Can Moral Absolutism Be Proven Through the Concept of the Philosopher King?

[RVBuckeye]

Maybe I should have said morals are the reasoning out of individual instincts.
Your morals are either learned, or "brainwashed" into you, from an external source. Your instincts you are born with. I would suppose they are coded in our genes. Not just in humans either, but all living creatures. So what is the one characteristic that humans share with all living things? Survival. (I don't suspect anyeone can argue this not to be the case, because if it wasn't, I would suppose they would already be dead).

The survival instinct is no more moral, than it is immoral. Arguing the pro's and con's of morality, ultimately ends up in someone becoming a hypocrite.

This does not imply that morals aren't a useful tool to aid in survival. Of course they are, but they don't apply to everyone in every situation. What difference does it make if you accept that morals are relative? You still can believe in a God, you still can choose to live harmoniously. But obviously that is not an absolute property of survival. (you can still survive and not believe in God and live unharmoniously). The quality of that life, is irrelevant to this discussion, imo.

 

[selfAdjoint]

After all this discussion of morals and instincts, I should ask: Do humans even HAVE any real instincts? Aside from the suckle instinct in newborns I can't think of any. The usual suspects (happiness, self-preservation, etc.) are all controverted by widespread human behavior.

 

[RVBuckeye]

After all this discussion of morals and instincts, I should ask: Do humans even HAVE any real instincts? Aside from the suckle instinct in newborns I can't think of any. The usual suspects (happiness, self-preservation, etc.) are all controverted by widespread human behavior.

I was going to mention that in my last post (the suckle instinct). I think satisfying hunger is another one...but I too am unable to come up with any that doesn't boil down to survival instincts.

 

[Dawguard]

Maybe I should have said morals are the reasoning out of individual instincts.
Your morals are either learned, or "brainwashed" into you, from an external source.

Ah, the crux of the problem. What you are referring to is what I call the belief of morals. Here I agree with you, and this is the way we come to believe in morals. However, this does not touch the question of the nature of morals themselves. If you think that morals are nothing more then a belief then you must ultimatly admit that, like all nonphysical beliefs, morals will eventually be thought of as obsolete, much like most people think of theism. By placing morals in such a place you have ultimetly doomed them to the same slow, painful dimming that religion has suffered.

By changing the nature of morals from a belief to a law that requires defenition we can prevent morals from falling into this trap. I don't think any wants to live in a society without morals, so we have to find a way to preserve morals. This is by far the most practical I have found, and if they are laws, then by defenition they are absolute. Beliefs come and go, beliefs change, beliefs are taught and brainwashed, but not the laws.

 

[RVBuckeye]

If you think that morals are nothing more then a belief then you must ultimatly admit that, like all nonphysical beliefs, morals will eventually be thought of as obsolete, much like most people think of theism. By placing morals in such a place you have ultimetly doomed them to the same slow, painful dimming that religion has suffered.

That is entirely possible. Right now, I would say morals are useful to my survival. Making moral laws absolute is what is dooming religion,imo.

By changing the nature of morals from a belief to a law that requires defenition we can prevent morals from falling into this trap. I don't think any wants to live in a society without morals, so we have to find a way to preserve morals. This is by far the most practical I have found, and if they are laws, then by defenition they are absolute. Beliefs come and go, beliefs change, beliefs are taught and brainwashed, but not the laws.

We have changed morals from a belief to laws, from the 10 commandments, to Hammurabi's law, to Hittite law, to Neo-babylonian law, etc., to present day democracy. Nothing about them is absolute. Laws can change, as do our beliefs in what is moral.

Man is not, by nature (without special training), a logical (reasoning, intelligent) creature. He is, instead, totally reactive (instinctive, intuitive). His behavior is determined entirely by the interaction (conflict resolution, competition, cooperation, coordination) between his various instincts (genetically determined neural mechanisms provided by evolution for behavioral guidance). There is no mechanism for intelligence or memory which is separate from sensory, motor and instinct mechanisms. Man may be trained (his behavior may be controlled by edict). He may be educated (he may be taught knowledge for use as raw material in his decision making). The untrained and uneducated human is totally instinctive and not capable of objective reasoning or proper cultural behavior under modern social environments. The self-disciplined and educated (if educated in real knowledge) human is fully capable of both. The human has been provided by evolution with instincts (genetically specified neural mechanisms) which causes him to seek both training and education (he is a competitive social animal). He is quite capable of logic, reason, and intelligence when he chooses to be so, provided that he learns and follows the necessary discipline and rigid methodology. Even then, however, he is instinctive in his goals (the need for and the application of the reasoning). His instincts provide the direction, drive and power behind his every action.

 

[Dawguard]

That is entirely possible. Right now, I would say morals are useful to my survival. Making moral laws absolute is what is dooming religion,imo.

Moral laws have always been considered to be absolute. The recent change that has so greatly damaged morals is the rise in materialism: i.e. believe what we see.

We have changed morals from a belief to laws, from the 10 commandments, to Hammurabi's law, to Hittite law, to Neo-babylonian law, etc., to present day democracy. Nothing about them is absolute. Laws can change, as do our beliefs in what is moral.

This is a different use of the word law. I was referring to laws such as the law of inertia, or laws of nature, not legallity. I agree, our beliefs in morals change, thankfully, but that does not mean the morals change.

Man is not, by nature (without special training), a logical (reasoning, intelligent) creature. He is, instead, totally reactive (instinctive, intuitive). His behavior is determined entirely by the interaction (conflict resolution, competition, cooperation, coordination) between his various instincts (genetically determined neural mechanisms provided by evolution for behavioral guidance). There is no mechanism for intelligence or memory which is separate from sensory, motor and instinct mechanisms. Man may be trained (his behavior may be controlled by edict). He may be educated (he may be taught knowledge for use as raw material in his decision making). The untrained and uneducated human is totally instinctive and not capable of objective reasoning or proper cultural behavior under modern social environments. The self-disciplined and educated (if educated in real knowledge) human is fully capable of both. The human has been provided by evolution with instincts (genetically specified neural mechanisms) which causes him to seek both training and education (he is a competitive social animal). He is quite capable of logic, reason, and intelligence when he chooses to be so, provided that he learns and follows the necessary discipline and rigid methodology. Even then, however, he is instinctive in his goals (the need for and the application of the reasoning). His instincts provide the direction, drive and power behind his every action.

Very interesting, and in my opinion, completely true.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Moral laws have always been considered to be absolute. The recent change that has so greatly damaged morals is the rise in materialism: i.e. believe what we see.

Which would be the viewpoint of a religious fundamentalist.

This is a different use of the word law. I was referring to laws such as the law of inertia, or laws of nature, not legallity.

Our legal system is based on an approximation of our morals. Do you disagree? If so, sorry for the confusion.

I agree, our beliefs in morals change, thankfully, but that does not mean the morals change.

I would agree with this statement if it read: our beliefs in morals change, thankfully, but that does not mean our instincts change.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Our legal system is based on an approximation of our morals.

On an approximation to the morals as they stood centuries ago, and very slowly updated. Stability is more important to the Law than currency; hence the doctrine of stare decisus.

 

[RVBuckeye]

On an approximation to the morals as they stood centuries ago, and very slowly updated. Stability is more important to the Law than currency; hence the doctrine of stare decisus.

stare decisis - Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.

A moral doctrine or an instinctual one?

 

[Dawguard]

Which would be the viewpoint of a religious fundamentalist. [/QUOTE
So, I'm outed at last.

Our legal system is based on an approximation of our morals. Do you disagree? If so, sorry for the confusion.

Sure they, but that approximation is simply our belief. Therefore when the laws change, it is becuase our beliefs have changed.

I would agree with this statement if it read: our beliefs in morals change, thankfully, but that does not mean our instincts change.

I don't think that morals are insticts, simply becuase morals run contrary from instincts. If I've been having a horrible day, everything's been going wrong and then as I'm driving home someone cuts me off I might fell like ramming their car and beating the crap out them. Morals and fear stop me, and therefore my instincts and morals are in direct contradiction. If morals were nothing more then the reasoning out of instincts then they would become something similar to psycology.

 

[RVBuckeye]

So, I'm outed at last.

I was kidding, I apologise if I did not come off as such. Be a proud one if that's what you believe. (the latter I was being serious)

Sure they, but that approximation is simply our belief. Therefore when the laws change, it is becuase our beliefs have changed.

Yes...

I don't think that morals are insticts, simply becuase morals run contrary from instincts. If I've been having a horrible day, everything's been going wrong and then as I'm driving home someone cuts me off I might fell like ramming their car and beating the crap out them. Morals and fear stop me, and therefore my instincts and morals are in direct contradiction. If morals were nothing more then the reasoning out of instincts then they would become something similar to psycology

Yes...so far I agree with you. Your last sentence is a question I have. I wouldn't claim to state this as a "fact", as all I know is from personal experience. And I will admit I don't know as much as many people on PF. But my thinking on the subject thinks this is much more plausible than a God acting through devine will (with the info I have now). I've never, at any time in my life, heard any other voice in my head other than my own. Nobody pulling my strings, but me.
But alas, I still hope there is a God, even if he doesn't act in ways like we've been led to believe from people that had no other means to explain their feelings or the world around them.
(edit: the last part was just to let you know I don't intend to mock your belief system, if I take it that you are a religious person)

 

[Dawguard]

I was kidding, I apologise if I did not come off as such. Be a proud one if that's what you believe. (the latter I was being serious)

No offense: no need to apologize . I suppose I am more religious then most people here at PF, but in a different way then the irrationality most people associate with traditional fundamentalists.

Yes...so far I agree with you. Your last sentence is a question I have. I wouldn't claim to state this as a "fact", as all I know is from personal experience. And I will admit I don't know as much as many people on PF. But my thinking on the subject thinks this is much more plausible than a God acting through devine will (with the info I have now). I've never, at any time in my life, heard any other voice in my head other than my own. Nobody pulling my strings, but me.
But alas, I still hope there is a God, even if he doesn't act in ways like we've been led to believe from people that had no other means to explain their feelings or the world around them.
(edit: the last part was just to let you know I don't intend to mock your belief system, if I take it that you are a religious person)

I didn't mean for it to be a fact, but I should have made that clearer. I agree, it is more plausible, and I think that morals are a reasoning out of something, just not instincts. My personal opinion is that since we make ideas and abstractions out of everything we see or imagine, that morals are simply the emergent result of our imagination when interacting with other people. Using this theory, morals are the rules we use to govern our imagination: since we can imagine anything then there have to be certain things we imagine that we shouldn't do.

 

[RVBuckeye]

My personal opinion is that since we make ideas and abstractions out of everything we see or imagine, that morals are simply the emergent result of our imagination when interacting with other people. Using this theory, morals are the rules we use to govern our imagination: since we can imagine anything then there have to be certain things we imagine that we shouldn't do.

I may not be reading this correctly, when did your morals govern your imagination? I just don't follow. My imagination allows me to do anything, even stuff I shouldn't do. If you are intending to imply that we can use our imagination to weigh the pro's and cons of a future decision, I would likely agree. Although, I might not agree with the significance. I'm just not sure I see your vision of how this works. Maybe you can clarify before I make any incorrect assumptions.

 

[Dawguard]

I may not be reading this correctly, when did your morals govern your imagination? I just don't follow. My imagination allows me to do anything, even stuff I shouldn't do. If you are intending to imply that we can use our imagination to weigh the pro's and cons of a future decision, I would likely agree. Although, I might not agree with the significance. I'm just not sure I see your vision of how this works. Maybe you can clarify before I make any incorrect assumptions.

Sorry, my mistake. What I meant to say was that morals are the rules that govern the actions that result from our imagination. With animals they act entirely by instinct, probably the result of some part of their brain dictating their behavior. With humans we are not bound by what our instincts and neurology is. We can imagine anything, so our behavior is not dependent upon strict guidelines. We can do anything we want becuase we can imagine anything. Now, certain things we imagine are descrutive both to ourselves and society, but we still do them becuase nothing tells us not to.
Morals are what prevent us from litterally doing anything we feel like, or anything we want to do. True, they don't govern imagination, but they keep that imagination from becoming reality when it would do harm. Anyway, that's just my opinion about what morals are, and their actual being follows from their nature.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Sorry, my mistake. What I meant to say was that morals are the rules that govern the actions that result from our imagination. With animals they act entirely by instinct, probably the result of some part of their brain dictating their behavior. With humans we are not bound by what our instincts and neurology is. We can imagine anything, so our behavior is not dependent upon strict guidelines. We can do anything we want becuase we can imagine anything. Now, certain things we imagine are descrutive both to ourselves and society, but we still do them becuase nothing tells us not to.
Morals are what prevent us from litterally doing anything we feel like, or anything we want to do. True, they don't govern imagination, but they keep that imagination from becoming reality when it would do harm. Anyway, that's just my opinion about what morals are, and their actual being follows from their nature.

Let me introduce a new line of thinking to this discussion. Possibly it might shed some light on my reasons for imagination not being the key ingredient to explain morals. The concept is reflexes and reaction time. (slightly modified to parrallel what we know about simple reflexes, to my presumed effect on human behavior)

Simple reflexes by their nature are consistant throughout the human species so they are a good way to draw a conclusion about said species without cultural bias, imo. Simple reflexes are automatic. Your receive a stimulus and you respond, no thinking required.

Then you have your Conditioned Reflexes. The difference between the two is that your simple reflexes still occur (instincts) but they are modified by prior experience. This leads me to believe imagination is just one of several means to have an experience. All of which ultimately lead to what actually governs our actions in a given situation.

But the key factor is reaction time. How much time do you have to react in a given situation. Do you have to take action immediately, or does time and situation permit for thinking? Would your reaction have been different if it was spur of the moment? I think in most cases it would/could. Even more so when it is a life and death decision, (a survival decision).

So it begs the question, is the cumulative effect of our conciousness to condition our reflexes so our reaction time is less? As a result of conciousness, (one component of which is imagination), we can now make a spur of the moment, yet informed decision. Morals, as we have been using/defining them, are just our way of classifying our knowledge of human behavior, through many experiences, cultures, and generations. (in situation "A", it would be most beneficial to my ultimate survival if I did condition "B") However, that would make the following true: If I was presented a spur of the moment decision in a situation I had never experienced/imagined/heard/thought about, my reaction would soley be based on my reflexes (instincts). Instincts are not always wrong. How can anyone, even God, judge you for that?

 

[Dawguard]

But the key factor is reaction time. How much time do you have to react in a given situation. Do you have to take action immediately, or does time and situation permit for thinking? Would your reaction have been different if it was spur of the moment? I think in most cases it would/could. Even more so when it is a life and death decision, (a survival decision).

So it begs the question, is the cumulative effect of our conciousness to condition our reflexes so our reaction time is less? As a result of conciousness, (one component of which is imagination), we can now make a spur of the moment, yet informed decision. Morals, as we have been using/defining them, are just our way of classifying our knowledge of human behavior, through many experiences, cultures, and generations. (in situation "A", it would be most beneficial to my ultimate survival if I did condition "B") However, that would make the following true: If I was presented a spur of the moment decision in a situation I had never experienced/imagined/heard/thought about, my reaction would soley be based on my reflexes (instincts). Instincts are not always wrong. How can anyone, even God, judge you for that?

Very interesting, it's something I haven't considered before. I'll have to come back once I've given it some time and thought. I don't want to shoot off something on the spur of the moment, only to regret it later.

 

[RVBuckeye]

I kind of adapted what was speculated in the "does conciousness work to make itself unneccesary" thread to relate to my point of view. It's a work in progress so make changes, or point out flaws. I'm waiting for Selfadjoint or Les Sleeth to chime in here and tell me how way off base I am.

 

[Dawguard]

Simple reflexes by their nature are consistant throughout the human species so they are a good way to draw a conclusion about said species without cultural bias, imo. Simple reflexes are automatic. Your receive a stimulus and you respond, no thinking required.

Then you have your Conditioned Reflexes. The difference between the two is that your simple reflexes still occur (instincts) but they are modified by prior experience. This leads me to believe imagination is just one of several means to have an experience. All of which ultimately lead to what actually governs our actions in a given situation.

But the key factor is reaction time. How much time do you have to react in a given situation. Do you have to take action immediately, or does time and situation permit for thinking? Would your reaction have been different if it was spur of the moment? I think in most cases it would/could. Even more so when it is a life and death decision, (a survival decision).

This seems very similar to a priori and practical reason, a priori being simple reflexes and practical reason being conditioned reflex. During our life we seek to diminish a priori and use only practical reason to make our decisions, therefore making, as you said, informed decisions on the spur of a moment. The times when we can't do that we have to fall back on what is either conditioned to the point of simple reflex or fall back on the instinct of survival.

However, there is a very important difference between the pure reason of a priori and instincts though. Pure reason is designed to be uninfluenced by our experiences, but instincts almost entirely based on experience. We flinch from heat becuase from the past we know it hurts. Almost every instinct we have is derived from experience, so when dealing with a metaphysical concept such as morals we should seek to use only pure reason that is not baised by experience.

I'm not sure how this ties directly into morality, but we seek to explain all practical reason through a view of whatever a priori knowledge we have. Because of this our morality is directly tied into our instincts, since they and a priori are directly linked. The key becomes to define morals using only pure reason, and then place that system within our instinctive choices. If we do this then we can avoid the unthinking reflexes of instincts, and use only pure reason to calculate the value of morals.

I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at, so please tell me if I've mis-interpretted you at all.

 

[RVBuckeye]

This seems very similar to a priori and practical reason, a priori being simple reflexes and practical reason being conditioned reflex. During our life we seek to diminish a priori and use only practical reason to make our decisions, therefore making, as you said, informed decisions on the spur of a moment. The times when we can't do that we have to fall back on what is either conditioned to the point of simple reflex or fall back on the instinct of survival.

However, there is a very important difference between the pure reason of a priori and instincts though. Pure reason is designed to be uninfluenced by our experiences, but instincts almost entirely based on experience. We flinch from heat becuase from the past we know it hurts. Almost every instinct we have is derived from experience, so when dealing with a metaphysical concept such as morals we should seek to use only pure reason that is not baised by experience.

I'm not sure how this ties directly into morality, but we seek to explain all practical reason through a view of whatever a priori knowledge we have. Because of this our morality is directly tied into our instincts, since they and a priori are directly linked. The key becomes to define morals using only pure reason, and then place that system within our instinctive choices. If we do this then we can avoid the unthinking reflexes of instincts, and use only pure reason to calculate the value of morals.

I'm not sure if this was what you were getting at, so please tell me if I've mis-interpretted you at all.

First, it has been a pleasure discussing this with you and I appreciate your thoughtful responses.

Honestly, I've made several attempts to make heads or tails of what you wrote. I agree with your first paragraph, but the other two I keep getting hung up on. I just can't get over the sense that your definition of a priori is different from mine. Pure reason, imo, can't be a priori simply because the act of thinking/reasoning is equivalent to an experience. Thus not a priori.

I guess our discussion has branched off into what are the causes of morality, how does it develop, and what is the value of morality.

After having a child, I have been able to look, first-hand, at how his moral development is taking place. I can tell you, at age 4, he does not understand the notion of morals. He simply obeys rules to avoid punishment or to get a reward. (there's hints of understanding mind you, but these are a more recent development) So to suggest that we are born with the gift of morals, is absurd to me. True morals don't develop until a later age, and coincides with mental development, so the notion of a priori way of looking at morals is way off the mark, imo. There simply aren't any. It's all instinctual and for lack of a better word, selfish.

The causes of morality is nothing more than a human adaptation, like you said in your first paragraph, to make informed decisions on the spur of the moment. (I would add to aid in our ultimate survival) However, we only have this ability, due to our mental development.

Now, I think we agree, for the most part, on the value of morals when looking at the whole of society. So I don't think we should delve into this topic quite yet.

Look up Lawrence Kolhberg dissertation about moral development to better understand my point here.

 

[Dawguard]

Honestly, I've made several attempts to make heads or tails of what you wrote. I agree with your first paragraph, but the other two I keep getting hung up on. I just can't get over the sense that your definition of a priori is different from mine. Pure reason, imo, can't be a priori simply because the act of thinking/reasoning is equivalent to an experience. Thus not a priori.

Indeed, a difference of defenition here. From Kant,

By the term "knowledge a priori," therefore, we shall in the sequel understand, not such as is independent of this or that kind of experience, but such as is absolutely of all experience. Opposed to this is empirical knowledge, or that which is only a posteriori, that is, through experience. Knowledge a priori is either pure or impure. Pure knowledge a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. For example, the proposition, "Every change has a cause," is a proposition a priori, but impure, because change is a conception which can only be derived from experience.

So, according to this, morals should be a priori since they are cincieved of by logical laws, but impure because they are derived from experience.

After having a child, I have been able to look, first-hand, at how his moral development is taking place. I can tell you, at age 4, he does not understand the notion of morals. He simply obeys rules to avoid punishment or to get a reward. (there's hints of understanding mind you, but these are a more recent development) So to suggest that we are born with the gift of morals, is absurd to me. True morals don't develop until a later age, and coincides with mental development, so the notion of a priori way of looking at morals is way off the mark, imo. There simply aren't any. It's all instinctual and for lack of a better word, selfish.

Alas, this is not a situation of which I can say I know anything about first-hand. However, just because he knows nothing about morals at a young age does not mean that morals are derived entirely for selfish or instinctual reasons. In fact, since morals are only thought of once people are able to reason, is evidance that they are concieved of impure a priori reasoning-only able to be thought of once the ability to coneptualize abstract reasoning is achieved, yet still greatly influenced by the experiences of life.
Once again, there is a confusion of terms when referring to a priori. When using that term I do not mean knowledge that we have with us since before all experience, only knowledge that is not derived primarily from experience. Calculus has (almost) nothing to do with experience and can be thought of only with imagination and the following of logical laws. It is a priori, even though humans cannot think of it when they are young. Morals, in my opinion, are the same.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Indeed, a difference of defenition here. From Kant,

So, according to this, morals should be a priori since they are cincieved of by logical laws, but impure because they are derived from experience.

Now I see the problem. I was using the definition :a priori, you were using the term: "Knowledge a priori". (just omitted the "knowledge" part). No prob. I'm only familiar with Kant, and have not read his works. Would you say he is a major influence in your logic? I'll make a better effort to read him if it would aid in our discussion.

Alas, this is not a situation of which I can say I know anything about first-hand. However, just because he knows nothing about morals at a young age does not mean that morals are derived entirely for selfish or instinctual reasons.

Maybe we could discuss this more. You seem to have hit on an interesting point. I'm not entirely sure whether they came about for selfish or instinctual reasons either. I guess, from my rationalle thus-far, I would have to say they did to be logically consistant. Is it selfish or instinctual to provide a functioning set of moral rules to aid in your childs survival? Is it a different type of instinct than survival of your self, to survival of your offspring? Which instinct wins out when having to decide?

(snip)Morals, in my opinion, are the same.

I think we agree.

 

[tuco]

nothing to contribute really but thought this might help. appologies for not using my own words but some ppl just can explain stuff better than i can.. *shrugs*

--
Kant: The Moral Order

Having mastered epistemology and metaphysics, Kant believed that a rigorous application of the same methods of reasoning would yield an equal success in dealing with the problems of moral philosophy. Thus, in the Kritik der practischen Vernunft (Critique of Practical Reason) (1788), he proposed a "Table of the Categories of Freedom in Relation to the Concepts of Good and Evil," using the familiar logical distinctions as the basis for a catalog of synthetic a priori judgments that have bearing on the evaluation of human action, and declared that only two things inspire genuine awe: "der bestirnte Himmel über mir und das moralische Gesetz in mir" ("the starry sky above and the moral law within"). Kant used ordinary moral notions as the foundation ffor a derivation of this moral law in his Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten (Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals) (1785).


From Good Will to Universal Law

We begin with the concept of that which can be conceived to be good without qualification, a good will. Other good features of human nature and the benefits of a good life, Kant pointed out, have value only under appropriate conditions, since they may be used either for good or for evil. But a good will is intrinsically good; its value is wholly self-contained and utterly independent of its external relations. Since our practical reason is better suited to the development and guidance of a good will than to the achievement of happiness, it follows that the value of a good will does not depend even on the results it manages to produce as the consequences of human action.

Kant's moral theory is, therefore, deontological: actions are morally right in virtue of their motives, which must derive more from duty than from inclination. The clearest examples of morally right action are precisely those in which an individual agent's determination to act in accordance with duty overcomes her evident self-interest and obvious desire to do otherwise. But in such a case, Kant argues, the moral value of the action can only reside in a formal principle or "maxim," the general commitment to act in this way because it is one's duty. So he concludes that "Duty is the necessity to act out of reverence for the law."

According to Kant, then, the ultimate principle of morality must be a moral law conceived so abstractly that it is capable of guiding us to the right action in application to every possible set of circumstances. So the only relevant feature of the moral law is its generality, the fact that it has the formal property of universalizability, by virtue of which it can be applied at all times to every moral agent. From this chain of reasoning about our ordinary moral concepts, Kant derived as a preliminary statement of moral obligation the notion that right actions are those that practical reason would will as universal law.

[snip]

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm#gdwl
--

1788
THE CRITIQUE OF PRACTICAL REASON
by Immanuel Kant
translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott

http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt


useless trivia: those who understand Kant say he was mad :)

 

[Dawguard]

I'm sorry it took so long to respnd, I'll try to be more prompt in the future. Yes, I would say that Kant was a large influence in my logic and I have a well-thumbed book of his works. Before continuing though, I'm not sure how exactly you define morals and am slightly reticant to say anything. I'm not sure where're or how instincts come into the picture of morals, but it certainly is an intruiging thought. As you said too, this thread is spinning wildly off topic: perhaps I should start a new thread, but I'm not really sure what topic the discusion is now on.

As asnwer to your questions, I don't think it is either selfish or instinctual to teach children morals. If it is selfish we wouldn't bother to teach anything, we would just sit around and be lazy. If it was instinct to teach morals then that would neccesitate that morals and instincts are the same, or even closely related. As for which one is more important I think that is case-dependent, and there is no answer that can be held true for everyone.

 

[RVBuckeye]

If it was instinct to teach morals then that would neccesitate that morals and instincts are the same, or even closely related. As for which one is more important I think that is case-dependent, and there is no answer that can be held true for everyone.

Which is exactly my rationalle for believing morals are not absolute.
(of course, I could logically conclude something to be correct and be wrong)
I've also been tying to spend more time away from this computer now that the weather has turned a bit nicer here. I'll agree to end this thing if you will. Maybe someone else will pop in and put another spin on the discussion one day.

 

[octelcogopod]

We would all agree that a stone does not have morals.
If one stone fell one another stone and cracked it in two pieces, there would be no moral implications involved.

Now, if the universe is composed of a gazillion stones, then one would agree that any action inside this lifeless universe would be without morals.

So, obviously, morals do not exist in matter without consciousness.
You need some kind of sensory system at the bare minimum to draw morals into the picture.
Now, I believe intent is very important.
Intent is something you cannot empirically prove, other than by what the person has said, or done, in the past, but that doesn't show empirical evidence about what the person was thinking.
I used intent as an example because it's one of those things that cannot be measured or quantified by math.
You can't create a mathematical formula for intent.

Therefore, obviously, the consciousness "cloud" (a word i like), is something that remains untouched by science or math.
My point with this is that the absoluteness of an event or object in the consciousness cloud changes and evolves.
I reiterate that without a conscious sensory system, morals would not exist, but inside the consciousness cloud(several conscious people in one cloud), there may exist an absolute moral.
As absolute as an abstract can get anyway.

The real headtwister of the theory is that we do not know what the objective world is.
To us, everything is subjective, we are just taught to see it objectively.

 

[Rader]

Absolute morals exist only if there is an increase in good in this natural world. I realize that we would have to define increase in good so I will say it is an increase in natural perfection. So now I have to define increase in natural perfection and will call it existence. I think we all know what existence is, since that notion is in our heads.

I also realize that my perspective has its bias but then we will have to explain existence another way.

 

[Dawguard]

Absolute morals exist only if there is an increase in good in this natural world.

How come? I would contest that absolute morals are possible, even if the world is rife with corruption and evil. The nature of morals has nothing to do with their practice in the world.

 

[Rader]

Originally Posted by Rader
Absolute morals exist only if there is an increase in good in this natural world.

How come?

Because we observe a change in this physical world in a direction that we can not explain through physical phenomena. We are the only animal which has an idea of what absolute morality might be. Why, because we have erroneous ideas of what it is now. Morality is a concept that if it is absolute all concepts would be absolute; we can only have a temporary idea of that absolute concept since physical systems are mutable, in other words brains interpret absolute concepts that are erroneous. Eventually those brains should evolve to a natural perfection of a knowing of what absolute morality is. To give you an earthly answer there might be no reason to kill, if no one had any reason to harm anyone.

I would contest that absolute morals are possible, even if the world is rife with corruption and evil.

Don’t you mean that because the world is rife with corruption and evil?

The nature of morals has nothing to do with their practice in the world.

You will have to explain a little more what you mean.

Let me make one thing clear from the start. It seems that many use the word moral as if it is a relative word, I do not. The meaning of moral to me is absolute; although I can not know exactly what that will be eventually be, I can have an idea of what it ought to be. In other words to kill for any reason is not moral but immoral. There is no dividing line; we only make one because we have not evolved to a natural perfection in which killing is not necessary under any condition.

 

[Rade]

.. In other words to kill for any reason is not moral but immoral. There is no dividing line; we only make one because we have not evolved to a natural perfection in which killing is not necessary under any condition.

I do not agree--it is perfectly and absolutely moral to kill for "self-defense", if one holds individual human life as an absolute (that is, no single person has a moral right to take my life, and when they make such an attempt, they forfeit their own right to life, hence the moral justification for self-defense). If I have a car accident and kill you by accident is that act immoral ?--seems like it must be so in your philosophy since a reason (accident) is found for your death. And, even the perfect God kills, many such acts recorded in various religions, thus it is unlikely that the "natural perfection" you seek is possible. If even the perfect God kills morally, what hope for imperfect humans ? Finally, it is logical that human behavior of "killing" (for various reasons, not the least of which is food) has a genetic basis. Now, if true, and if the genetics is understood, then it may be possible in the far future via genetic engineering for humans to reach your suggested state of "natural perfection".

 

[selfAdjoint]

The title of the thread is PROVING Absolute Morals. We are now down to people just venting their personal opinions. Should the thread be closed?