It's a hypothetical I'm using to make sure I'm clear on your position "all morality is subjective"

I have never posted anything anywhere aside from technical questions, I'm starting question why I even began.


Lionshare

JoeDawg

Or you could just admit it was a bad question, instead of backpedaling and blaming me.

moving finger

Of course its hypothetical - I understand that. Am I questioning how we got there? And no , I don't need to know - why do you think it matters?

Let's try and assess the very general case - to make any kind of judgement of right or wrong, one must first have a set of values - one agent's values will not necessarily be the same as another agent's values - therefore the judgement of right or wrong is subjective, based on the agent's values. If it is subjective, it cannot be absolute.

ripcurl1016

morality exists along with mathematical truth, beauty, and the good in the platonic mathematical "world of forms" as Plato would put...

LionShare

Moving Finger, what if the values had to be same! Would morality be objective then?

LionShare

.. So, moving finger.. my question still stands! That being, What if the values had to be same! Would morality be objective then?

moving finger

I don't understand the question.
Do you mean the values of right and wrong should be the same - thus the only way to decide on what is right and what is wrong would be to toss a coin?

Or do you mean that everyone's values should be the same as everyone elses - thus everyone would have the same idea of what is right and what is wrong. But why would this arise in practice? (and we are not just talking about the values of all humans, but the values of all agents in the universe). In such an extreme case (an hypothetical universe where every agent's values were identical with every other agent's values) then one could argue that morality is the same for everyone. But that is not the same as saying it is objective, because it might happen that tomorrow in that universe an agent is born with a different set of values - in which case morality would no longer be the same for everyone.

There is a subtle difference between an objective morality on the one hand (one which is truly independent of all perspectives), and a uniform morality on the other by virtue of the fact that everyone has the same perspective.

LionShare

it almost seems like we should include all agents in the universe. But there is a reason we don't. For example, we don't consider it immoral when a lion eats a gazelle. Why is that the case? It could be subjective as you say. But lets suppose, for a minute, that you agree that morality is objective. Just for one moment. Why would a person that holds morality is objective, consider it perfectly moral for an animal to kill another animal and immoral for a person to kill another person? It may be difficult for you, since you do not hold that view, but ponder it for some time and see if you come up with anything.

This is the key. The answer to the riddle. At least in my view. I struggled with that question for a long time, until I ran into the answer. Can't claim it as original since it wasn't mine. It's like individual rights? Are they an actual "rights"? Or is it something we more or less agree upon, but is not objective and therefore not actual "rights".

Lionshare

moving finger

Because the killing of one of your own species is in a different category to the killing of another species (especially if the latter is killed for food).

LionShare

There are a number of species that kill their own for any given number of reasons. Plenty of species kill their young when they are born, or at least try to. That has nothing to do with feeding purposes. We don't consider those practices immoral.

On the other hand, one human killing another (even for food) is considered immoral. The question is, What does one use to judge? How did we get to the idea that a human killing another is immoral? We could have done it arbitrarily. Maybe even through some trial and error system that ends up with what is most acceptable to any given population. It seems clear to me that the "immoral" label has been attached to many things using such systems.

Does this, however; eliminate the possibility that some things are moraly objective? What about our individual rights? Those seem to overlap with the issue of morality. If I have a "right" to life, then you can't violate my "rights" by killing me. Are individual rights, objective "rights"? Or just a general concensus of what our "rights" should be?

Both systems use the same standard. A standard which is the same for all and objective. Which therefore leads to objective morality. Morality is object, we just need to understand how it is so. To discover it. Similar to how any existence who understands the concepts of "1", "2" and "addition", will always end up with 1+1=2! This standard sets a framework! A framework that can be used (through reasoning) to devise our individual rights and morality.

Lionshare