proving absolute morals exist...

Curious3141

Moral absolutism is a given if the existence of an absolute moral authority is presupposed. Most commonly, that authority is 'god'. God defines certain actions as immoral, the rest are OK. Just don't indulge in the former, and you'll be assured of a comfortable, climate controlled dwelling in the eternal hereafter.

Of course there could be argument about the exact nature of those actions that would fall under the 'immoral' category. But that's a problem of lucidity of the written versions of divine law. Often, the bible, the koran, etc. are internally inconsistent, simultaneously sanctioning and condemning a particular action. While this is a problem, it is possible to assume that there is in fact a 'correct' interpretation of absolute moral divine law (the one that god would have wanted us to follow), and these accounts written by man are merely imperfect representations thereof. (It's a bit more of a problem for the koran since muslims believe that the koran is the inerrant literal word of their god).

Without an absolute moral law giver, there can be no moral absolutism. We are left with moral relativism, which is an eminently human construct.

BTW, I believe nothing to be more dangerous than moral absolutism (and in fact, fundamentalist religion is a very dangerous thing). Thank god for moral relativism.

JonahHex

The Hebrews have been released from bondage in Egypt. God leads them to the Promised Land. They find there are a whole bunch of other people already there. God tells them to drive these people out, using whatever force is required. When war is required, He goes so far as to cause the sun to stand still in the sky so the Hebrews are better able to kill them.

Discuss God's morality. Did He advise the current residents to leave? When they first arrived and found the place empty, did He notify them that they were trespassing? He was capable of hardening and softening Pharoh's heart. Was He not also capable of creating a desire in the trespassers to leave rather than fight? If so, why did He chose killing them over this alternative? Presumably Hebrews also died in the war to reclaim the land. What do you think of bringing your "chosen people" to the "promised land" and allowing them to die before they get it? What is your opinion of parents who require their children to fight to the death in order to get the presents that are under the Christmas tree?

While it was true that the trespassers worshipped false gods, were they aware of this? God had interacted with the Hebrews for centuries. When the Hebrews broke God's laws they were punished. Had God given the idoliters any notification of His wishes or the errors of their ways? Or was their punishment just "out of the blue?"

Was God following a credo of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Dawguard

This isn't a discussion about specific religions, and I do not intend to argue for one religion over the other. My opinion has always remained simple, that moral relativism logicaly leads to the belief that each person can create their own moral code, thereby nullifying itself. It is inherently self-denying and thus cannot be true.
This leads to the logical conclusion that one of two things must be true; either morals do not exist or they are absolute. Neither one can be proved and this alone is that which results in moral relativism. It is nothing more then the response to the unprovability of morals themselves.

selfAdjoint

Welcome to the discussion Dawguard. Could you outline for us in what way the proposition that everyone can make up their own moral code nullifies itself? I can see how it might nullify the concept of morality, but that is not quite the same thing.

But for example we could state: "It is observed that each human being interprets whatever moral code they have received individually." Does this destroy morality?

WarrenPlatts

You are bewitched by your language. If morals exist, what are they like, and where do they exist? Do they have beginnings and ends, or are they eternal? Morals certainly are not physical objects--they can't be seen or detected with scientific instruments. So if they are not in this universe, do they exist in some Platonic realm of the Forms? If so, how can we ever hope to learn anything about them?

There is a third option: moral realism. Moral claims are either true or false. We learn the definitions of right and wrong ostensively from our mothers; this provides an empirical foundation for ethics that is consistent with physicalism. In this way, the useless ontological quagmire of what morals actually are is entirely avoided.

Dmstifik8ion

Do you mean before, during or after birth. How does this explain the mother who comes to witness her sons extinction on death row upon being convicted of rape/murder? I can only guess that she would gladly take his place for believing that morals are hereditary.
Morality is a matter of life and death, not only for individuals but for civilization as well. Important stuff deserves important consideration.

WarrenPlatts

Dmstifik8ion, your writing style baffles me. By "Do you mean before, during or after birth[?]" I assume you are referring to learning about right and wrong ostensively at a young age--in which case the learning would take place after birth.

"How does this explain the mother who comes to witness her sons extinction on death row upon being convicted of rape/murder?" I guess you mean here that the son would not be on death row if the mother had properly taught her son the difference between right and wrong. In which case there are at least three explanations: (1) she did not properly teach her son causing her son to grow up a moral cripple; (2) she did properly teach her son, but he suffers from some sort of neurological problems; (3) she did properly teach her son, but for whatever sociological or personal reasons the son chose to do evil. What's the relevance, though? The mere fact that some people are evil does not eliminate the difference between right and wrong.

By this mystifying sentence, "I can only guess that she would gladly take his place for believing that morals are hereditary" I can only assume you misunderstood me when I wrote "learned ostensively". I should have been more clear. An ostensive definition is where one learns how a word is used by showing, rather than through other words. If you want to learn what 'yellow' means, you have to have someone show you. Same with the earliest development of morality within a child. Ostensive definitions have nothing to do directly with genetic heredity.

Then this statement, "Important stuff deserves important consideration" --which is rather ironic in a thread consisting of 56 sound bites--I assume you are implying that I have not given due consideration to this "stuff". This is a false accusation, however, as you can see for yourself if you also care about morality:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98081

Dmstifik8ion

My apologies for my thinking out loud without providing context writing style. What seems perfectly clear to me is evidently confusing to you. I share with you in this dilemma as I have difficulty myself with your writing style; (this is not meant as a criticism of your style, just an explanation). Please consider all responses as an attempt to arrive at understanding and truth rather than a pointed refutation of your position.

There is a third option: moral realism. Moral claims (as opposed to moral absolutes which are necessarily true) are either true or false. We learn the definitions of (I would change this to for since definitions as given are not necessarily accurate) right and wrong ostensively from our mothers; this provides an empirical foundation for ethics that is consistent with physicalism. In this way, the useless ontological quagmire of what morals actually are is entirely avoided.

Perhaps the confusion can be deciphered by an understanding of my method (or madness if you prefer). I do not attempt to drag reality out of a quagmire of false premises and fuzzy (if not faulty) logic. Also confusion can arise out of an inability to distinguish whether a statement is of ones position or to refute another’s. Sometimes (and it seems to me more often that not) we need to start with a clean slate and define, or at lest reaffirm, the basics.
Once these are established we are in a position where ironing out the details becomes possible. If we can not agree at least on the basics then further exploits quickly degenerate in incoherence.

I am providing the following because this is the best I have to offer for the moment. I hope it is a little better slop than the slop I left you with last time.

Morality first arises as the availability of a choice and the means to choose becomes a reality. Next a basis for making the best possible choice must be established.
Morality has as least two primary interrelated and coexisting paradigms; personal and interpersonal morality.

On a personal level it involves the reasoning that leads to making the best possible choice in the face of an alternative; the most primary alternative of all and obviously the most important, life and death but beyond this the ultimately achievable quality of life.

Interpersonal morality has two main derivative but related branches; relationships between two individuals and the relationship between different individuals in a group; this group might be an association or society, humanity, as a whole.

When morality involves more than one person, agreement upon the rules is essential to the success of a moral code and the resulting success in the case of humanity of civilization. It would be ideal if everyone could agree on such a moral code. Up until this moment in history unanimous agreement seems unlikely if not impossible so a more reasonable goal might be to have as wide ranging an agreement as possible with no more restrictions placed upon individuals or groups than is absolutely necessary. In this framework where it becomes necessary to enforce certain moral precepts upon those for whom agreement is not appreciated for its inherent value, the more people who appreciate the justification for a given moral precept, the more people will stand behind it and the easier and less costly in terms of human suffering it will be to enforce.

No moral precept should limit individual freedom beyond an absolute necessity and tolerance should be viewed as a benefit to us all in respect to enjoying our individual freedoms.

This brings us to a point where it becomes essential to define what is and what constitutes an absolute necessity. Life stands out as an obvious precondition for, let alone an absolute standard for establishing morality. Choice quickly follows as an obvious precondition since without choice there would be no need for or the ways and means to determine what those standards are.

russ_watters

I realize I haven't participated in this thread, but this caught my eye: True, but irrelevant, because... Not true. There are absolute physical laws of the universe as well (gravity) - does that require that there is a law-giver for physics? Certainly not. Well, consider this: one of my best friends is an athiest and a moral absolutist. He recognizes the logic in, for example, the fact that murder is detrimental to society and is thus morally wrong. If it is religion that you are afraid of, then you are making a logical leap that is not necessary. If you set aside your preconception of religious implications and consider the morality on its logical and functional basis alone, you may find that you will agree that absolute morality works through logic alone. That is what happened in these seminars I went to in college, that I've discussed in other threads: most people start with a knee-jerk rejection of moral absolutism because they don't like the religious (and know-it-all-ist) implications of it. But the seminars force them to examine moral absolutism absent of any religious context and as a result, most eventually conclude that moral absolutism works and moral relativism is self-contradictory and fatally flawed.

russ_watters

I think that's probably what Dawguard was going for. Either way, that is what I have argued in the past: if morality is truly relative, then there is no basis for any person to tell any other person that what they are doing is wrong. The basis for societal laws (not to mention international relations) goes out the window - the US Constituiton is not just a contract, it is also based on "self-evident truths": moral absolutes. The founding fathers recognized that moral relativity -> anarchy. If we live in a moral relativistic society, then this society is a house of cards, ready to collapse the moment a person asserts individual relative morality as a justification for a crime in court. The closest we've come, however, is people arguing for religous free exercise as a justification for crimes (ironic, since it's a religious justification for relative morality...). Such arguments always fail because it is a fundamental component of our Constitution that the moral code on which it is based trumps even individual religious freedom.

WarrenPlatts

Actually, the reference to self-evidence comes from the Declaration of Independence--not the Constitution. And the truth it refers to is that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Yet judging by your sardonic comments regarding believers, you yourself must not believe that 'rights are God-given' to be self-evident.

So just what do you mean by "self-evident moral absolutes"?

Perhaps you think that moral absolutes are analytically self-evident, but surely not in the sense of 'bachelors are unmarried males'. We wouldn't want moral absolutes to rest on definitional fiat. The other possibility is that moral absolutes are self-evident in the same sense that '2 + 2 = 4' or '~(p & ~p)' are self-evident. But in that case, how can moral absolutes have anything concrete to say about the real world of blood, sweat, and tears that we humans live in?

So maybe moral absolutes are empirically self-evident--sort of like how 'it is raining' or perhaps 'if you've ever been mistreated then you know just what I'm talking about' are self-evident. When people are on the receiving end of mistreatment, it's pretty self-evident to them. Indeed, the vast majority of the Declaration is a long list of grievances against the King of England, suggesting this is the kind of self-evidence that the Founding Fathers had in mind. Yet, I sense that you would not be satisfied with an empirical account of moral "absolutes". After all, it is sunny at my location as I write this, but why deify this fact by calling it an "Absolute"? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You all keep referring to "Moral Absolutes", yet none of you has yet said what a "Moral Absolute" actually IS.

BTW it is unconstitutional to make the free exersize of religion a crime (1st Amendment).

WarrenPlatts

OK, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what a Moral Absolute actually IS. . . . Probably will have to wait forever. . . .

Dawguard

It is impossible to say, "here is a moral, and it is absolute." The truth of the matter is that morals must be believed, and never proved. While this seems to contradict most people's logical inclanation we must also consider the opposite. To not believe in morals simply becuase they cannot be proven will result in catastrophe. Do you want an entire society thinking anything is OK so long as they get away with it? I know that this directly opposite the common idea that we should believe what we know and no more; but sometimes something has to be believed in even though it might not exist and can never be proven. Morals are one of these things, and whether you say they came from God, Karma, or ourselves, the most essential thing is that we agree they are real. Moral relativism erodes this belief, for reasons I have stated elswhere, and therefore I am forced to hold with absolutism.

selfAdjoint

Dawguard, I couldn't agree more with your sensible post. Let me add a couple of additional points:

• Morals are a society phenomena, not primarily an individual one
• Morals vary over a society, with partisans, opponents, and a more tepid center
• Morals are always in flux, over a decade major changes can be seen

To illustrate these points consider divorce, abortion, and gay marriage. A century ago the great majority of Americans would have agreed that all three were unthinkably immoral. Fifty years ago divorce was accepted (gingerly) but abortion and gay marriage remained beyond the pale. Today the situation is as we all know: abortion is bitterly controversial but accepted (gingerly) as a fact by a majority, while the majority still is very disapproving of gay marriage. I cite these examples not to suggest a trend or predict the future, but just to show that deeply felt moral values can change over time.

Dmstifik8ion

The problem with moral absolutes is that once discovered and defined most people fear being confined to practicing them. Funny thing about this is that we suffer the benefits of following them and the consequences of not following them whether we define them or not. In a very real and inescapable way one is responsible for the consequences of ones actions, (a moral absolute), again, whether they choose to acknowledge this or not. One real benefit of defining and proving moral absolutes is that it demonstrates the justification for defending and protecting individual rights and freedoms in a court of reason.

arildno

And a follow-up in the other direction so that it becomes clear that there isn't just a trend in terms of "loosening of morals":
1. Corporal punishment of kids
This was considered both effective and morally acceptable (within proper limits).
It was seen as essential that children were corrected, so that they did not become spoiled and/or "soft".

2. Slapping your wife at times if she was a nag or pest

WarrenPlatts

OK, so you're making a little progress. As far as I can tell, you all are saying that a moral is a sentence, containing a moral predicate like good or evil or right or wrong. You believe that such sentences have a truth-value, but such sentences are not provable at least in the logical sense of proof. Moreover, the truth-values of such sentences are subject to change over time, am I right? If I understand you correctly, then, why add the qualification 'absolute' to your definition of morals as sentences? What further use does 'absolute' serve? In other words, how does your version of moral absolutism differ from the more ordinary moral realism of Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, for example?