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

[LionShare]

no strawman not loaded or making them unnecesarily long

it is not over simplification, it is clarification. I'm trying to make sure he is clear on the implications of his one liner statement "all morality is subjective". I'm doing that, by posing a horrible scenario that is not left to chance. If he answers "Yes, even that is subjective." then I know he means it.

this is not a loaded question either! looked it up also ...

It gives him information about an act that occurs, then poses the question.

The equivalent of me saying, "A man wearing a black pants kills another man willingly and for no particular reason, is not wrong for doing so?"

The fact that I added the guy was wearing black pants and does it for no particular reason, doesn't make it a loaded question!

me including "not wrong" makes it a leading question ... at best! Which does not really matter in such a horrible scenario.

What I asked ..

Does that mean that a man who kills his own child, willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die, is not wrong for doing so?

Could have easily been this.

A man kills his own child. He does this willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die!
Is this wrong?

Nothing has changed! Still same scenario! Still same question! Still not an over simplification or a loaded question of his one-liner statement.

BTW even if the guy is crazy, it doesn't matter. Crazy people may not be able to judge right from wrong. But if morality is objective, it would still be wrong! "willingly" also rules out the accident scenario. Adding stuff doesn't take anything away from the question that IS being asked!

I thought I had cleared up my intentions and that we could move forward to answering the question. It seems that I have not. I'll pose it again. Since I'm posing the theoretical scenario, I get to decide said scenario

Theoretical scenario:

Suppose there were only two people on planet Earth and the whole of existence. These two people are a father and a son. The father kills the son willingly and for no particular reason than to see him die! Is this wrong?

Moving finger, objectivity is not based on observers, that would make it subjective. In my new scenario I made them the only two people in existence. But I think I get your point of view. That being that it would NOT be wrong (let me know if I am mistaken here). JoeDawg if you want to say your point of view, I welcome it. If you still think it is a straw man, loaded question or something else, not sure what to say. I feel that I have to add "willingly" and "for no particular reason than to see him die" since I'm trying to clarify things by making it a "yes" or "No" question. Which does not in itself make it a loaded question since by adding those stipulations there ARE only two possibilities. At least, that I can think of.

Lionshare
Jesus Christ that was long.

 

[moving finger]

Moving finger, objectivity is not based on observers, that would make it subjective.

Did I say objectivity is based on observers? I think I said something along the lines that ethical value judgements (ie what is right or wrong) are based on observers - which makes them subjective.

In my new scenario I made them the only two people in existence.

In which case, who is to judge whether the act is right or wrong?

Maybe the son loves the father so much that he (the son) is willing to be sacrificed in order to please his father (improbable I agree, but not impossible - after all didn't God command Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for no good reason other than to show his love for God?) - in which case the act would not be wrong in the son's eyes.

 

[JoeDawg]

"Does that mean that a man who kills his own child, willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die, is not wrong for doing so?"

Sure its a loaded question. You are allegedly inquiring about subjectivity.

But you're not asking if its subjective, you're asking if its "wrong".
Subjective or not, most people would say its wrong.
So the question you are asking has nothing whatever to do with whether it is subjective.
You are challenging the person you are asking to say that its 'not wrong'.
You imply that, for it to be subjective, the answer would have to be: No its not wrong.

Its a loaded question. There is no clarity here, only an attempt at rhetorical slight of hand.

 

[LionShare]

for the sweet love of God.

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]

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.

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

 

[moving finger]

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"

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]

agent values

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

 

[LionShare]

I got the thread .. open

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

 

[moving finger]

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

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]

all agents in the universe...

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 let's 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]

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 let's 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.

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]

inter species feasting

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 consensus 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