Proving absolute morals exist

[WarrenPlatts]

The inherent properties of morals, i.e. their insubstantiality, make them impossible to prove. Therefore no one moral can be completely proven to be absolute.

See, this is where you lose me. Thinking of morals as "insubstantial" entities is ontologically extravagant and epistemologically otiose. On the principle of Ockham's razor, it is much better to think of morals as actual sentences as concrete and meaningful as the pixels on your computer screen that you are reading at this moment. Therefore, since moral sentences--we can call them "morals" if you like--are as meaningful as any other sentence written down or spoken in English, then such sentences are either true or false.

We have certain foundations and we learn from there, as does everything in human history.

Here, we can agree that foundations are necessary. The advantage of moral realism, however, is that it offers a concrete foundation, whereas moral absolutism rests on a "spooky" or, as you say, insubstantial foundation.

If we grant that morals are a type of sentence, then let us further grant that moral sentences must include a moral predicate of some kind, at a minimum, one of these four words: 'right', 'wrong', 'good', or 'evil'. Thus, 'All men are created equal' should, strictly speaking, be rewritten as something like 'it is right that x treats y and z equally' where x, y, and z are all fellow humans. Thus, the question is, how are moral predicates to be defined?

We can't define moral predicates in nonmoral terms. That would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy of G. E. Moore. Indeed, if we could so define moral predicates in nonmoral terms, it would be possible to completely eliminate moral predicates from the language--and we agree that we can't do that.

Furthermore, it is useless to define moral terms circularly, as if we could say 'moral' means the same as 'right' which means the same as 'good' which means the same as 'ethical' which means the same as 'moral', etc.

So, one alternative is the one that you (and Moore) propose, that morals are insubstantial and can only be accessed through a spooky faculty of moral intuition.

Or, we can learn the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong' ostensively, like we learn the definition of 'yellow'. It does no good to explain to a person blind from birth that yellow is the color of egg yolks and ripe lemons. To know the meaning of 'yellow', yellow must be experienced. Similarly, for the moral predicates. So, if you had an alien friend who wanted to learn English, you might show him a grown man extinguishing a cigarette on the skin of a baby, and then say 'That is wrong!' And so your friend might be confused at first, so then you show him some teenagers setting fire to a cat, and you say again 'That is wrong!' The alien then begins to see the common thread.

An example from English literature of this process comes from Dickenson's A Christmas Carol. Scrooge has forgot the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong' that he learned as a child because of decades being a ruthless capitalist pig. So the various spirits out to teach him a lesson don't tell him the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong', they instead show Scrooge various scenes where Scrooge is able to experience right and wrong for himself, and Scrooge thereby regains his humanity--and indeed, what other defining mark is there for humanity, other than our capacity to be moral, i.e., to be humane?

With the ostensive definition of 'wrong' now in hand, it is possible to theorize about the wrongness of situations where the wrongness is far from obvious. For example, stealing a $10 item from a WalMart store would have the consequence of reducing the annual earnings of WalMart by 0.00000000001%, or whatever, so that the harm is negligible--yet we probably still want to say that it is wrong that someone shoplifts, other things being equal.

And so we proceed, historically, and our theories are bound to evolve as society evolves, but now morality is built on the firm foundation of empirical experience rather than an insubstantial pie-in-the-sky that can only be accessed through extrasensory perception.

 

[Dawguard]

See, this is where you lose me. Thinking of morals as "insubstantial" entities is ontologically extravagant and epistemologically otiose. On the principle of Ockham's razor, it is much better to think of morals as actual sentences as concrete and meaningful as the pixels on your computer screen that you are reading at this moment. Therefore, since moral sentences--we can call them "morals" if you like--are as meaningful as any other sentence written down or spoken in English, then such sentences are either true or false.
Here, we can agree that foundations are necessary. The advantage of moral realism, however, is that it offers a concrete foundation, whereas moral absolutism rests on a "spooky" or, as you say, insubstantial foundation.
If we grant that morals are a type of sentence, then let us further grant that moral sentences must include a moral predicate of some kind, at a minimum, one of these four words: 'right', 'wrong', 'good', or 'evil'. Thus, 'All men are created equal' should, strictly speaking, be rewritten as something like 'it is right that x treats y and z equally' where x, y, and z are all fellow humans. Thus, the question is, how are moral predicates to be defined?
We can't define moral predicates in nonmoral terms. That would be to commit the naturalistic fallacy of G. E. Moore. Indeed, if we could so define moral predicates in nonmoral terms, it would be possible to completely eliminate moral predicates from the language--and we agree that we can't do that.
Furthermore, it is useless to define moral terms circularly, as if we could say 'moral' means the same as 'right' which means the same as 'good' which means the same as 'ethical' which means the same as 'moral', etc.
So, one alternative is the one that you (and Moore) propose, that morals are insubstantial and can only be accessed through a spooky faculty of moral intuition.
Or, we can learn the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong' ostensively, like we learn the definition of 'yellow'. It does no good to explain to a person blind from birth that yellow is the color of egg yolks and ripe lemons. To know the meaning of 'yellow', yellow must be experienced. Similarly, for the moral predicates. So, if you had an alien friend who wanted to learn English, you might show him a grown man extinguishing a cigarette on the skin of a baby, and then say 'That is wrong!' And so your friend might be confused at first, so then you show him some teenagers setting fire to a cat, and you say again 'That is wrong!' The alien then begins to see the common thread.
An example from English literature of this process comes from Dickenson's A Christmas Carol. Scrooge has forgot the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong' that he learned as a child because of decades being a ruthless capitalist pig. So the various spirits out to teach him a lesson don't tell him the meaning of 'right' and 'wrong', they instead show Scrooge various scenes where Scrooge is able to experience right and wrong for himself, and Scrooge thereby regains his humanity--and indeed, what other defining mark is there for humanity, other than our capacity to be moral, i.e., to be humane?
With the ostensive definition of 'wrong' now in hand, it is possible to theorize about the wrongness of situations where the wrongness is far from obvious. For example, stealing a $10 item from a WalMart store would have the consequence of reducing the annual earnings of WalMart by 0.00000000001%, or whatever, so that the harm is negligible--yet we probably still want to say that it is wrong that someone shoplifts, other things being equal.
And so we proceed, historically, and our theories are bound to evolve as society evolves, but now morality is built on the firm foundation of empirical experience rather than an insubstantial pie-in-the-sky that can only be accessed through extrasensory perception.

Your definition of morals depends entirely on right and wrong. Saying that morals are sentences, consider the sentence, "It is wrong to kill an innocent person". This is a moral, but to be truly understood every word of the sentence must be defined. What then is wrong? It cannot be used in a factual sense, so it must be referring to morally wrong. What then is morally wrong, and what are morals? Do you see the problem? You are using morals to define themselves. Also, why is it wrong, if you know what wrong is. What makes it wrong for you to do something? Take for example shooting someone: there is nothing physicaly "wrong" about using a bullet to alter an organic mass. Therefore the idea has to stem from inherent rights of human beings which do not have anything physical to them. While words and sentences are used to define this ambiguous "thing", the words themselves only represent them. Certanly while Ockham's Razor says it is better to accept the simplest solution, it does not say that solution is always correct.
Not only that, but your method of teaching right and wrong is nothing more then simple brainwashing. It has no reason behind it, since it is composed only of repetition. Using your example of a Christmas Carol, Scrooge was convinced of right and wrong becuase of what he had drilled into him as a child. he was remebering, nothing more, and the rembrences were those of simple repetition. One could use this ostensive method to teach people it is wrong to be kind and good to steal. In this regard moral realism slips into moral relativism and allows each person to have their own morals. After all, brainwashing was used to teach people that the Earth was the center of the solar system, but we all know how well that turned out. Reason will always prevail, and so people will question their ostensively learned morals.
So, having ruled out morals as sentences, and showing that ostensive learning will collapse on itself, I am still left with only absolutism. What we must understand is that morals are undefinable. It goes against anyone who has any morals at all, for nobody likes to hear that they are believing in something that might not even exist. Why do you think atheism is so opposed by religious groups? Unfortunatly morals and religion are very alike, and neither a god nor a moral can be proven. Perhaps this is why they were always connected?
Unlike religion however, it is dangerous to say that there are no morals. I go back to what I said a few posts back, that you cannot have a society believe anythign is OK as long as they get away with it. Therefore relativism is disqualified, and realism is disqualified. Eventually people will question whether the morals they believe are real, and they will come to see that they cannot be proven. They will then cast them off utterly, and that would be calamity. Instead of trying to say they exist, what we should be teaching is the importance of those things we know cultivate a good society, and use those as morals. Such things would be; people are equal, don't kill, steal, rape, commit purgury, etc. These then become our morals, and they must be absolute if they are to be believed.
Oh, by the way, pie-in-the-sky and extrasencorsy perception is utter nonsense. Reason and logic are the only things to reach that which we cannot see.

 

[Dawguard]

So what? Neither the world nor society is in business to make you (or me) feel good.

It is not to make you feel good, and it is for no one's benefit in particular. Consider what happens when there are no morals. Anything is acceptabel so long as you aren't caught. Where does this lead? To selfish corruption, especially by those in power. Wow, corruption by those in power, who would've thought that possible? Anyway, this further leads to people only looking out for their own interets; they have no motivation to do otherwise. Now, how can a society continue when its people only care about themselves? They will have no vision of the future and will squander everything away in the present. The next generation wastes what is left, and so one until there is nothing but ignorance and poverty.
See the problem? Morals are not intended to make you "feel better". Go to a phyciatrist if you want that, don't come to me and so its none of my business. I want no part of it. My interest is sheer survival; I couldn't care less if it makes you feel good or bad.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Your definition of morals depends entirely on right and wrong. Saying that morals are sentences, consider the sentence, "It is wrong to kill an innocent person". This is a moral, but to be truly understood every word of the sentence must be defined. What then is wrong? It cannot be used in a factual sense, so it must be referring to morally wrong. What then is morally wrong, and what are morals? Do you see the problem? You are using morals to define themselves. Also, why is it wrong, if you know what wrong is. What makes it wrong for you to do something?

Of course my definition of morals qua moral sentences depends on moral right and wrong. What else can a moral possibly be based on? There is nothing circular about writing 'it is morally wrong that p' and calling that sentence a moral sentence.

The only thing that I can guess that you're trying to get at is that you believe that "morals" take the logical form of an imperative rather than a description. That is you want to write down 'Do not kill babies!' But imperatives are logically problematic, however. For one thing, imperatives don't have truth-values in the ordi0nary sense. What is the truth-value of 'Shut the door!' or 'Shut up!'? In addition, the imperative form begs the question as to why someone should not kill babies. If you accepted God's authority, then you could follow the command 'Do not kill babies' without worrying why by trusting in God--but you do not trust in God.

On the other hand, the general description 'it is wrong that someone kills a baby' obviously has a truth-value, and it also says why one should not kill babies--one shouldn't kill babies because it's morally wrong to kill babies.

'Moral wrong' itself cannot be defined, however, as you agree. Likewise 'yellow' cannot be defined--a blind person will never be able to fully understand the concept. Similarly, there will be people who, through whatever reasons of nurture and nature will never "get" the concept of moral wrongness--they are moral cripples. If you see someome torturing a baby, and you will not assent to the sentence 'That is wrong!', the best that can be said for you is that you don't understand English, and at worst, you must be mentally deranged. You could not properly be described as evil, however; an evil person clearly recognizes the moral wrongness, but chooses to laugh and participate in the moral wrongness himself. The rapist knows what he is doing is wrong, yet he freely chooses to do it anyway--THAT is evil. I hope you don't disagree. . . .

your method of teaching right and wrong is nothing more then simple brainwashing. It has no reason behind it, since it is composed only of repetition. . . . One could use this ostensive method to teach people it is wrong to be kind and good to steal.

If one learns multiplication tables through a certain amount of repitition, that amounts to brainwashing?!? I don't think so. The mere fact that repetition is involved in the process of learning does not entail that there is no reasoning behind what is being taught. And sure its possible to teach some one that good is evil and evil is good and yellow is blue and black is white, but whatever it is that such a perverse teacher was teaching, it would certainly not be the English language.

And moral rules are not learned ostensively. Moral rules are generalizations that are learned inductively after witnessing particular events. We see a particular baby being tortured, then we generalize, and come up with the general rule 'it is wrong that anyone tortures any baby'.

Instead of trying to say they exist, what we should be teaching is the importance of those things we know cultivate a good society, and use those as morals. . . . These then become our morals, and they must be absolute if they are to be believed.

The first part is what I've been saying all along, so we're getting somewhere. But we don't believe in such morals because they are "absolute" (whatever that means); rather we believe them simply because they are true.

Oh, by the way, pie-in-the-sky and extrasencorsy perception is utter nonsense. Reason and logic are the only things to reach that which we cannot see.

Well, since ESP does not exist, I'll grant your point that nothing can be reached through ESP. On the other hand, if a thing doesn't exist at all, it's not going to be reached through logic or reason either. Moral realism can do all of the moral work that absolutism can, and because of moral realism's empirical foundation, it's possible to use logic and reason in order to argue for a given moral. Within moral absolutism, there is only the dull thud of conflicting intuitions.

 

[Dawguard]

Of course my definition of morals qua moral sentences depends on moral right and wrong. What else can a moral possibly be based on? There is nothing circular about writing 'it is morally wrong that p' and calling that sentence a moral sentence.
The only thing that I can guess that you're trying to get at is that you believe that "morals" take the logical form of an imperative rather than a description. That is you want to write down 'Do not kill babies!' But imperatives are logically problematic, however. For one thing, imperatives don't have truth-values in the ordi0nary sense. What is the truth-value of 'Shut the door!' or 'Shut up!'? In addition, the imperative form begs the question as to why someone should not kill babies. If you accepted God's authority, then you could follow the command 'Do not kill babies' without worrying why by trusting in God--but you do not trust in God.
On the other hand, the general description 'it is wrong that someone kills a baby'

Why?

obviously has a truth-value, and it also says why one should not kill babies--one shouldn't kill babies because it's morally wrong to kill babies.

This is using your own argument to justify itself. It's circular.
Let me make this plain. I've no preference over an imperitive statement or anything else. It really doesn't matter to me how you say it. In this, I think you've missed my point. Let me make it clearer: sentences and words express moral truths but are not themselves morals. However you word a sentence, whether imperitive or not, does no make it an actual moral. I could say anything, such as "it is morally acceptable to kill a baby", but that doesn't make it correct. Therefore sentences cannot be morals.

'Moral wrong' itself cannot be defined, however, as you agree.

Then how can you claim to know it? How can you claim that words, which are nothing more then representations, represent that which cannot be defined? What good is a word if you don't know what it is? The foundation of your moral claims rests on something you don't know.

Likewise 'yellow' cannot be defined--a blind person will never be able to fully understand the concept. Similarly, there will be people who, through whatever reasons of nurture and nature will never "get" the concept of moral wrongness--they are moral cripples. If you see someome torturing a baby, and you will not assent to the sentence 'That is wrong!', the best that can be said for you is that you don't understand English, and at worst, you must be mentally deranged. You could not properly be described as evil, however; an evil person clearly recognizes the moral wrongness, but chooses to laugh and participate in the moral wrongness himself. The rapist knows what he is doing is wrong, yet he freely chooses to do it anyway--THAT is evil. I hope you don't disagree. . . .

No, I don't disagree there.

If one learns multiplication tables through a certain amount of repitition, that amounts to brainwashing?!? I don't think so. The mere fact that repetition is involved in the process of learning does not entail that there is no reasoning behind what is being taught.

The equation is not similar. Multiplication tables can be proven by logic. And yes, they are a form of brainwashing, since I could take a toddler and convince him that five times five equals six. What I couldn't do is prove it, and when he grows older he will doubtless question my reasoning. With multiplication tables they are blatanly true and no one would question them for more then two seconds. With morals it is different, because you cannot prove them to be right. Therefore to simply try to pound ideas into their head will always fail.

And moral rules are not learned ostensively. Moral rules are generalizations that are learned inductively after witnessing particular events. We see a particular baby being tortured, then we generalize, and come up with the general rule 'it is wrong that anyone tortures any baby'.

If you grew up in a society where torturing babies was normal, you would not have this reaction. You wouldn't even think twice about it. How can you base morals on a gut reaction? This sounds like an excuse to justify relativism which is entirely based individual feeling. What if I am a sociopath and haev no averse reaction? Why does your thought that it is wrong make it wrong for me?
I hope you see the relatavism that realism leads to. Realism is nothing more then an attempt to make relativistic morals seem concrete. While I am glad that realism is not as flippant as relativism I cannoot accept it. We must look to the end product of our thoughts and base everything around that.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

However you word a sentence, whether imperitive or not, does no make it an actual moral. I could say anything, such as "it is morally acceptable to kill a baby", but that doesn't make it correct. Therefore sentences cannot be morals.

I must not have been clear enough. Let me reiterate: A moral is a true sentence containing a moral predicate. Therefore, since the sentence 'it is morally acceptable to kill babies' is false, that sentence does not count as a genuine moral. Therefore, your counterargument does not apply to moral realism.

But OK, you've made it plain that you don't think that "morals" are true sentences containing moral predicates. Then I repeat my question: what are morals?

You say they are not concrete. You say they are not pie-in-the-sky. Are they abstract entities then? Platonic forms? If there were no humans, would absolute morals still exist? Where do they exist if not in this universe?

You say morals are not definable, yet they can be "reached" through logic and reason, but really, the only justification you've given so far is a pragmatic one: it's good for society if people believe in morals, and they are more likely to believe in morals if we say they are absolute. So basically, morality is in our enlightened self-interest, so we should believe in morals, and we call them "absolute" in order to get more people to believe in them. But enlightened self-interest has never been an adequate foundation for ethics, and pragmatism is but one step removed from relativism. Relativism says do what you want. Pragmatism says do whatever works--for you! So, until you can come up with better logic and reason, it seems you're stuck in the same boat as you say I'm in.

But I'm not stuck in the same boat as the relativists. Just because ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies, it does not follow that the moral realist position that the sentence 'it is wrong that someone tortures babies' is not objectively true. I can only speak from my position as a person raised in a modern, English-speaking civilization, but you are probably correct that if I was raised as an Aztec, I wouldn't have a problem with human sacrifice. Yet, according to moral realism, it would still be morally wrong that I participated in human sacrifice notwithstanding that I actually sacrificed humans. Like I said earlier, there are moral cripples. According to moral realism, a human-sacrificing Aztec would be a moral cripple--though not necessarily evil because they just didn't know the difference between right and wrong. If you were to say that human sacrifice was moral--for Aztecs--THAT is moral relativism. But surely that's not your position. . . .

To use your own analogy, just because someone is brainwashed into believing that 2 + 2 = 5, it does not follow that someone taught through repetition that 2 + 2 = 4 did not learn the truth. Similarly, if someone was raised to think that sacrificing babies to Satan is morally good, it does not follow that someone properly brought up to think that it is morally wrong to sacrifice babies did not learn the objective truth. Just because repetition is involved in learning falsities as well as truth, it does not follow that truth learned through repetition is not truth. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Regarding the indefinability of the moral predicates: as you say, words are intended to represent something. Some words represent simple things, and some words represent complex things. Thus words representing complex things can be defined using words that represent simple things. For example, I could define the word 'horse' as meaning the same as 'a large, solid-hoofed, herbivorous quadruped'.

Alas, it is not so easy with words that represent simple things. Take for example, the word 'yellow'. Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines 'yellow' as 'a color like that of egg yolk, ripe lemons, etc.' But what kind of a definition is THAT? Does 'yellow' mean the same as 'egg yolk', or does 'yellow' mean the same as 'ripe lemon'? I don't think it's either. Rather, if you want to know the definition of 'yellow' the dictionary instructs you to find an egg, crack it open, and look at the yolk, then find a ripe lemon and compare the two, and you will see for yourself the one thing that the egg yolk and the ripe lemon have in common: YELLOW!

Oh my God! Repetition! Again! !Que horrible!

In other words, the dictionary itself gives an ostensive definition (look it up!) for the word 'yellow'.

And so it is with the moral predicates. The predicate 'morally wrong' is intended to represent something. The problem is that something is simple, just like yellow is simple. So moral terms cannot be defined using nonmoral terms, in the way 'horse' can be defined using nonhorse terms. So, to say, as you have come close to saying, that 'that which is morally good is that which is conducive to survival' commits a logical fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, first identified by G.E. Moore in his 1903 Principia Ethica. Similarly, some animal rights activists would like to define 'morally wrong' as 'causing suffering'. But this is like saying that 'yellow' means the same as 'lemon'.

So, moral predicates like 'morally wrong' cannot be defined in nonmoral terms. All I can do is show you suffering, murdering, cheating, mutilating, raping, wasting, vandalizing, etc. But 'morally wrong' does not mean the same as 'suffering', nor does 'morally wrong' mean the same as 'murdering', etc., nor does 'morally wrong' mean all those things taken together. Rather, 'morally wrong' is that quality that all those things have in common, just as 'yellow' represents that quality that egg yolks, ripe lemons, and ripe bananas all have in common.

Sorry, that's the best I can do. But it's also the best anyone else can do. . . .

And a final note, the ostensive definition of 'morally wrong' is absolutely NOT based on a "gut reaction", as you have suggested. Of course feelings of outrage are present upon witnessing a man beat a cripple in a wheelchair. However, feelings of outrage are also present in situations where there is no reason to suppose that something immoral has happened, as when one is caught in a traffic jam.

 

[Dawguard]

I must not have been clear enough. Let me reiterate: A moral is a true sentence containing a moral predicate. Therefore, since the sentence 'it is morally acceptable to kill babies' is false, that sentence does not count as a genuine moral.

Why? What makes it wrong? How can you prove that is not the actual moral truth? My only point is that morals cannot be proven as such.

But OK, you've made it plain that you don't think that "morals" are true sentences containing moral predicates. Then I repeat my question: what are morals?
You say they are not concrete. You say they are not pie-in-the-sky. Are they abstract entities then? Platonic forms? If there were no humans, would absolute morals still exist? Where do they exist if not in this universe?

The closest you could come to defining them would be laws of ideas. Like laws of physics they are not real in an inherent sense, but no one can deny the law of inertia is absolutely true. Problem is, inertia can be proved through observation while morals cannot.

You say morals are not definable, yet they can be "reached" through logic and reason, but really, the only justification you've given so far is a pragmatic one: it's good for society if people believe in morals, and they are more likely to believe in morals if we say they are absolute. So basically, morality is in our enlightened self-interest, so we should believe in morals, and we call them "absolute" in order to get more people to believe in them. But enlightened self-interest has never been an adequate foundation for ethics, and pragmatism is but one step removed from relativism. Relativism says do what you want. Pragmatism says do whatever works--for you! So, until you can come up with better logic and reason, it seems you're stuck in the same boat as you say I'm in.
But I'm not stuck in the same boat as the relativists. Just because ancient cultures used to sacrifice babies, it does not follow that the moral realist position that the sentence 'it is wrong that someone tortures babies' is not objectively true. I can only speak from my position as a person raised in a modern, English-speaking civilization, but you are probably correct that if I was raised as an Aztec, I wouldn't have a problem with human sacrifice. Yet, according to moral realism, it would still be morally wrong that I participated in human sacrifice notwithstanding that I actually sacrificed humans. Like I said earlier, there are moral cripples. According to moral realism, a human-sacrificing Aztec would be a moral cripple--though not necessarily evil because they just didn't know the difference between right and wrong. If you were to say that human sacrifice was moral--for Aztecs--THAT is moral relativism. But surely that's not your position. . . .

No, it is not my position. My only pragmatism is that morals must be believed no matter what. I might not have made myself clear enough, let me try to remedy that. Pragmatism should only be used to believe in morals, but the process of discovering what morals are is entirely separated from it.

Regarding the indefinability of the moral predicates: as you say, words are intended to represent something. Some words represent simple things, and some words represent complex things. Thus words representing complex things can be defined using words that represent simple things. For example, I could define the word 'horse' as meaning the same as 'a large, solid-hoofed, herbivorous quadruped'.
Alas, it is not so easy with words that represent simple things. Take for example, the word 'yellow'. Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary defines 'yellow' as 'a color like that of egg yolk, ripe lemons, etc.' But what kind of a definition is THAT? Does 'yellow' mean the same as 'egg yolk', or does 'yellow' mean the same as 'ripe lemon'? I don't think it's either. Rather, if you want to know the definition of 'yellow' the dictionary instructs you to find an egg, crack it open, and look at the yolk, then find a ripe lemon and compare the two, and you will see for yourself the one thing that the egg yolk and the ripe lemon have in common: YELLOW!
Oh my God! Repetition! Again! !Que horrible!
In other words, the dictionary itself gives an ostensive definition (look it up!) for the word 'yellow'.
And so it is with the moral predicates. The predicate 'morally wrong' is intended to represent something. The problem is that something is simple, just like yellow is simple. So moral terms cannot be defined using nonmoral terms, in the way 'horse' can be defined using nonhorse terms. So, to say, as you have come close to saying, that 'that which is morally good is that which is conducive to survival' commits a logical fallacy, the naturalistic fallacy, first identified by G.E. Moore in his 1903 Principia Ethica. Similarly, some animal rights activists would like to define 'morally wrong' as 'causing suffering'. But this is like saying that 'yellow' means the same as 'lemon'.
So, moral predicates like 'morally wrong' cannot be defined in nonmoral terms. All I can do is show you suffering, murdering, cheating, mutilating, raping, wasting, vandalizing, etc. But 'morally wrong' does not mean the same as 'suffering', nor does 'morally wrong' mean the same as 'murdering', etc., nor does 'morally wrong' mean all those things taken together. Rather, 'morally wrong' is that quality that all those things have in common, just as 'yellow' represents that quality that egg yolks, ripe lemons, and ripe bananas all have in common.
Sorry, that's the best I can do. But it's also the best anyone else can do. . . .

And it does a pretty good job. However, I thik you would agree that the list of things you said are completely wrong, i.e. absolutely wrong. Realism is simply a way of finding morals, and not saying that those morals are absolute or not. Therefore I say that realism and absolutism are not opposites, but rather could be considered complimentory to each other. Unfortunatly they somehow are considered 'alternitives' of each other, and this has most regretably led to an argument over something we basically agree on. I think that realism's way of finding morals is probably one of the best there is, and it appears that you think the morals you find through realism are absolute. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, I wouldn't want to misinterpret your view.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Originally Posted by WarrenPlatts
I must not have been clear enough. Let me reiterate: A moral is a true sentence containing a moral predicate. Therefore, since the sentence 'it is morally acceptable to kill babies' is false, that sentence does not count as a genuine moral.
Why? What makes it wrong? How can you prove that is not the actual moral truth? My only point is that morals cannot be proven as such.

According to moral realism, we are firmly in the realm of empiricism where nothing can be proved in the logical sense of proof at least. It is a truism of science that scientific truth is always accepted provisionally; similarly, for moral realism--unlike mathematical truth, which can be proved with zero doubt, and is therefore unrevisable, as long as the axioms remain the same. Even the law of inertia cannot be logically proved true. Einstein's version of the law of inertia is different from Newton's, and Einstein has not had the last word on inertia (cf. the latest paper by http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO1PDF/V13N1MAS.pdf"). Nevertheless, you and I both know that for practical purposes, the moral 'it is wrong to torture babies' is as true as any truth of science--we can bet our lives on it--though neither it, nor the truths of science can be proved.

So, the question is, how do you know that 'it is morally wrong to torture babies' is true? I maintain you know it's true the same way I do, and that is empirically. In past posts you have vaguely alluded to the fact that bad s*** has happened to you in the past (I think that's why you believe that mere survival is the highest good). So you don't need anyone to tell you what 'moral wrong' means, because you have directly experienced it for yourself. And there's no point in seeking a proof of this knowledge, any more than seeking a proof for the fact that dandelion flowers are yellow.

However, I think you would agree that the list of things you said are completely wrong, i.e. absolutely wrong. Realism is simply a way of finding morals, and not saying that those morals are absolute or not. Therefore I say that realism and absolutism are not opposites, but rather could be considered complimentory to each other. Unfortunatly they somehow are considered 'alternitives' of each other, and this has most regretably led to an argument over something we basically agree on. I think that realism's way of finding morals is probably one of the best there is, and it appears that you think the morals you find through realism are absolute. Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, I wouldn't want to misinterpret your view.

I agree that you and I are basically on the same page. My main problem with moral absolutism is two-fold: (1) it doesn't provide an account as to how we know the truth of morals like 'it is wrong to torture babies'; and (2) the excess baggage of the connotations of totalitarianism and unrevisability that 'absolutism' carries with it.

For example, Osama bin Laden exemplifies this two-fold problem perfectly. He starts off on the wrong foot when he uses the Koran, instead of everyday experience as his moral foundation, and then climbing the ladder of logic and reason, concludes the moral that it's OK to nuke Americans by the millions is absolute and true. Now that he's arrived at his freakish moral philosophy that he believes is absolute, he has kicked down the ladder of reason and logic because he has no use for them anymore since he knows the absolute truth. So there is no use in reasoning or arguing with him anymore. On the other hand, while recognizing the reality of moral truth, moral realism retains a certain humility in that its truths are as provisional as the truths of science. For bin Laden, the truths of the Koran are absolute and unrevisable, and this leads to enslavement, chaos, death, and destruction.

But anyway, thanks for your comments. They have helped me to figure out how to express my own ideas more clearly.

 

[Dawguard]

I agree that you and I are basically on the same page. My main problem with moral absolutism is two-fold: (1) it doesn't provide an account as to how we know the truth of morals like 'it is wrong to torture babies'; and (2) the excess baggage of the connotations of totalitarianism and unrevisability that 'absolutism' carries with it.

Ah, the crux of the problem. I haven't been promoting the complete philosphy of absolutism. I've argued against relativism, and the only other option was absolutism. Realism is slightly different then either, and could be concidered the antidote to absolutism's problems; one that it desperatly needed. In this regard then, I completely agree with everything you have said.

 

[bao_ho]

A Good King will upbring his city.
That city will stockpile many fruit.
The citizens will divide into two classes.
One class works on creating free time.
The second class creates work from free time.
A mass orgy takes place.
The citizens multiply and outgrow The Good kings ability to uphold his city and citizen.
The City comes crashing down again.
History may repeat for some time...

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Life and death are absolutes. Morals are to guide the choices of those with the capacity to choose. The life of those with the capacity and freedom to choose will only be defended by those who benefit from and therefore value that capacity and freedom.

It is the branch of philosophy devoted to ethics that must establish the relationship between the absolute of reality and the life and freedom of those for whom a proper moral guidance is understood to be an absolute necessity for their survival and well-being. The failure of ethics to substantiate this correlation will leave those not armed with the conviction of this truth vulnerable to those who prey upon the weak in body, mind and spirit. Determining what supports the existence of those with the capacity to choose and what is detrimental to their existence is the cornerstone in the foundation of a rationally based ethics.

Those involved with discovering and establishing ethical guidelines must understand that the existence and well-being of humanity is at stake. In the end reality will prove whether the moral percepts we choose to uphold and follow are absolutely right or wrong.

 

[octelcogopod]

I especially like the yellow egg analogy that Warren came up with.
When a human perceives yellow, the brain translates the lightwave frequencies into yellow, which is by an unknown process created in the consciousness (yet another unknown process.)

The quality of yellow is indeed like the quality of the moral dilemma of killing a baby.
But you realize how people always come up with baby killing in these discussions?
I've read it on several forums over the years. It seems to me that killing anything else, is morally up for discussion, which is kind of proof in itself.
Because if we say "killing your mother" or something, then that's not taken to the extreme (apparently), which means the other person might not find it morally disgusting.
This shows that morals are relative to the mind creating them.

Maybe that gut feeling we get, when we do something wrong as a child, may be just the way we're created. It must not mean that other species think the same.

There are also two different ways of looking at morals, objectively and subjectively.
For instance, say on a far away planet, people had to sacrifice their babies to an evil god every week, or else the god would kill 20 of their women.
The moral dilemma is of course; 1 baby sacrificed or 20 women sacrificed.
This is hard cold reality, where humans then apply the "problem", which is the moral dilemma.
The truth is that there is no solution to such a problem, it's up to the perceiver.
For instance the mothero fthe child would of course say "sacrifice the women!" and she would believe this to be right.
The others would perhaps say "sacrifice the baby! 20 women is not worth one baby!"
And here's the thing; we all get that gut feeling, when reading this; "but the baby is young and innocent, it doesn't deserve to die, it can live a happy life."

Where does that gut feeling come from? Does this signify objective moralism?
IMO no.
I think that this is the way we are born, it's the way we see things.
But as always, I will leave it up to science to figure it out.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

I especially like the yellow egg analogy that Warren came up with.
When a human perceives yellow, the brain translates the lightwave frequencies into yellow, which is by an unknown process created in the consciousness (yet another unknown process.)

The quality of yellow is indeed like the quality of the moral dilemma of killing a baby.
But you realize how people always come up with baby killing in these discussions?
I've read it on several forums over the years. It seems to me that killing anything else, is morally up for discussion, which is kind of proof in itself.
Because if we say "killing your mother" or something, then that's not taken to the extreme (apparently), which means the other person might not find it morally disgusting.
This shows that morals are relative to the mind creating them.

Maybe that gut feeling we get, when we do something wrong as a child, may be just the way we're created. It must not mean that other species think the same.

There are also two different ways of looking at morals, objectively and subjectively.
For instance, say on a far away planet, people had to sacrifice their babies to an evil god every week, or else the god would kill 20 of their women.
The moral dilemma is of course; 1 baby sacrificed or 20 women sacrificed.
This is hard cold reality, where humans then apply the "problem", which is the moral dilemma.
The truth is that there is no solution to such a problem, it's up to the perceiver.
For instance the mothero fthe child would of course say "sacrifice the women!" and she would believe this to be right.
The others would perhaps say "sacrifice the baby! 20 women is not worth one baby!"
And here's the thing; we all get that gut feeling, when reading this; "but the baby is young and innocent, it doesn't deserve to die, it can live a happy life."

Where does that gut feeling come from? Does this signify objective moralism?
IMO no.
I think that this is the way we are born, it's the way we see things.
But as always, I will leave it up to science to figure it out.

Back here on Earth I say, "we kill the god".
The gut feeling is subjective; why we experience it is what must be determined objectively.

 

[pierre45]

I think the only absolute moral is expressed in the descriptive sense of the word, i.e. acting in ways consistent with your idea of a moral life is absolutely good, acting in ways that you believe are morally wrong is absolutely bad.

Inherent in that attempt to live a moral life is an attempt to reason out to the best of your abilities what actions are moral, and the degrees to which you fail to do so you are a moral failure.

It works more or less like a democracy when it comes to voting, the only absolutely bad citizen during an election is one who does not concern himself with attempting to define for himself through reason what he thinks the correct actions of the government should be, and also does not work to attempt to realize those actions. What conclusions that persons actually comes to, who they actually vote for, are really beside the point...if they have honestly attempted to do right to the best of their abilities they are successful, they are good.

Only in acting in ways in which we believe are wrong, and in not attempting to through reason define the best morals you can, can you fail in an absolute way.

But I don't think any of this could be proven to exist outside our own minds, unless our survival is the measuring stick.

 

[clouded.perception]

On the original post,
I'm confused.
What you've basically done is assume that morals ar absolute in order to prove that morals are absolute. You have assumed that one can have asolute wisdom and justice (which depend on morals) to show absolute morals.
Obviously, it still depends on context. (In my opinion) "Right" and "Wrong" are not absolute on a universal scale, but my own morals are absolute so long as they remain inside my own mind. Your morals are absolute IN YOUR PERSPECTIVE.
But as for your argument that opened the thread, it just looks to me like creative wordplay.

 

[Dawguard]

Obviously, it still depends on context. (In my opinion) "Right" and "Wrong" are not absolute on a universal scale, but my own morals are absolute so long as they remain inside my own mind. Your morals are absolute IN YOUR PERSPECTIVE.

I respecfully dissagree with, and let me explain why. If morals are based around perseption then my perception of what's right could be totally different then yours. OK you say, that's fine, that's what I say. Now what if my idea of morals is that they don't exist and I can do anything I want. In my mind its alright to tortue you to death. Does that make it right for me to do it to you? Of course not, because you think it's wrong. So who is right?
The simple fact is that we cannot isolate morals to individuals, they have to be based around a community. A such they cannot be dependent on individual opinion. Becuase they rely on everyone there must be laws regarding them that apply equally to everyone. If these laws are flexible and change, then something is both right and wrong, it just depends on the time. Such obvious duplicity would destroy the purpose of morals and as such is illogical. The only conclusion is that these equal laws must be absolute.

 

[RVBuckeye]

The simple fact is that we cannot isolate morals to individuals, they have to be based around a community. A such they cannot be dependent on individual opinion. Becuase they rely on everyone there must be laws regarding them that apply equally to everyone. If these laws are flexible and change, then something is both right and wrong, it just depends on the time. Such obvious duplicity would destroy the purpose of morals and as such is illogical. The only conclusion is that these equal laws must be absolute.

Someone tried that once already Dawguard. They were called the 10 commandments.

 

[Dawguard]

Someone tried that once already Dawguard. They were called the 10 commandments.

Just because they tried it once doesn't mean the method can't be refined and tried again and again until we can get it right. Will we ever truly understand everything about morals? Perhaps not, but we can at least learn and improve. The 10 commandments were a great system for the time, and a truly good legal system for the country. Now when we have freedom of religion, etc., we can improve on them. This does not abrigate the absolutness of morals, only recognizes that we do not know where those absolute boundries fall and must continuously struggle to find them.

 

[RVBuckeye]

Just because they tried it once doesn't mean the method can't be refined and tried again and again until we can get it right. Will we ever truly understand everything about morals? Perhaps not, but we can at least learn and improve. The 10 commandments were a great system for the time, and a truly good legal system for the country. Now when we have freedom of religion, etc., we can improve on them. This does not abrigate the absolutness of morals, only recognizes that we do not know where those absolute boundries fall and must continuously struggle to find them.

There are no absolute boundaries to morals. Morals are the reasoning out of your instincts.

The old theological problem of `faith' and `knowledge' ‑ or, more clearly, of instinct and reason ‑ that is to say, the question whether in regard to the evaluation of things instinct deserves to have more authority than rationality, which wants to evaluate and act according to reasons, according to a `why?', that is to say according to utility and fitness for a purpose ‑ this is still that old moral problem which first appeared in the person of Socrates and was already dividing the minds of men long before Christianity. Socrates himself, to be sure, had, with the taste appropriate to his talent ‑ that of a superior dialectician ‑ initially taken the side of reason; and what indeed did he do all his life long but laugh at the clumsy incapacity of his noble Athenians, who were men of instinct, like all noble men, and were never able to supply adequate information about the reasons for their actions? Ultimately, however, in silence and secrecy, he laughed at himself too: he found in himself, before his more refined conscience and self‑interrogation, the same difficulty and incapacity. But why, he exhorted himself, should one therefore abandon the instincts! One must help both them and reason to receive their due one must follow the instincts, but persuade reason to aid them with good arguments. This was the actual falsity of that great ironist, who had so many secrets; he induced his conscience to acquiesce in a sort of self‑outwitting: fundamentally he had seen through the irrational aspect of moral judgement. ‑ Plato, more innocent in such things and without the craftiness of the plebeian, wanted at the expenditure of all his strength ‑ the greatest strength any philosopher has hitherto had to expend! ‑ to prove to himself that reason and instinct move of themselves towards one goal, towards the good, towards `God'; and since Plato all theologians and philosophers have followed the same path ‑ that is to say, in moral matters instinct, or as the Christians call it `faith', or as I call it `the herd', has hitherto triumphed. One might have to exclude Descartes, the father of rationalism (and consequently the grandfather of the Revolution), who recognized only the authority of reason: but reason is only an instrument, and Descartes was superficial.
- Nietzsche, Beyond good and evil

Thought this was relevant as pointing out instincts are absolute, morals are relative.

 

[Dawguard]

There are no absolute boundaries to morals. Morals are the reasoning out of your instincts.
Thought this was relevant as pointing out instincts are absolute, morals are relative.

If insticts are absolute and morals are the reasoning out of instincts, doesn't it logically follow that the result will be an absolute definition?

 

[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?