Is there an absolute morality?

[durangodawood]

Value is a human concept so value other than to people is meaningless.

I extent the concept to beings of any degree of sentience. If they somehow know they want something, then they value. So I cant say its limited to humans. But this is kind of beside the point.

 

[Moral Orel]

He claims my link shows that 25% of children cannot know moral right and wrong and I disagree.

No, I didn't. You imagined that. Go back and read my post again.

 

[Estrid]

I don't know about that. It seems all ethical theories make some things intrinsically valuable so its a fundelmental part of ethics.

I think the debate is still open as to whether there are values beyond human subjective thinking. Nature seems to hold value in itself. We may come to appreciate or recognise that value. But to do that we must have the ability to value things and value them in degrees. So is this a case of part humans doing the valuing in their subjective way and part recognition of something of value outside humans innate in nature for example.

If we look at nature and see water sustaining life, creatures with mechanism that allow them do all sorts of incredible things and ecosystems that work better than anything humans can make we would have to see some value in that in itself and not because some persons subjective view (which may be wrong) thinks its valuable. Logic tells us there more value in it than just what we think.

There is something there, sure.
But maybe no adequate / non equivocal vocab.

 

[Estrid]

Yes which means not everything has intrinsic value. We have to work out what has that value and what doesnt. The thing with food tastes is that it is subjective. One person may like chocolate and others don't for subjective reasons which can skew peoples thinking about values.

Is it of real value independnt of peoples preferences, feelings ect or is this percieved value clouded by personal experiences. Whereas something like H2o can be seen as valuable in itself. Subjective feelings or preferences cannot devalue it because its value is seen in nature.

Chocolate is the end product of other things. From what I understand the beans of cocoa plant taste horrible and bitter. So the chocolate we consume has been conccoted to cater to the market based on peoples desires and pleasure. So the value has more or less been created by marketers and is more like an a instrumental value.

Ifn God made everything and declared it good its not for us
to say it aint. As i point out to those who, say, hate spiders or snakes.

 

[durangodawood]

Ifn God made everything and declared it good its not for us
to say it aint. As i point out to those who, say, hate spiders or snakes.

Then I play the "God made it good but then later Satan messed it up" card.

 

[disciple Clint]

That's the downside to life. The One that chose to create is also the One that may choose to take away. We may have a free will, but we are not free.

In what way are we not free?

 

[stevevw]

Uhu, but have you read Kant?

To be honest not in great detail. I have vague ideas about the details of how Kantian ethics works> I know its rule/duty based and peoples intentions and will is important for determining right and wrong actions. I think reasoning is also important as it can help determine some universal truths based on rationality. But this is something generated by humans capacity to be rational.

Though it has a sort of strict rule based approach where you cannot lie even to save people because lying is a law that cannot be broken there is some room for taking situations into consideration. LIke if reasoning determined a greater moral law would be broken this can be accommodated. This is a sort of escape clause I think for the strict rule based ethics.

Though it seems like absolute morality in some ways its similar to objective morality because it can hold a core set of moral laws as being strict to follow like "Don't Kill or Lie" but it it allows for some scope to consider consequences with a framework of "Imperfect duties". So in some ways its similar to objective morality because it holds a core set of moral truths but circumstances can be considered to reason the moral truth.

 

[VirOptimus]

To be honest not in great detail. I have vague ideas about the details of how Kantian ethics works> I know its rule/duty based and peoples intentions and will is important for determining right and wrong actions. I think reasoning is also important as it can help determine some universal truths based on rationality. But this is something generated by humans capacity to be rational.

Though it has a sort of strict rule based approach where you cannot lie even to save people because lying is a law that cannot be broken there is some room for taking situations into consideration. LIke if reasoning determined a greater moral law would be broken this can be accommodated. This is a sort of escape clause I think for the strict rule based ethics.

Though it seems like absolute morality in some ways its similar to objective morality because it can hold a core set of moral laws as being strict to follow like "Don't Kill or Lie" but it it allows for some scope to consider consequences with a framework of "Imperfect duties". So in some ways its similar to objective morality because it holds a core set of moral truths but circumstances can be considered to reason the moral truth.

You could just write ”no”.

You really should, and Hegel, Shopenhauer and Nietzsche too.

 

[stevevw]

There you go, now you're proving my point for me. These two sentences cannot both be true.

Well you can make anythink look a certain way that you want it to look by cutting and pasting. Its another word for quote mining. If you take the entire sentence (the rest you cut out highlighted) then it takes on a diferent context

We all have a conscience. Only those without a conscience and have some mental disorder like a sociopath cannot know right from wrong.

Now I have qualified that some people are said to have no conscience because of some damage to their brains. Its like saying we all can rationalise but those who have had damage to their brains cannot be rational because of that damage. In otherwords having a conscience is part of being human but sometimes people lose that ability because of damage. Did I tell you I was not good at grammar.

But heres a tip, if you think I have made such a claim rather than assume that I am making contradictory statements clarify with me. Ask me if that is what I meant.

 

[Kylie]

Morality is subjective. There is no absolute morality in the universe in the same way that there is an absolute speed limit.

 

[stevevw]

You could just write ”no”.

Didnt I sort of in saying "not really". I didnt want to say no as I believe I know more than the average person. I don't mind someone pointing me in the right direction for knowledge on a subject.

The point is you seem to be pushing for a higher criteria for anyone who opposes you than those on your side. I don't see anyone else being scrutinized about what they know and don't know about ethics. I could safely say that there will not be many people on this thread with an extensive teritiary qualification of ethics.

You really should, and Hegel, Shopenhauer and Nietzsche too.

Yes I will, I will not them as someone to research. I have already started on Nietzsche which I am finding interesting. I have come across the other names as well.[/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

No, I didn't. You imagined that. Go back and read my post again.

Ok just checked and it seems you havnt addressed my post refuting your claim. So I guess it would be better you addressed that than me have top repeat everything. Or if you can explain what you mean that would help. I have re-read it but still come to a similar conclusion logically. Heres the post #522

 

[stevevw]

Morality is subjective. There is no absolute morality in the universe in the same way that there is an absolute speed limit.

Do you have objective evdience for this

 

[stevevw]

Ifn God made everything and declared it good its not for us
to say it aint. As i point out to those who, say, hate spiders or snakes.

If you lived in Australia you would have good reason to dislike spiders and snakes. We have 20 of the 25 most venomous snakes in the world and we have some of the most deadlest spiders as well. lol.

 

[VirOptimus]

Didnt I sort of in saying "not really". I didnt want to say no as I believe I know more than the average person. I don't mind someone pointing me in the right direction for knowledge on a subject.

I'm hard pressed thinking you know more then the averge poster in this thread about Kants work.

The point is you seem to be pushing for a higher criteria for anyone who opposes you than those on your side. I don't see anyone else being scrutinized about what they know and don't know about ethics. I could safely say that there will not be many people on this thread with an extensive teritiary qualification of ethics.

No, but as you post with confidence about things you obvioulsy have no background or education in its prudent to point this out. This, among other things, makes your assertion that anyone who disagrees with your stance on moral philosophy to be irrational hilarious.

Yes I will, I will not them as someone to research. I have already started on Nietzsche which I am finding interesting. I have come across the other names as well.

There are a lot of reading to do if you want to get an even basic grip of the subject, (Kirkegaard, Spinoza among others).

There are several good lectures readily available on youtube from real academia (not slanted articles like the ones that you post).

 

[Moral Orel]

Well you can make anythink look a certain way that you want it to look by cutting and pasting. Its another word for quote mining. If you take the entire sentence (the rest you cut out highlighted) then it takes on a diferent context

We all have a conscience. Only those without a conscience and have some mental disorder like a sociopath cannot know right from wrong.

There's no different context. Either all humans have a conscience, or not all humans have a conscience. What the cause of a lack of conscience is doesn't matter.

But heres a tip, if you think I have made such a claim rather than assume that I am making contradictory statements clarify with me. Ask me if that is what I meant.

Bologna. We've been going at this point where you've been insisting "All humans know" for days. Now you're backpedaling and blaming me for misunderstanding. You had numerous opportunities to change "all" to "most" if that's what you meant.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok just checked and it seems you havnt addressed my post refuting your claim. So I guess it would be better you addressed that than me have top repeat everything. Or if you can explain what you mean that would help. I have re-read it but still come to a similar conclusion logically. Heres the post #522

No, let's go back to the claim I addressed:

Through the sciences we can get to know some basic common thinking and bahviours common to all humans.

As evidence for these ways of thinking and behaviors that are common to all humans you present a study where 75% of the participants acted one way, and 25% of the participants did not. Is 75% the same as 100%? No. You have yet to provide evidence that there are ways of thinking or behaviors that are common to all humans.

Start saying "most" and stop saying "all" or your points will continue to be trivially easy to shoot down.

 

[stevevw]

No, but as you post with confidence about things you obvioulsy have no background or education in its prudent to point this out.

But I know about moral realism as this has been my mainarea of study fro years.

This, among other things, makes your assertion that anyone who disagrees with your stance on moral philosophy to be irrational hilarious.

My assertion that anyone who disagrees is irrational is based on fact and logic. Think about it for a sec. If someone says that torturing children is morally good would we think they are irrational.

Well under a subjectiuve moral system the moral views that "torturing an innocent child for fun" and "being kind to a child" make no moral difference because theres no way to detrmine if they are right or wrong behaviours outside human subjetcive views. To me thats irrational. Subjective morality cannot be lived out and applied.

There are a lot of reading to do if you want to get an even basic grip of the subject, (Kirkegaard, Spinoza among others).

There are several good lectures readily available on youtube from real academia (not slanted articles like the ones that you post).

Yeah I'm getting through some. Its a big topic.

 

[VirOptimus]

But I know about moral realism as this has been my mainarea of study fro years.

Your posts show otherwise.

My assertion that anyone who disagreesis irrational is based on fact and logic. THink about it for a sec. If someone says that torturing children is morally good would we think they are irrational. Well under a subjectiuve moral system a the moral views that torturing an innocent child for fun and being kind to a child moral no moral difference. To me thats irrational. Subjective morality cannot be lived out and applied.

You keep making this strawman. Not beliving morality is objective does not mean you cant have moral stances (in fact, that is impossible if you are sentient).

Yeah I'm getting through some. Its a big topic.

It is, you should read more before posting assertions.

 

[stevevw]

There's no different context. Either all humans have a conscience, or not all humans have a conscience. What the cause of a lack of conscience is doesn't matter.

But your creating a strawman. My original point was that there are certain things about humans we all know that they pocess naturally like they have a conscence. Its because of this we can make confident claims about what humans pocess. So my claim that all humans know about morality is supported by the science that shows that as a natural ability.

The fact that some lose that ability or not has nothing to with my point because it doesnt negate that all humans have this ability. I acknowledge that my grammar or way of explaining this may have been poor. But now I am clarifying what I said and meant.

Bologna. We've been going at this point where you've been insisting "All humans know" for days. Now you're backpedaling and blaming me for misunderstanding. You had numerous opportunities to change "all" to "most" if that's what you meant.

Yes I may have been sloppy with my explanation as I assumed that those who have damage to their conscioence cannot know. Thats obvious. So I will clarify that all people who still have a working conscience know the core moral truths.

But this sort of deminishes the point which is that knowing right and wrong is not something we make up and is based on an innate knowledge of right and wrong that even babies have well before they can be taugfht that. In fact some say it is inherited by evolution. So its tere early and is innate.

That points to it being something we all know but may lose. But the default position is its a human natural ability like bonding is or a love of music. Sure some people lose this but that is in the minority and is because of something that takes away a normal ability just like losing any other natural ability.