Is there an absolute morality?

[Tinker Grey]

GOD is absolute morality.

Peace be with all those in the Body of Christ.

Christians really *cough* ought to stop talking like this if they wish to have rational conversations.

Statements like these are meaningless. What can it mean to say a person/being/entity *is* a property.

God, too, is jealous. Ergo, Jealousy is absolute morality.

 

[stevevw]

You should study the basics and look at how the world works.

Thats like an appeal to some special way of knowing that somehow dismisses all the objections.

 

[VirOptimus]

Thats like an appeal to some special way of knowing that somehow dismisses all the objections.

No, thats just pointing out the fact that you are woefully undereducated and ignorant on the subject.

 

[Moral Orel]

Didn' t I just list reasons like "Life" being intrinsically valuable, human wellbeing, happiness, flousrishing, stability, ect. Arent they all reasons for why we should act morally good.

No. Why should we be stable? Why should we flourish? Why should we be happy? Why should we be well? Why should we live?

I agree but thats not the point. These are all attempts to make morality objective. Lets call them "synthetic objectives" as people still convince themselves that they are objectives and they work as an objective for the purposes they have been designed for.

The point is we appeal to objectives even if they are not because we know that morality needs objectives. Otherwise why even appeal to anything, just say " Its the right thing to do because it feels right" end of story. BUt that doesnt happen. We come up with all these pretend objectives to premise why we should do this and that.

Good. You agree I was right all along and morality is not objective.

 

[stevevw]

Good. You agree I was right all along and morality is not objective.

I don't know how you derived that conclusion. Where is the independent and objective evidence. I have given the arguement for how morality is linked back to the self-evident truth that human "Life" is intrinsically valuable and how this forms the basis for our obligation to uphold that value.

Other attempts to make morality objective like Sam Harris or a variety of ways have been argued and some do address the "why" question. But in supporting the arguement that there are moral facts that are linked to facts about the real world this establishes a normative standard that people know not to cross. All morally aware people understand this so many of these arguements are also based on epistemic facts.

Some using evolution based on biological and psychological makeups. Some use contingency based on known societal standands as facts, others using social morality based on maximized ideal preferences which can be moralized. Others use arguements which dissolves the "is and ought" problem, others using human nature as a base as this is a self-evident truth. As mentioned others use human wellbeing but basing the measure on the experience of pain as pain is an objective state.

So you would have to know all of these different methods before you could make such a bold claim that there are no objective morals. Even then we could not rule out objective morality. You still haven't adressed the Epistemic arguement for moral realism yet either.

 

[stevevw]

No, thats just pointing out the fact that you are woefully undereducated and ignorant on the subject.

So then how do you explain that philosophers support moral realism 2 to 1 anti-realist. Considering that philosophers are the experts in the field and should know the most about ethics. Just like the majority of biologists support evolution or we use the Heart Foundation for information about the Heart.

How can so many philosophers support moral realism if it doesn't have some merit and is believed more out of all the moral positions. It seems contradictory to say that moral realism is false if the majority of philsophers believe its the most reasonable position to take.

 

[VirOptimus]

So then how do you explain that philosophers support moral realism 2 to 1 anti-realist. Considering that philosophers are the experts in the field and should know the most about ethics. Just like the majority of biologists support evolution or we use the Heart Foundation for information about the Heart.

How can so many philosophers support moral realism if it doesn't have some merit and is believed more out of all the moral positions. It seems contradictory to say that moral realism is false if the majority of philsophers believe its the most reasonable position to take.

I understand moral realism. I know and understand their arguments and pov, you dont.

What school of philosophy that is in the majority is very dependent on what country and what university.

You falling on a known fallacy (argumentum ad populum) to argue is a knock on your skills and do in fact weaken your position.

Also, ethics is not the same as moral philosophy.

 

[VirOptimus]

dp

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't know how you derived that conclusion.

Read it again. You asked if those were reasons we should be good, I said "no", you said "I agree". That's it. Game over.

I have given the arguement for how morality is linked back to the self-evident truth that human "Life" is intrinsically valuable and how this forms the basis for our obligation to uphold that value.

Prove life is valuable. Don't point to a bunch of people doing things because they value life. That's irrelevant. Prove that they are correct to value life. Prove that life is the sort of thing we ought to value.

If you assert without evidence again that it's self-evident, I'll acknowledge that you have no reason to believe that life is valuable and that your belief is irrational, and we can handwave away your claim.

 

[stevevw]

I understand moral realism. I know and understand their arguments and pov, you dont.

Do you understand the epistemic arguement for moral realism.

What school of philosophy that is in the majority is very dependent on what country and what university.

As far as I read both surveys linked were of philodsophers from North America, Europe, and Australasia. So it seems a cross section of countries. But nevertheless if you are right it shows that there is no specific position philosophers take and certainly there is no evdience that there is a lack of support out there for moral realism.

But I do agree that there is a lot of alternative positions and views to consider which I am grateful that you have pointed out that need to be understood to get a broad understanding of the subject. As well as the theories like cognitivism/non-cognitivism, descriptivism/non-descriptivism, foundationalism, instruementalism, intrinsicalism, error theory, correspondence theory, epistemics, semantics, moral language, truth theory, proper beliefs, ect. All relevant in understanding morality.

You falling on a known fallacy (argumentum ad populum) to argue is a knock on your skills and do in fact weaken your position.

Thats why I mentioned that despite it being an appeal to popular view it does have some weight as we do rely on expert opinion to tell us what is the case or the most likely case ie psychologists for mental disoder disagnosis, theologians for religious belief, ect.

Thats because the consensus opinion is not based on blind ignorant popularity but a qualified knowledge of the subject and therefore is more credible to use as evdience. So philosophers will have covered all the moral and ethical theories and have better understanding. That they choose moral realism says something about it being a coinsidered choice.

Though not evdience of objective morality by itself rather it is part of a case to be made for objective morality. When you consider that even philosophers who were anti realists or other still thought those who took the realist position were not deluded or trying to fake their postion it augers well for moral realism at least being a comon sense and reasonable position to take. I think a lot of people get moral realism wrong and that causes them to be skeptical.

Also, ethics is not the same as moral philosophy.

OK thats news to me as just about everything I have read mentions morality and ethics interchangably or that morality is a part of ethics. Even the dictionary and Wiki support this.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".
Ethics - Wikipedia

At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Ethics: a general introduction

 

[Kylie]

So then how do you explain that philosophers support moral realism 2 to 1 anti-realist. Considering that philosophers are the experts in the field and should know the most about ethics. Just like the majority of biologists support evolution or we use the Heart Foundation for information about the Heart.

How can so many philosophers support moral realism if it doesn't have some merit and is believed more out of all the moral positions. It seems contradictory to say that moral realism is false if the majority of philsophers believe its the most reasonable position to take.

You do know that this divide is much closer than we have with anything that is actually objective, right? What's the divide among scientists in relevant fields regarding evolution? Almost all such scientists accept evolution. The number who reject evolution is miniscule compared to those who accept it. The same thing with other objective things. Heliocentric solar system, climate change, moon landing... The number of scientists in relevant fields who reject these claims are orders of magnitude smaller than those who accept them. There's a clearly established pattern here. So why do we not see that same pattern when it comes to morality?

 

[Landon Caeli]

I think there's more than one way of approaching morality. Three I can think of, off hand, are scientifically, culturally, and religiously, and the means of understanding each one are completely seperate.

To have an orderly discussion, I would need to know which one, specifically, we're talking about.

...But if by "absolute morality" we mean something that encompasses all aspects, then I would say no, There is no Absolute Morality.

 

[VirOptimus]

Do you understand the epistemic arguement for moral realism.

Yes, do you?

As far as I read both surveys linked were of philodsophers from North America, Europe, and Australasia. So it seems a cross section of countries. But nevertheless if you are right it shows that there is no specific position philosophers take and certainly there is no evdience that there is a lack of support out there for moral realism.

Evidence is a tricky thing, whats evidence for you may not be evidece for me.

But I do agree that there is a lot of alternative positions and views to consider which I am grateful that you have pointed out that need to be understood to get a broad understanding of the subject. As well as the theories like cognitivism/non-cognitivism, descriptivism/non-descriptivism, foundationalism, instruementalism, intrinsicalism, error theory, correspondence theory, epistemics, semantics, moral language, truth theory, proper beliefs, ect. All relevant in understanding morality.

Yes, and you should learn more before trying to debate.

Thats why I mentioned that despite it being an appeal to popular view it does have some weight as we do rely on expert opinion to tell us what is the case or the most likely case ie psychologists for mental disoder disagnosis, theologians for religious belief, ect.

No, its a fallacy. You are quite simply arguing very badly.

Thats because the consensus opinion is not based on blind ignorant popularity but a qualified knowledge of the subject and therefore is more credible to use as evdience. So philosophers will have covered all the moral and ethical theories and have better understanding. That they choose moral realism says something about it being a coinsidered choice.

No, thats not how it works. Any argument stands on its own merits, fallacys are fallacys for a reason.

Again, just own up to your bad debate skills.

Though not evdience of objective morality by itself rather it is part of a case to be made for objective morality. When you consider that even philosophers who were anti realists or other still thought those who took the realist position were not deluded or trying to fake their postion it augers well for moral realism at least being a comon sense and reasonable position to take. I think a lot of people get moral realism wrong and that causes them to be skeptical.

But you think every one who not accept your view on morality to be irrational. You are very funny.

OK thats news to me as just about everything I have read mentions morality and ethics interchangably or that morality is a part of ethics. Even the dictionary and Wiki support this.

Ethics or moral philosophy is a branch of philosophy that "involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior".
Ethics - Wikipedia

At its simplest, ethics is a system of moral principles.
BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Ethics: a general introduction

Ethics=rules on how to behave (practice), moral philosophy=the study and understanding of morals (theory).

 

[stevevw]

You do know that this divide is much closer than we have with anything that is actually objective, right? What's the divide among scientists in relevant fields regarding evolution? Almost all such scientists accept evolution. The number who reject evolution is miniscule compared to those who accept it. The same thing with other objective things. Heliocentric solar system, climate change, moon landing... The number of scientists in relevant fields who reject these claims are orders of magnitude smaller than those who accept them. There's a clearly established pattern here. So why do we not see that same pattern when it comes to morality?

Hi Kylie, good to see you back. I smiled when I saw your post. I think the pattern can be made a couple of ways. First we could say that what you have shown is that expert knowledge that morality is objective is consistent with expert opinion about other objective facts. The pattern shows that what the experts usually side with is the correct option.

I agree that the topics you mentioned the vast majority of scientists side with what has been objectively verified. Thats sort of a given. But as I mentioned to you before that what we see today is the end result of a lot of disagreement. So there was a porocess of trying to understand topic and people had limited knowledge so they had misinformed ideas of reality.

Like with the geocentric model which there was disagreement about with comppeting views about how the world/universe worked. This continued until Copernicus with the aid of a telescope proved the Heliocentric model. Even today there is a lot of disagreement over many areas of science. What you named are the obvious ones which are now settled (like you would say with extreme obvious moral examples).

So even within the science method there is a lot of disagreement still in some areas. In fact evolution is one of them at the moment where despite evolution being supported there is disagreement over what evolution actually is. The same with climate change. But many fringe areas like QM, cosmology and consciousness have great disagreements where there may be more like the 2 to 1 differences like moral realism.

So there are areas that we still don't understand yet like morality and consciousness where the evdience is not like the classical sciences where we can use a telescope and now space ships to observe the planets orbiting the sun.

But that doesn't mean there is an objective fact to find. It just takes a different way to know these facts. In fact it seems that morality and consciouness and even QM are interelated. These aspects are about conscious experience and even many in mainstream sciences are turning to ideas where our experiences may be fundelment and before the physical world we see. So maybe there is another level of knowing and fact or truth yet to fully understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

But that doesn't mean there is an objective fact to find. It just takes a different way to know these facts. In fact it seems that morality and consciouness and even QM are interelated. These aspects are about conscious experience and even many in mainstream sciences are turning to ideas where our experiences may be fundelment and before the physical world we see. So maybe there is another level of knowing and fact or truth yet to fully understand.

The above, thats just unscientific crap.

 

[stevevw]

I think there's more than one way of approaching morality. Three I can think of, off hand, are scientifically, culturally, and religiously, and the means of understanding each one are completely seperate.

To have an orderly discussion, I would need to know which one, specifically, we're talking about.

...But if by "absolute morality" we mean something that encompasses all aspects, then I would say no, There is no Absolute Morality.

If absolute morality is along the lines of Kantian ethics then I would also agree that there is no absolute morality. I cannot imagine if the Nazi came to my door with hiding Jews in my basement that I am forced to tell the truth and never lie.

But from memory Kant had a way of accommodating circumstances while still maintaining law and rule obedience. I will have to look it up.

 

[stevevw]

The above, thats just unscientific crap.

Fair enough thats your opinion. Others disagree. So I guess you don't think much of something like Panpsychism. I think the materialist v the immaterialist is at the heart of morality. If you are not open to the non-physical aspects of reality then its hard to accept abstract ideas that may be real and have influence on reality.

The point I made earlier. It seems that in recent decades more attention has been placed on ideas like Panpsychism. I'm only going with what is the case. You only have to look it up and see how more research is going into areas like consciousness and quantum interpretations and how they apply to the physical world.

For example this article speaks about how mainstream sciences are accepting Panpsychism more or ideas around consciousness being a fundelmental part of reality. This seems to solve some problems with how we can unite consciousness and the physical world as well as untite QM and relativity.

But its only a theory but this is a good example of how disagreements even in science can happen and lead to verification. Except we may need to revise what constitutes evidence. If the sciences keep hitting the wall of the observer then sooner or later we have to consider our conscious experience may be an important part of reality.

WHY IS SCIENCE GROWING COMFORTABLE WITH PANPSYCHISM (“EVERYTHING IS CONSCIOUS”)?
Why Is Science Growing Comfortable with Panpsychism (“Everything Is Conscious”)?

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

But its only a theory -snip-

Its not a scientific theory.

And its obvious you dont understand even the fundamental basics about quantum physics.

But this is an (irrelevant) tangent.

Instead, try again to answer why your objective morality has any authority.

And an article from discovery institute? Really? Your agenda is showing.

 

[Kylie]

Hi Kylie, good to see you back. I smiled when I saw your post. I think the pattern can be made a couple of ways. First we could say that what you have shown is that expert knowledge that morality is objective is consistent with expert opinion about other objective facts. The pattern shows that what the experts usually side with is the correct option.

When there is an objectively correct option, there is not a 66/33 split. It's more like 99.9/0.1 split.

I agree that the topics you mentioned the vast majority of scientists side with what has been objectively verified. Thats sort of a given. But as I mentioned to you before that what we see today is the end result of a lot of disagreement. So there was a porocess of trying to understand topic and people had limited knowledge so they had misinformed ideas of reality.

And the disagreement was settled by presenting the evidence in a clear and rigorously structured language. I have been asking you to do that for morality for ages, and you have refused every time.

What you named are the obvious ones which are now settled (like you would say with extreme obvious moral examples).

Once again, I will tell you that widespread agreement doesn't mean it is objectively true.

But many fringe areas like QM, cosmology and consciousness have great disagreements where there may be more like the 2 to 1 differences like moral realism.

I'm sorry, what parts of Quantum Mechanics and cosmology are considered fringe areas, and can you show that they are being presented as objective fact?

So there are areas that we still don't understand yet like morality and consciousness where the evdience is not like the classical sciences where we can use a telescope and now space ships to observe the planets orbiting the sun.

But that doesn't mean there is an objective fact to find. It just takes a different way to know these facts. In fact it seems that morality and consciouness and even QM are interelated. These aspects are about conscious experience and even many in mainstream sciences are turning to ideas where our experiences may be fundelment and before the physical world we see. So maybe there is another level of knowing and fact or truth yet to fully understand.

Funnily enough, it seems that morality is the only situation where something that you are presenting as "objective fact" needs this alternate way of knowing.

It's almost like the way we have that we KNOW works doesn't work for showing morality is objective because morality is not objective.

 

[stevevw]

Its not a scientific theory.

It is actually a theory.
Panpsychism holds that mind or a mind-like aspect is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of reality. It is also described as a theory in which "the mind is a fundamental feature of the world which exists throughout the universe".
Panpsychism - Wikipedia.

And its obvious you dont understand even the fundamental basics about quantum physics.

I don't think I have said anything wrong in saying that all interpretations of QM is counterintuitive ie

This research report provides the effects of the various interpretations of quantum mechanics on the broad philosophies of physics. The results are various and counter-intuitive set of interpretations that attempt to make quantum mechanics more logical.
(PDF) How the Different Interpretations in Quantum Mechanics Affect the Philosophy of Physics

But this is an (irrelevant) tangent.

I disagree. If there are non-physical influences or if at the fundelmental level there is consciousness then human consciousness is something that may affect reality and therefore affect morality. THis is something we cannot just dismiss until we understand quantum physics better.

Instead, try again to answer why your objective morality has any authority.

First why does authority matter in proving objective morality. Objective morality is simply about a moral law or truth existing independent of the human (subject). Its just a case of supporting an independent objective measure of morality.

But nevertheless as I have already mentioned there are different ways people justify moral motivation. We do it now with moral norms. We state that people should follow these norms. They are based on a common and reasoned basis about respecting and upholding human life as valuable. This is a justification for making these norms objective and like laws (no subjective view can deny them).

And an article from discovery institute? Really? Your agenda is showing.

What is my agenda. If there was an agenda I am not doing a good job. I didn't even look at the source as it had a link to the original article from New Scientists which it was quoting ie
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-it-seems-impossible-until-you-do-the-maths/