Proving absolute morals exist

  • Thread starter DB
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Absolute
In summary, the philosopher king would have the perfect amount of selflessness to be able to determine what is moral and immoral in any situation, and would have perfect rational thought to justify it.
  • #106
RVBUCKEYE said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #107
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.
 
  • #108
RVBuckeye said:
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.
 
  • #109
Dawguard said:
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.
 
  • #110
RVBuckeye said:
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.

RVBuckeye said:
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.
 
  • #111
Dawguard said:
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.:smile: 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.
 
  • #112
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 :)
 
  • #113
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.
 
  • #114
Dawguard said:
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. :biggrin:
(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.
 
  • #115
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.
 
  • #116
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.
 
  • #117
Rader said:
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.
 
  • #118
Originally Posted by Rader
Absolute morals exist only if there is an increase in good in this natural world.

Dawguard said:
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.
 
  • #119
Rader said:
.. 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".
 
  • #120
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?
 
  • #121
selfAdjoint said:
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?
Yes, it should. The same thing happened with another thread about morals, and the same off topic result is now here. The purpose that this thread was made for is not being served by the present discussion.
 
  • #122
Rade said:
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".


This thread is proving if absolute morals exist. I understand your perspective of absolute morality of the individual which is relative morality. That is why I contend and said that:

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.

Few would disagree that morality is not a concept; my hypothesis is that it is absolute for the very simple reason that our concepts become clearer and we find better solutions to the problems not the reverse. You can apply this to any concept you like but there is clear evidence in our thinking that brains interpret absolute concepts that are erroneous. The other choice would be that brains interpret concepts that are not erroneous. If you can falsify my statement, do it.
 
  • #123
I would have thought the fact that humans have been arguing about "what is morally right and what is morally wrong" for thousands of years, and still we cannot agree on many important issues (such as abortion, genetic engineering, animal experiments, the death penalty, to name just a few) shows that there is no "absolute" right or wrong - many moral issues are (at the end of the day) simply matters of opinion. Ultimately one must take one's stand based on one's personal and subjective opinions.

Best Regards

MF

Humans put constraints on what they can achieve more often by their limited imaginations than by any limitations in the laws of physics (Alex Christie)
 
  • #124
moving finger said:
I would have thought the fact that humans have been arguing about "what is morally right and what is morally wrong" for thousands of years, and still we cannot agree on many important issues (such as abortion, genetic engineering, animal experiments, the death penalty, to name just a few) shows that there is no "absolute" right or wrong - many moral issues are (at the end of the day) simply matters of opinion. Ultimately one must take one's stand based on one's personal and subjective opinions.
Logically, this does not offer any proof of anything. Just because we can't agree on what they are, does not mean that they, being absolute morals, do not exist. You might contend this implies, but it offers no proof or evidance, and is therefore invalid as an argument. If morals are but a matter of opinion, as you claim, what makes my opinion more right then yours? What if my opinion is that all life is worthless, what makes that wrong? The existence of morals makes them by neccesity absolute, or else they cease to exist. If morals change then it is logical that one action can be both right and wrong. Essentialy this removes any value to right and wrong, and the purpose of morals is gone. Relativism is inherently contradictory, and the only two options left are absolutism and nihilism. Much like the debate with god, it is impossible to completely prove or disprove either option.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record on this thread, and this will be my last post in it, or until some new idea sparks some life. In the end, I think nothing will truly change, and the debate will continue for ages to come. I doubt that I will change anyone's mind here, and the positions and arguments have been laid out in many ways by many people throughout this thread. If someone has a particuler argument, it has probably been already answered here.
 
  • #125
Dawguard said:
Logically, this does not offer any proof of anything. Just because we can't agree on what they are, does not mean that they, being absolute morals, do not exist. You might contend this implies, but it offers no proof or evidance, and is therefore invalid as an argument. If morals are but a matter of opinion, as you claim, what makes my opinion more right then yours? What if my opinion is that all life is worthless, what makes that wrong? The existence of morals makes them by neccesity absolute, or else they cease to exist. If morals change then it is logical that one action can be both right and wrong. Essentialy this removes any value to right and wrong, and the purpose of morals is gone. Relativism is inherently contradictory, and the only two options left are absolutism and nihilism. Much like the debate with god, it is impossible to completely prove or disprove either option.

Yes, all the things yoiu find too dreadful to contemplate, that's what the rest of us claim is the objective situation. What good are absolute morals if nobody knows what they are and "ignorant armies clash by night" over different interpretations?

I'm starting to feel like a broken record on this thread, and this will be my last post in it, or until some new idea sparks some life. In the end, I think nothing will truly change, and the debate will continue for ages to come. I doubt that I will change anyone's mind here, and the positions and arguments have been laid out in many ways by many people throughout this thread. If someone has a particuler argument, it has probably been already answered here.

Sorry if we didn't roll over and play dead for you, but this is the world we and you inhabit. A world where high minded assertions are worth nothing if you can't back them up.
 
  • #126
selfAdjoint said:
Yes, all the things yoiu find too dreadful to contemplate, that's what the rest of us claim is the objective situation. What good are absolute morals if nobody knows what they are and "ignorant armies clash by night" over different interpretations?
I never claimed that anything was to dreadful to contemplate, so please don't put words in my mouth. I speak pragmaticly, that for a coherent society to exist there have to be rules about right and wrong. As for the second statement, surely you know that a belief cannot be vilified by the actions of its supposed adherents. People can kill and fight for any reason they want, but that only condemns the person, and not the belief. If this diminishes their worth in any way, it does not diminish their truth. There are countless true things in life that have no worth, but are none the less true. I ask, what is an alternitive to absolute morals that would be of better worth, if you still wish to have morals? Or would you prefer none?

selfAdjoint said:
Sorry if we didn't roll over and play dead for you, but this is the world we and you inhabit. A world where high minded assertions are worth nothing if you can't back them up.
I'm not asking you to "roll over and play dead": if you notice I never said that I've made such a foolproof argument that it renders all others worthless. I admitted that I can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt my position. I've admitted that the veracity of absolutism is without complete proof. But so is everything else when speeking of morals. My one assertation has been that if morals exist, they must be inherently absolute. Nothing more, and nothing less. If you wish to claim they don't exist, I will frankly admit I can't prove you wrong. However, this was more of a topic of relativism against absolutism, and that was what I was arguing for. As for backing them up, I will spilt the proof. One, I can't back up the existence of morals. Two, if morals do exist, they can only be absolute. This I believe I have proved, and if there is a flaw in my logic, please point it out.

Oh, by the way, I'm rather puzzled by your first part. What exactly is it that you think I thought was too dreadful to contemplate? I'm rather curious, since I don't ever remember saying that.
 
  • #127
Dawguard said:
this does not offer any proof of anything. Just because we can't agree on what they are, does not mean that they, being absolute morals, do not exist.
It is not possible to prove that "something does not exist" unless that something is "logically impossible".
The tooth fairy is a logical possibility. I cannot prove the tooth fairy does not exist, but it does not follow from the absence of proof that one should believe in the tooth fairy as an existing being.

There is much, much more to philosophy than "proving that something does not exist".

Best Regards

MF
 
  • #128
Darguard said:
for a coherent society to exist there have to be rules about right and wrong.

Well this is apparently a condition satisfied vacuously, as we used to say in math class. No existing society is coherent, and so what we precisely don't see is an agreed upon set of rules for right and wrong.

Is abortion murder or not? Is gay marriage an offense or not? Are illegal immigrants just criminals or not? We can't even agree what a plain piece of text means (Second Amendment to the US Constitution). I repeat, if there are absolute morals nobody knows what they are and there is no lack of self important preachers to give you conflicting opinions about them.

BTW you say I put words in your mouth, but I was responding to your attitude, not your words. I don't think you made your case. In my view you can't prove anything except from some assumed premises, not in mathematics, philosophy or anywhere else. That's all proof means, to derive something logically from something else. So if you have a "proof" that absolute morals exist then I ask what are the premises which you assume in order to reach that conclusion. And your premises seem to be like the statement i just quoted: wishful thinking.
 
  • #129
selfAdjoint said:
Is abortion murder or not? Is gay marriage an offense or not? Are illegal immigrants just criminals or not? We can't even agree what a plain piece of text means (Second Amendment to the US Constitution). I repeat, if there are absolute morals nobody knows what they are and there is no lack of self important preachers to give you conflicting opinions about them.
selfAdjoint is right.

Morals are based upon values. To suggest that there must be absolute morals implies that there must also be absolute values. To take abortion as an example : Whether this is right or wrong depends partly on when one believes that a human being has been "created". Is it at the moment of conception, or sometime during pregnancy (but if so exactly when), or at the time of birth? The Catholic church even view certain forms of contraception as wrong, which implies that we could even extend the argument back to times prior to conception. There is no "absolute" answer to the question of when a human being has been created, it depends to a great extent on how one defines "human being" - is it just the genetic information (in which case the moment of conception is the point), is it after the embryo has become a foetus, or is it at the point where the foetus is capable of living outside the womb? There is no universally agreed logically absolute definition - there are only different matters of opinion.

Definitions are, after all, just conventions. What "human being" means to one group of people may not be precisely what "human being" means to another group of people. There is no absolute definition of human being in absence of conventional use of the term.

If there is no absolute definition of a term, how can we possibly hope to have absolute morals which depend in part on how that term is defined?

Best Regards

MF
 
  • #130
moving finger said:
selfAdjoint is right.

Morals are based upon values. To suggest that there must be absolute morals implies that there must also be absolute values. To take abortion as an example : Whether this is right or wrong depends partly on when one believes that a human being has been "created". Is it at the moment of conception, or sometime during pregnancy (but if so exactly when), or at the time of birth? The Catholic church even view certain forms of contraception as wrong, which implies that we could even extend the argument back to times prior to conception. There is no "absolute" answer to the question of when a human being has been created, it depends to a great extent on how one defines "human being" - is it just the genetic information (in which case the moment of conception is the point), is it after the embryo has become a foetus, or is it at the point where the foetus is capable of living outside the womb? There is no universally agreed logically absolute definition - there are only different matters of opinion.

Definitions are, after all, just conventions. What "human being" means to one group of people may not be precisely what "human being" means to another group of people. There is no absolute definition of human being in absence of conventional use of the term.

If there is no absolute definition of a term, how can we possibly hope to have absolute morals which depend in part on how that term is defined?

Best Regards

MF


Very good post mf. And not just because you agree with me; you laid out the problems with realist morality (as opposed to nominalist, which I think we share), much better than I did.
 
  • #131
proving absolute morals exist...

Exactly.

The proof. Where is the evidence that absolute morals exist?

Can the proof be only that which is known as Plato's "philosoper king"?

If there is no absolute definition of a term, how can we possibly hope to have absolute morals which depend in part on how that term is defined?

Exactly.

There must be absolute definitions set down, by say the "philosopher king", so as to provide all individuals with the right starting point for discussion.

Speaking of the right starting point, absolute is about a priori.

Absolute is that which existed prior to you.

No matter whether or not I think that that action was right or not right, it absolutely was right or not right prior to me.
 
  • #132
selfAdjoint said:
BTW you say I put words in your mouth, but I was responding to your attitude, not your words. I don't think you made your case. In my view you can't prove anything except from some assumed premises, not in mathematics, philosophy or anywhere else. That's all proof means, to derive something logically from something else. So if you have a "proof" that absolute morals exist then I ask what are the premises which you assume in order to reach that conclusion. And your premises seem to be like the statement i just quoted: wishful thinking.
Let me sum up my statement. I have never said I could prove absolute morals. I have lost count of how many times I've said that I could not. There is no wishful thinking, since I haven't tried to prove the existence of absolute morals. I can't, nor have I ever said I could.
Right, we have that behind us, correct? No more misinterpretation. Moving on, I did say that relative morals are logically self destructive. I believe this has been proven, and I haven't seen any refutation of it. Next, I claim that morals are neccessary, since rules are needed. I believe we do live in a coherent society right now, as do many other countries in the world. This is because we have rules and laws, and without them there would be nothing but anarchy. Perhaps if you are an anarchist, then you can believe in a world without morals, but that encraoches on another topic which isn't due here. What is the justification for any law, except fundamental morals. Thus morals are needed, whether they exist or not.

I speak from a pragmatists point of view. I make no assumptions of proving impossible theories, or working out the great mysteries of the mind. I only say what works and what is needed. Whether morals exist or not we must believe that they do, and the only belief that can sustain itself is absolutism. It has lasted for thousands and thousands of years. You can argue that it has its drawbacks, and I agree. I don't say everythign caused by absolutism is good. Why, I'd even say there's as much evil caused by them as good. What I do say is that they are completely neccessary, and an inevitable part of human nature.

We seem to have reached an impasse: a spot in the road where no questions can be answered. Perhaps existentialists were right when they say that man is trying to find meaning in a meaningless life. Perhaps we ahve reached that point in human philosophy where we can go no further. I really don't care, since I don't give damn what lies behond the human mind. Morals are an inherent part of human nature, there to give us meaning and justification for everything we do. The only self-supporting system is absolutism. You can take it or leave, I really don't care. You seem to think that I'm arguing for the existence of morals, and trying to prove the impossible. Maybe that is because everyone else does, so you assume I do too.
 
  • #133
Dawguard said:
Morals are an inherent part of human nature, there to give us meaning and justification for everything we do.
Whilst I believe the foundations of moral behaviour in social animals can be explained by a deterministically emergent model with a combination of game theory and genetic evolution, I don't believe all moral rules are "inherent". I believe intelligent agents "invent" the loftier moral rules as an intellectual exercise to provide some kind of meaning and justification for particular beliefs and codes of conduct. Whether these loftier moral rules are arbitrary, or whether they have some absolute foundation, is debatable.

Best Regards
 
  • #134
Moral and natural laws.

An investgation of natural laws, and, in parallel, a defence of ethical objectivism.The objectivity, to at least some extent, of science will be assumed; the sceptic may differ, but there is no convincing some people).

At first glance, morality looks as though it should work objectively. The mere fact that we praise and condemn people's moral behaviour indicates that we think a common set of rules is applicable to us and them. To put it another way, if ethics were strongly subjective anyone could get off the hook by devising a system of personal morality in which whatever they felt like doing was permissible. It would be hard to see the difference between such a state of affairs and having no morality at all. The subtler sort of subjectivist (or relativist) tries to ameliorate this problem by claiming that moral principles re defined at the societal level, but similar problems recur -- a society (such as the Thuggees or Assassins) could declare that murder is Ok with them. These considerations are of course an appeal to how morality seems to work as a 'language game' and as such do not put ethics on a firm foundation -- the language game could be groundless. I will argue that it is not, but first the other side of the argument needs to be put.

It is indisuptable that morality varies in practice across communities. But the contention of ethical objectivism is not that everyone actually does hold to a single objective sysem of ethics; it is only that ethical questions can be resolved objectively in principle. The existence of an objective solution to any kind of problem is always compatible with the existence of people who, for whatever reason, do not subscribe. The roundness of the Earth is no less an objective fact for the existence of believers in the Flat Earth theory.(It is odd that the single most popular argument for ethical subjectivism has so little logical force).

Another objection is that an objective system of ethics must be accepted by everybody, irrespective of their motivations, and must therefore be based in self-interest. Again, this gets the nature of objectivity wrong. The fact that some people cannot see does not make any empirical evidence less objective, the fact that some people refuse to employ logic does not make logical argument any less objective. All claims to objectivity make the background assumption that the people who will actually employ the objective methodology in question are willing and able. We will return to this topic toward the end.

Some people insist that anyone who is promoting ethical objectivism and opposing relativism must be doing so in order to illegitamately promote their own ethical system as absolute. While this is problably pragmatically true in many cases, particularly where political and religious rhetoric is involved, it has no real logical force, because the contention of ethical objectivism is only that ethical questions are objectively resolvable in principle -- it does not entail a claim that the speaker or anyone else is actually in possession of them. This marks the first of our analogues with science, since the in-principle objectivity of science coincides with the fact that current scientific thinking is almost certainly not final or absolute. ethical objectivism is thus a middle road between subjectivism/relativism on the one hand, and various absolutisms (such as religious fundamentalism) on the other.

The final objection, and by far the most philosophically respectable one, is the objection on that moral rules need to correspond to some kind of 'queer fact' or 'moral object' which cannot be found.

Natural laws do not correspond in a simplistic one-to-one way with any empirically detectable object, yet empiricism is relevant to both supporting and disconfirming natural laws. With this in mind, we should not rush to reject the objective reality of moral laws on the basis that there is no 'queer' object for them to stand in one-to-one correspondence with.

There is, therefore, a semi-detached relationship between natural laws and facts -- laws are not facts but are not unrelated to facts -- facts confirm and disconfirm them. There is also a famous dichotomy between fact and value (where 'value' covers ethics, morality etc). You cannot, we are told, derive an 'ought' from an 'is'. This is the fact/value problem.

But, as Hume's argument reminds us, you cannot derive a law from an isolated observation. Call this the fact/law problem. Now, if the morality is essentially a matter or ethical rules or laws, might not the fact/value problem and the law/value problem be at least partly the same ?

(Note that there seems to be a middle ground here; the English "should" can indicate lawfulness without implying either ineveitability, like a natural law, or morality. eg you "should" move the bishop diagonally in chess -- but that does not mean you will, or that it is unethical to do so. It is just against the rules of chess).

Sceptics about ethical objectivism will complain that they cannot be exactly the same because moral rules like "Thou shalt not kill" contain an 'ought', an irreducibly ethical element. Let's look at what sceptics about natural laws say: their complaint is that a law is not a mere collection of facts. A law cannot be directly derived from a single observation, but it is not constituted by a collection of observations, a mere historical record, either. A historical record is a mere description; it tells you what has happened, but a law tells us what will and must happen. A description gives no basis for expectation -- the territory does not have to correspond to the map -- yet we expect laws to be followed, if we believe in them at all.

I do not propose to answer this challenge in its own terms -- that is I do not propose to show that a collection of mere facts does provide all by itself the required lawfulness. On my analysis, all individual laws depend on a general assumption -- a meta-law or ur-law -- that the future will follow the same general pattern as the past. The sceptic will object that this has been assumed without proof. My reply is that each individual law is tested on its own merits. Since at least some laws are thus shown to be correct a-posteriori, the lack of a-priori proof of the meta-law is not significant.

My further contention is that there is a different meta-law that needs to be posited for ethical rules. Just as someone who is engaged in the business of understanding the natural world needs a basic commitment to the idea that nature has regularities, so someone needs a basic commitment to moral behaviour in order to be convinced by ethical arguments. Ethical arguments do not and cannot be expected to convince psychopaths, any more than mathematical arguments can be expected to convice the innumerate. Whilst it is essentially correct that an evaluative conclusion cannot be drawn directly from a factual premiss, such a conclusion can be drawn with the aid of a bridging prinicple, (which is of course just our meta-law) e.g

1. I do not want to be murdered
2. I should do as I would be done by
3. I should not murder.

(2) is an example of a meta-law (or bridging principle or moral maxim), As ethical objectivism is a work-in-progress there are many variants, and a considerable literature discussing which is the correct one.
 
  • #135
Any model (physical/philosophical) must be based on a set of axioms (else you've only got circular reasoning). The OP will have to show that there exists a unique set of consistent axioms (ie: all other sets of axioms are internally inconsistent).
 
  • #136
Originally posted by DB
"Proving moral absolutism vs relativism" in favor of absolutism.


It has been shown historicall, that cohesion can not be enforced, by forced, but by a "willing" heart yielding to the divinity within itself. Ethically speaking, in considering the letter of the law, vs the spirit of the law, is not to merely follow the law, but in fact to fulfill it, willing. Cohesion must therefore be the fulfilling of that divine part of a person that is truly himself.
In essense, one is to be "true" and allow himself to be shaped according to his "true nature".
The seeming contradiction is introduced only if one assumes that man is inherently bad. In his immature stagesof development this may "appear" so, but once one becomes aware that he cannot be completely satisfied with anything other than his internal divine destiny wills, he is likely to feel "off course", fragmented, and untrue, and rightly so.
It is said that the labrynth is thourghly known. Therefore, does an acorn seed need to be forced to become an oak tree? No, with the proper introduction to a nurishing envirnment, the rest, is pretty much a no brainer.
Therefore to answer part of your question, Who can truly deny himself? Please comment.
Relativly speaking though,is man sufficient cause for himself? Obviously not, this suggest only that though he may be true, he of himself didn't establish the path he may be remaining true to. Please comment.

There is much to be said about this fascinating topic. For brevity, Burtrand Russlell's, "History of Western Philosophy" might be an excellant place for you to start.
 
  • #137
medium said:
by a "willing" heart yielding to the divinity within itself.
What is meant by the "divinity within"? What does this mean? Once we agree what it means, then by what means do you know that it exists?

medium said:
In essense, one is to be "true" and allow himself to be shaped according to his "true nature".
What is meant by the phrase "true nature"?

medium said:
The seeming contradiction is introduced only if one assumes that man is inherently bad.
Good and bad are subjective terms. If person A's "true nature" (once we have agreed what that phrase means) results in actions which person B judges to be bad, then it follows that person A is "inherently bad" according to person B.

Is polygamy "good" or "bad"? Who is to judge? If it is judged "good" then why is it illegal in most parts of the world? If it is judged "bad" then what harm does it do?

medium said:
Therefore to answer part of your question, Who can truly deny himself?
We need to agree what "true nature" means first.

medium said:
Relativly speaking though,is man sufficient cause for himself? Obviously not, this suggest only that though he may be true, he of himself didn't establish the path he may be remaining true to. Please comment.
Nietzsche famously claimed that "causa sui" (to be the cause of oneself) was nonsensical (see http://www.moving-finger.com/papers/Swamp.pdf [Broken]. It follows that all things in the world are either caused by other things or are uncaused (random), and hence no finite being possesses ultimate responsibility for its actions. One's "true nature" (assuming that "true nature" means what ultimately determines one to act in the way that one does) is not something that one can control, hence one cannot be ultimately responsible for one's "true nature".

Best Regards

Moving Finger
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #138
Nature

Moving Finger, the question of whether there is, "absolute good" or "absolute bad", needs a reference point. Otherwise, they can be used to mean anything. Which will take these forum posts to infinity and beyond.

For example, take the act of a snake eating a mouse. Is this "good" or "bad"? Well, here is where one should attempt to define the "reference point". We need it ( the reference point) in order to answer the question meaningfully and accurately. To find this reference point, one should ask, Good for what?, Bad for what?

This is the question one should be concerned with.

The question should go like this,

Act : A snake eats a mouse!

Question : Is this good (reference point coming up) --> for the snake's survival ?

Answer : Probably YES! since snakes need to feed in order to survive.

Question : Is this good (reference point coming up) --> for the mouse's survival?

Answer : NO! since it comes to an end!

Without agreeing on the reference point, these question are pointless! They can not be meaningfully answered. Good and bad are notches in a value system, therefore the value system has to be defined and agreed upon.

I can confidently say that no inanimate object has ever done any good or bad. Think about that for a while. Is that true? If so, Why? Why hasn't a rock(even an asteroid crashing into Earth and killing all life) done any good or bad?

Since rocks can not think, it can't assign value or reason, therefore; it cannot do "good" or "bad". We are the ones that judge the act to be good or bad. We can do that because we have those abilities.

When one asks, is there "absolute good or bad?" It is impossible to answer the question meaningfully without a point of reference.

What is the point of reference that is at the base of this question? That is a darn good question which we have to answer first before a meaningful answer can be given, If we do not, we will not see the forest, because the trees are in the way!

Lionshare
 
  • #139
All ethical propositions and moral propositions can be reduced to testable predictions of the natural world. Even a theist needs to agree on this, since his justification is, say, X is morally correct, because my holy scripture says so and the scripture is true. Those are two empirical statements.

"you ought to do X" <=> "you ought to do X, if X -> Y and Y is a normative proposition"

All attempts to justify moral propositions consists of logical arguments that rests om empirical facts. To show that something is morally unjustifiable, show that the empirical premises are factually wrong, or that the attempt contain logical fallacies. A morally justifiable act rests on correct empirical facts and contains no logical fallacies.

The "point of reference" is empirical facts.
 
  • #140
LionShare said:
Moving Finger, the question of whether there is, "absolute good" or "absolute bad", needs a reference point. Otherwise, they can be used to mean anything. Which will take these forum posts to infinity and beyond.
Why does something which is supposed to be "absolute" need any reference point? Surely the whole point about an absolute measure of anything is that it is NOT defined relative to anything else. If it WERE defined relative to something else then it would be a relative measure, and not an absolute measure!

LionShare said:
For example, take the act of a snake eating a mouse. Is this "good" or "bad"? Well, here is where one should attempt to define the "reference point". We need it ( the reference point) in order to answer the question meaningfully and accurately. To find this reference point, one should ask, Good for what?, Bad for what?
In other words, there is no absolute "good" or "bad" in the example of a snake eating a mouse - whether it is deemed good or bad depends on your reference point.

LionShare said:
When one asks, is there "absolute good or bad?" It is impossible to answer the question meaningfully without a point of reference.
Which, as we have seen, is a contradiction in terms!
"absolute" means no reference point is needed - the corollary is that if a reference point is needed to judge whether something is either good or bad, then we making a relative, and not an absolute, determination of good or bad.
 
<h2>1. What is the definition of absolute morals?</h2><p>Absolute morals refer to a set of principles or values that are universally accepted as right or wrong, regardless of cultural or individual beliefs.</p><h2>2. Can absolute morals be proven scientifically?</h2><p>No, absolute morals cannot be proven through scientific methods as they are based on subjective beliefs and values, rather than empirical evidence.</p><h2>3. How can we determine what absolute morals are?</h2><p>Determining absolute morals is a complex and ongoing process that involves examining philosophical and ethical principles, cultural norms, and individual beliefs.</p><h2>4. Are absolute morals the same for everyone?</h2><p>While there may be some overlap in absolute morals across different cultures and individuals, they are not necessarily the same for everyone. Individual experiences and beliefs can influence one's understanding of absolute morals.</p><h2>5. Do absolute morals change over time?</h2><p>Absolute morals are believed to be timeless and unchanging, but societal and cultural shifts can lead to changes in what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable.</p>

1. What is the definition of absolute morals?

Absolute morals refer to a set of principles or values that are universally accepted as right or wrong, regardless of cultural or individual beliefs.

2. Can absolute morals be proven scientifically?

No, absolute morals cannot be proven through scientific methods as they are based on subjective beliefs and values, rather than empirical evidence.

3. How can we determine what absolute morals are?

Determining absolute morals is a complex and ongoing process that involves examining philosophical and ethical principles, cultural norms, and individual beliefs.

4. Are absolute morals the same for everyone?

While there may be some overlap in absolute morals across different cultures and individuals, they are not necessarily the same for everyone. Individual experiences and beliefs can influence one's understanding of absolute morals.

5. Do absolute morals change over time?

Absolute morals are believed to be timeless and unchanging, but societal and cultural shifts can lead to changes in what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
586
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
2
Views
72
Writing: Input Wanted Number of Androids on Spaceships
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
5
Views
107
Replies
16
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
235
Views
19K
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top