- #1
kaleidoscope
- 66
- 0
If so, how did they become absolute to all mankind across cultures and terriotories?
No, there are no absolute moral values for all mankind.kaleidoscope said:If so, how did they become absolute to all mankind across cultures and terriotories?
I didn't say that absolute truth doesn't exist, just that absolute moral values don't. The absolute truth is that moral values aren't absolute -- at least not insofar as they're viewed as moral values, ie., as emergent, scale specific, phenomena.G037H3 said:" If absolute truth does not exist, the claim "Absolute truth does not exist" is not absolutely true either.
As the above sentence - in its entirety, so all that is italicized - must be true, it forms the proof of the existence of absolute truth."
umad?
kaleidoscope said:If so, how did they become absolute to all mankind across cultures and terriotories?
Is our behavior in any way absolute? Morality is an emergent phenomenon associated with human behavior, and moral values are variable. As you note, the behavior of many living species is nonmoral.wuliheron said:Obviously we do not eat our newborn babies as some species do and if there ever was a culture that did so they went extinct. So yes, we do have innate absolute morals of some sort and for some of these the punishment for disobedience is extinction. The ability for any animal with a brain to discern what is useful and useless to them is also evidently innate and this includes not least of all for social animals such as ourselves the ability to discern what is and isn't acceptable behavior.
The belief that morality is solely a human phenomenon is an archaic idea promoted by religions that insist only humans have souls, consciousness, and free will. Animals are quite capable of creating their own moralities and enforcing them as well as displaying such things as kindness and sympathy. Likewise these moralities can be variable.ThomasT said:Is our behavior in any way absolute? Morality is an emergent phenomenon associated with human behavior, and moral values are variable. As you note, the behavior of many living species is nonmoral.
Siv said:There are some universal morals, as in an innate sense of right and wrong, common to most humans, primates and mammals. These are evolutionary.
kaleidoscope said:yeah, i think there are universal morals after all. now, wouldn't evolution make them relative? i mean, had we evolved differently, wouldn't it be likely we would have another set of "universal" morals?
{Emphasis mine}The fact that they help gene-propogation.kaleidoscope said:yeah, i think there are universal morals after all. now, wouldn't evolution make them relative? i mean, had we evolved differently, wouldn't it be likely we would have another set of "universal" morals?
what makes universal morals universal?
Siv said:{Emphasis mine}The fact that they help gene-propogation.
For most animals living in small to medium groups, these morals (a rough dos and donts guide) would be similar.
kaleidoscope said:If so, how did they become absolute to all mankind across cultures and terriotories?
Thats a very vague dismissal, can you be more specific ?kaleidoscope said:I don't know, gene-propagation doesn't seem to make morals universal. Under this premise, different scenarios can still direct morals in any direction a species needs for its specific circumstances, thus their morals wouldn't be really universal after all.
We aren't talking about morals that can't change, merely absolute in the sense that they are universal and innate.kaleidoscope said:I don't know, gene-propagation doesn't seem to make morals universal. Under this premise, different scenarios can still direct morals in any direction a species needs for its specific circumstances, thus their morals wouldn't be really universal after all.
SW VandeCarr said:I think biologists such as Richard Dawkins or Jacques Monod might argue against any absolute morality. From a strictly utilitarian viewpoint, they might say that the survival of the community is the sole basis for evaluating successful adaptive behavior. I suppose that even eating the young could be a successful communal adaptation under certain circumstances. However Dawkins or Monod might have to allow that the adults shouldn't eat all of their young.
Good point since this is a perfect example of how the perception of a community ideal-image facilitates destruction of the actual community. The fact is that all living things operate within an ecology/community. Humans, and maybe other animals too, however are capable of creating an abstract image of their community and attribute ideals and other attributes to it. When the goodness of community-functioning is attributed to racial/ethnic identity, genocide becomes a logical utilitarian approach to "purifying" the community to include only those considered "racially good."Galteeth said:I have heard it suggested that even genocide may be such a "utilitarian" behavior, as a reaction to times of perceived collapse of communal sustainability.
brainstorm said:Good point since this is a perfect example of how the perception of a community ideal-image facilitates destruction of the actual community. The fact is that all living things operate within an ecology/community. Humans, and maybe other animals too, however are capable of creating an abstract image of their community and attribute ideals and other attributes to it. When the goodness of community-functioning is attributed to racial/ethnic identity, genocide becomes a logical utilitarian approach to "purifying" the community to include only those considered "racially good."
Of course, other attributes besides racial/ethnic identity can also be used for "purification/cleansing" such as when people seek to "cleanse" their communities of criminals, sloths, cowards, delinquents, deviants, perverts, witches, religious fundamentalists or other stigmatized identities. Physical removal or killing of stigmatized individuals usually only occurs when attributes are defined in terms of essentialism, i.e. that certain individuals contain undesirable traits as part of their "essence." When undesirable traits are viewed as cultural and culture is viewed as learned instead of essential, resocialization may be taken as a less-violent approach to moral conflict.
Cultural/moral relativists claim that people shouldn't attempt to resocialize each other culturally, let alone attack them violently, but the question is whether total relativism is ever truly possible to the point where individuals can have radically conflicting moral and other values and still be able to interact positively and constructively. Imo, the best hope for that is for people to have guidelines or standards as to how far they may utilize social power against those they disagree with. This requires anti-discrimination laws, for example, and rights and protections against abuses of freedom.
ThomasT said:By the way, I concede our chess game reconstruction to you. I've played through every possible, decently played, continuation. I lose. Congratulations.
Galteeth said:Moral relativism as a moral view is incoherent. That's because by suggesting to me that I shouldn't try to impose my moral values on others, you are imposing your moral values on me.
It is a perfectly valid scientific perspective, however, to claim there is no absolute pre-determined morality in the species as a whole.
Absolute moral values are principles or standards that are universally accepted as right or wrong, regardless of cultural or personal beliefs. They are considered to be objective and unchanging.
This is a debated topic among philosophers and scientists. Some argue that absolute moral values are inherent in human nature, while others believe they are socially constructed and vary across cultures. There is no consensus on whether or not absolute moral values truly exist.
There is no definitive method for determining absolute moral values. Some argue that they are derived from religious teachings or natural law, while others believe they are based on reason and logic. Ultimately, it is up to individual interpretation and belief.
Some argue that absolute moral values are timeless and unchanging, while others believe they can evolve and adapt to societal changes. For example, the moral value of slavery has shifted over time, indicating that absolute moral values may not be set in stone.
Some believe that absolute moral values provide a moral compass for individuals and societies, guiding them towards what is considered morally right. Others argue that the belief in absolute moral values can lead to intolerance and conflict, as people may impose their values on others. The impact of absolute moral values on society is a complex and ongoing debate.