Is there an absolute morality?

[childeye 2]

In fact, I would say the opposite - morality is necessarily a product of interpersonal relationships.

Exactly. The above is the definitive objective view of morality/immorality for everyone.

This is what the sentiment behind the terms objective morality/immorality refers to in reality:
1) We share a planet with others.
2) Our individual actions, in the course of living our lives, affects others in both positive and negative ways as a matter of circumstance.
3) The term Morality is the positive, and the term immorality is the negative, in this dichotomy, Morality/immorality. And together they represent in sentiment the positive and negative ways we affect others.
4) A subjective morality is simply each person's opinion of what moral/immoral conduct is. People's individual views of morality/immorality don't always agree on what is proper moral conduct, or what is the moral course of action for everyone (the body politics).

That's what an objective view of morality/immorality is, when we talk about it.

It's the factual reality, and not fantasy. And it's true for everyone, regardless of what they subjectively believe morality/immorality is.

I think perhaps you two are arguing semantics (misunderstanding one another)?

 

[stevevw]

Nope.

In fact, I would say the opposite - morality is necessarily a product of interpersonal relationships. Absent the existence of minds capable of experiencing suffering, wellbeing, etc, it is a vacuous non-concept.

This is true, by the way, regardless of whether or not any gods exist, including Yahweh. We are left to our own devices in any case.

Then we could say the same for reality, absent of minds there is no reality.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Then we could say the same for reality, absent of minds there is no reality.

Nope. “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ~ Philip K. Dick

 

[stevevw]

Nope. “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” ~ Philip K. Dick

Not if there is an absence of minds capable of experiencing reality. It was claimed that

Absent the existence of minds capable of experiencing suffering, wellbeing, etc,

So therefore there are no minds full stop. If there are no minds at all then there can be no way of experiencing relaity.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Not if there is an absence of minds capable of experiencing reality. It was claimed that

Absent the existence of minds capable of experiencing suffering, wellbeing, etc,

So therefore there are no minds full stop. If there are no minds at all then there can be no way of experiencing relaity.

You didn't say "no way of experiencing reality". You said:

Then we could say the same for reality, absent of minds there is no reality.

{Emphasis added}

... which is wrong

 

[childeye 2]

You didn't say "no way of experiencing reality". You said:
{Emphasis added}

... which is wrong

Everybody agrees, there's an objective reality that doesn't disappear when minds are absent. This is arguing semantics. There are subjective views of morality/immorality that are opinions of what the objective morality is in this reality.

If we all agreed that wherever the deepest suffering is happening, and wherever the weak and most in need are, it's moral to care for them first, even that determination could be called subjective too, because it could be claimed that suffering is subjective. This is like playing wack-a mole arguing semantics.

The fact remains that those things can only be worked out because we know the suffering are in fact out there in an objective view of reality regardless of our opinions. Therefore, there is an objective morality, and it is compassion/Love.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Everybody agrees, there's an objective reality that doesn't disappear when minds are absent. This is arguing semantics. There are subjective views of morality/immorality that are opinions of what the objective morality is in this reality.

No everyone doesn't agree. That's why this forum and a whole bunch of threads exist debating that very topic.

And, it's not just arguing semantics. It's making sure that the conversation is clear. You can't just say "no reality" when you mean "no experience of reality". I can't just interpret the first to mean the second. The interlocutor must clarify.

 

[childeye 2]

No everyone doesn't agree. That's why this forum and a whole bunch of threads exist debating that very topic.

And, it's not just arguing semantics. It's making sure that the conversation is clear. You can't just say "no reality" when you mean "no experience of reality". I can't just interpret the first to mean the second. The interlocutor must clarify.

I'm just saying even if he means "no reality" it remains true because the reality is that there do exist minds capable of experiencing suffering, and morality/immorality in reality.

I think the semantics are causing a misunderstanding. These were the original statements coming from a gentleman whose position does not see how morality/immorality can be objective:

Nope. In fact, I would say the opposite - morality is necessarily a product of interpersonal relationships. Absent the existence of minds capable of experiencing suffering, wellbeing, etc, it is a vacuous non-concept.

Response steve w: Then we could say the same for reality, absent of minds there is no reality.

I think these two actually agree that morality is a product of relationships with others. I think steve w is either saying, Since that's true you can't dismiss the reality of an objective morality/immorality without dismissing reality. Or to rephrase: The reality of people needing to co-exist with others is not an opinion, so neither is morality/immorality.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Then we could say the same for reality, absent of minds there is no reality.

No, that is a non-sequitor. Just because human devices, such as morality, necessitate the existence of minds, it does not follow that the totality of existence does.

Actually, *you’re* the one who believes reality is mind-dependent. Your worldview is predicated on the concept of an all-powerful, disembodied mind, from which all things derive and upon which all things depend.

 

[childeye 2]

No, that is a non-sequitor. Just because human devices, such as morality, necessitate the existence of minds, it does not follow that the totality of existence does.

Let's just get one thing straight. The sentiment of the terms morality/immorality are the positive and negative ways we affect each other as a matter of the circumstance of sharing a reality, and they deal with having the compassion to care about others more than oneself. Your opinion that morality is an opinion devised in the mind is contradicted by the reality that compassion is not a product of reasoning.

 

[Tinker Grey]

compassion is not a product of reasoning.

Yes, it is.

 

[childeye 2]

Yes, it is.

Respectfully, compassion isn't subjectively opined upon as either moral or immoral and it becomes reality accordingly. Compassion/love is the impetus for moral reasoning.

Full Definition of compassion
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

Etymology: The Latin root for the word compassion is pati, which means to suffer, and the prefix com- means with. Compassion, originating from compati, literally means to suffer with.

"feeling of sorrow or deep tenderness for one who is suffering or experiencing misfortune," mid-14c., compassioun, literally "a suffering with another," from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com "with, together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

 

[Tinker Grey]

Respectfully, compassion isn't subjectively reasoned as immoral or moral. It's the impetus for moral reasoning.

Well, OK, this is interesting. As a person who believes that we evolved as a social species, I believe that that evolution entails an evolution of interaction among other members of the species. That is, morality is almost moot. We do what we do. Morality as a discussion is almost entirely a justification of actions we've already taken. Actual thinking about morality with regard to taking an action is nearly always when we are considering actions in the long term.

Again, we do what we do. But one could say that compassion is, in fact, subjectively reasoned. We choose, long term, compassion due to empathy and "I would want someone to show compassion to me". Short term, we do whatever we and that may look like compassion, but it is a built in response due to our evolution.

 

[childeye 2]

Well, OK, this is interesting. As a person who believes that we evolved as a social species, I believe that that evolution entails an evolution of interaction among other members of the species. That is, morality is almost moot. We do what we do.


Morality as a discussion is almost entirely a justification of actions we've already taken. Actual thinking about morality with regard to taking an action is nearly always when we are considering actions in the long term.

Again, we do what we do. But one could say that compassion is, in fact, subjectively reasoned. We choose, long term, compassion due to empathy and "I would want someone to show compassion to me". Short term, we do whatever we and that may look like compassion, but it is a built in response due to our evolution.

Full Definition of compassion
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

Even though as a theist I reason upon the axiom of the energy that fashioned us made us capable of experiencing compassion; I can still contemplate your thoughts on how compassion could be subjectively reasonable.

However, the reality is and remains, that any sincere Compassion first begins as a reaction to seeing others suffer, along with being compelled to do something to alleviate the suffering. Compassion qualifies as a discomfort, because through it, we suffer with the other for real, in some manner of a shared reality. And that is why, it is the impetus for moral reasoning, and not immoral reasoning. The subjective determination to turn away from the discomfort of suffering with others (heartlessness), still would not make compassion immoral objectively (factually).

Etymology: The Latin root for the word compassion is pati, which means to suffer, and the prefix com- means with. Compassion, originating from compati, literally means to suffer with.

"feeling of sorrow or deep tenderness for one who is suffering or experiencing misfortune," mid-14c., compassioun, literally "a suffering with another," from Old French compassion "sympathy, pity" (12c.), from Late Latin compassionem (nominative compassio) "sympathy," noun of state from past participle stem of compati "to feel pity," from com "with, together" (see com-) + pati "to suffer" (see passion).

 

[stevevw]

You didn't say "no way of experiencing reality". You said:
{Emphasis added}

... which is wrong

This is where it pays to check the post the poster is replying to to get the context. The statement I was replying to said
Absent the existence of minds capable of experiencing suffering, wellbeing, etc,

I based my response knowing what the poster said. So its important to know what I was replying to and not just take my reply out of context.

 

[stevevw]

Well, OK, this is interesting. As a person who believes that we evolved as a social species, I believe that that evolution entails an evolution of interaction among other members of the species. That is, morality is almost moot. We do what we do. Morality as a discussion is almost entirely a justification of actions we've already taken. Actual thinking about morality with regard to taking an action is nearly always when we are considering actions in the long term.

Again, we do what we do. But one could say that compassion is, in fact, subjectively reasoned. We choose, long term, compassion due to empathy and "I would want someone to show compassion to me". Short term, we do whatever we and that may look like compassion, but it is a built in response due to our evolution.

But saying " we do what we do" implies "its just genetics" therefore whatever we do is ok because its genetics. But that isn't the case. We do reason a basis for doing what we do and part of that is how we affect others morally.

If otherwise then it doesn't really matter if we rape women to ensure our survival or kill grannies because theres not enough food to survive because we just " do what we do" and theres no moral rational for it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

compassion is not a product of reasoning.

It can be. I've been reasoned into feeling compassion in situations where I wouldn't have otherwise.

But, suppose I grant that it necessarily isn't. That doesn't change anything. Compassion is still an emergent property of the mind. No minds, no compassion. To speak of "objective compassion" is to speak nonsense.

 

[childeye 2]

It can be. I've been reasoned into feeling compassion in situations where I wouldn't have otherwise.

Full Definition of compassion
: sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it.

Compassion is by definition a reaction to the suffering of others including being compelled to do something to alleviate the suffering. If you were reasoned into experiencing a sincere compassion, then you were persuaded by some means (of understanding) and realized there was somebody suffering. Otherwise, you're not even talking about compassion.

But, suppose I grant that it necessarily isn't. That doesn't change anything. Compassion is still an emergent property of the mind. No minds, no compassion. To speak of "objective compassion" is to speak nonsense.

Respectfully, you don't have to grant anything. The dictionary identifies compassion as a response to seeing others suffering. I don't know what a non-sensical objective compassion is meant to imply other than compassion is purely subjective (An opinion or personal held belief not based on factual evidence).

I'm Not even arguing that we don't need minds to experience compassion. Indeed we need minds to experience anything in reality. It's unreasonable to assert that the documented factual event of compassion reacting to someone else's suffering, should be disqualified as objectively moral on this basis.

No, compassion is real, when we suffer for real with someone else who is real; and we are compelled to do something about it because it's real suffering. And what we do about it, is therefore also a real part of a shared reality. It requires two or more to suffer with one another. Both the impetus of suffering and the moral reaction of compassion can only exist in a shared objective reality.

 

[stevevw]

Well, OK, this is interesting. As a person who believes that we evolved as a social species, I believe that that evolution entails an evolution of interaction among other members of the species. That is, morality is almost moot. We do what we do. Morality as a discussion is almost entirely a justification of actions we've already taken. Actual thinking about morality with regard to taking an action is nearly always when we are considering actions in the long term.

Again, we do what we do. But one could say that compassion is, in fact, subjectively reasoned. We choose, long term, compassion due to empathy and "I would want someone to show compassion to me". Short term, we do whatever we and that may look like compassion, but it is a built in response due to our evolution.

This got me thinking. As far as I understand there is no gene for compassion or empathy or any social or cultural behaviour. Because morality can only happen between humans who are conscious beings aware of themselves and others before we even interact we have a moral sense about how we should engage with others.

I believe this relates to the research that shows babies show empathy and justice towards others and are born with this moral sense. It is not taught but innate and this is reflected in how we base moral laws and Human Rights on this same moral sense.

So I think compassion and empathy are intuitive but we can rationalize how these values are necessary for human interaction to justify our intuition.

 

[Kylie]

Its not just about rarity. I listed a number of reasons that all converge into life being valuable.

So what about the evolutionary, biological, cultural, social and religious reasons. What about the fact that we treat life as valuable because we don't encourage miserable people to commit suicide and grieve the loss of life. What about how we make laws and Rights to protect and respect life because of its value.

What about how a planet with human life on it is much more of value than a planet of rocks or robots. What about how we spend billions on our search for intelligent life and how if found would be the greatest discovery in history and that we would be much more excited about finding intelligent life in the universe than finding a planet with diamonds.

What about how a universe with human life is far more valuable than one wiothout and that humans believe that their life has some meaning in the universe more than say rocks have. How about the fact that non-life cannot create life.

And why is a planet with life more valuable than a planet with just rocks?

Ultimately, your decision on what constitutes "value" will come down to a subjective opinion.