Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

But you're supposed to be telling me why these things are wrong. Are things only wrong because there might be consequences?

They're wrong because the act of doing them is selfish and either causes harm or has the potential to cause harm to another, objectively speaking.

I appreciate your questions, they're good, but at this point I feel like I'm repeating things I've already said, just in different ways. So if you disagree with my reasoning, then present better reasoning for why you disagree, rather than asking another question. Or just agree, if that's where you want to end it for now. If you have a unique question related to the topic then I'll continue to correspond, its been an interesting discussion.

 

[SkyWriting]

Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

It depends on the context. You have to know you are doing wrong to be considered quilty.
There are a string of passages on that explaining that guilt is dependant on intent.

God absolutely does not look at what is visible but only at the heart. Or intent.

 

[Bradskii]

It depends on the context. You have to know you are doing wrong to be considered quilty.
There are a string of passages on that explaining that guilt is dependant on intent.

God absolutely does not look at what is visible but only at the heart. Or intent.

But one might do something that most people would consider wrong and think there's nothing wrong with it. Or feel guilty about an act that has no evil intent or bad repercussions.

 

[SkyWriting]

But one might do something that most people would consider wrong and think there's nothing wrong with it.

I do that.
By faith, God knows my true intent.

Or feel guilty about an act that has no evil intent or bad repercussions.

Yes, people often feel guilty that they have done wrong and are guilt ridden.
By faith, God knows their true intent.

 

[Bradskii]

I do that.
By faith, God knows my true intent.

And it's not to harm. But you do. Can you be blamed?

Yes, people often feel guilty that they have done wrong and are guilt ridden.
By faith, God knows their true intent.

But their intent is to do wrong. Are they innocent?

 

[Moral Orel]

I appreciate your questions, they're good, but at this point I feel like I'm repeating things I've already said, just in different ways. So if you disagree with my reasoning, then present better reasoning for why you disagree, rather than asking another question. Or just agree, if that's where you want to end it for now. If you have a unique question related to the topic then I'll continue to correspond, its been an interesting discussion.

See, that's the problem with morality though. You can't ever actually justify them. That's what that argument where I showed the formal logic is all about. Whatever reason you give just begs the question, "Well why does that matter?". See, for morality to be objective (fact based) there needs to be a rational justification. But if every reason you can think of just pushes the answer further away, that never happens.

So if we're talking about me screwing with that innocent fella who don't wanna be screwed with, you claim the moral fact, "You shouldn't screw with innocent people". I ask, "Well why not?". And your reason has to be another "should"/"ought" claim (or you won't be stating a valid reason that connects to your claim). So reply like this:

They're wrong because the act of doing them is selfish and either causes harm or has the potential to cause harm to another, objectively speaking.

So to make this actually support your claim, you need to state, "It causes harm, and you shouldn't cause harm". Which begs the question, "Why shouldn't I cause harm?". And so on.

If you want to claim how I should behave, you can't just describe the consequences, you have to make a judgement about them. Then you need to rationally justify that judgement with another judgement, which requires another judgement to rationally justify it ad infinitum. This is known as the is/ought dilemma, and a lot of folks have tried a lot of ways to get around it.

And just a note on the semantics, you could phrase it as "It's wrong to screw with that guy because it's wrong to cause harm" if you want. But you need to stay consistent with your claims.

If this all sounds like a lot of hogwash, you'll have to go back and read my posts where I break it down formally to see it.

 

[Chriliman]

See, that's the problem with morality though. You can't ever actually justify them. That's what that argument where I showed the formal logic is all about. Whatever reason you give just begs the question, "Well why does that matter?". See, for morality to be objective (fact based) there needs to be a rational justification. But if every reason you can think of just pushes the answer further away, that never happens.

So if we're talking about me screwing with that innocent fella who don't wanna be screwed with, you claim the moral fact, "You shouldn't screw with innocent people". I ask, "Well why not?". And your reason has to be another "should"/"ought" claim (or you won't be stating a valid reason that connects to your claim). So reply like this:

So to make this actually support your claim, you need to state, "It causes harm, and you shouldn't cause harm". Which begs the question, "Why shouldn't I cause harm?". And so on.

If you want to claim how I should behave, you can't just describe the consequences, you have to make a judgement about them. Then you need to rationally justify that judgement with another judgement, which requires another judgement to rationally justify it ad infinitum. This is known as the is/ought dilemma, and a lot of folks have tried a lot of ways to get around it.

And just a note on the semantics, you could phrase it as "It's wrong to screw with that guy because it's wrong to cause harm" if you want. But you need to stay consistent with your claims.

If this all sounds like a lot of hogwash, you'll have to go back and read my posts where I break it down formally to see it.

All you need is one valid reason to justify something. Just because you might then need another valid reason to satisfy another question doesn't mean the first reason is somehow invalid. It means the person asking another question doesn't want to accept or agree with the valid reason, or they just want to keep asking questions, like children sometimes do. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it can get tiresome, especially if they aren't accepting your valid reasons.

You yourself are appealing to reason/logic to justify why you think it's wrong to think you can justify morality. Sorry, but that's a self-defeating argument.

 

[SkyWriting]

But their intent is to do wrong. Are they innocent?

Yes, they are innocent no matter what others think.

 

[SkyWriting]

And it's not to harm. But you do. Can you be blamed?

By people yes. But not by God.

 

[SkyWriting]

But one might do something that most people would consider wrong and think there's nothing wrong with it. Or feel guilty about an act that has no evil intent or bad repercussions.

I did something that people might consider bad.
People get a kick out of judging other people.
The person eventually died from complications.
God only knows my intentions and why I did what I did.

 

[LightLoveHope]

See, that's the problem with morality though. You can't ever actually justify them. That's what that argument where I showed the formal logic is all about. Whatever reason you give just begs the question, "Well why does that matter?". See, for morality to be objective (fact based) there needs to be a rational justification. But if every reason you can think of just pushes the answer further away, that never happens.

So if we're talking about me screwing with that innocent fella who don't wanna be screwed with, you claim the moral fact, "You shouldn't screw with innocent people". I ask, "Well why not?". And your reason has to be another "should"/"ought" claim (or you won't be stating a valid reason that connects to your claim). So reply like this:

So to make this actually support your claim, you need to state, "It causes harm, and you shouldn't cause harm". Which begs the question, "Why shouldn't I cause harm?". And so on.

If you want to claim how I should behave, you can't just describe the consequences, you have to make a judgement about them. Then you need to rationally justify that judgement with another judgement, which requires another judgement to rationally justify it ad infinitum. This is known as the is/ought dilemma, and a lot of folks have tried a lot of ways to get around it.

And just a note on the semantics, you could phrase it as "It's wrong to screw with that guy because it's wrong to cause harm" if you want. But you need to stay consistent with your claims.

If this all sounds like a lot of hogwash, you'll have to go back and read my posts where I break it down formally to see it.

I believe morality is fact based but on a pragmatic basis which is why all cultures have a morality principle. Feudal morality is about recognising the power base in ones area and referring all action to whether it harms this power base or strengthens it. The hierarchy of power demands that the foundations of how that power is built is secure and protected. Put simply those who will aspire to places of authority and power need a secure childhood and education is the administration requirements of running a society.

It is why morality established itself in so many civilisations, because to run well you need a morality. It may seem strange the mafia who break normal peaceful morality have a strict code of loyalty to the family group and death for too much failure.

Within these power bases meritocracy worked so difficult problems could be overcome with those most talented to solve them. I have read Genghis Khan though brutal managed to mold the Mongol tribes by combining these two aspects.

When you start to analyse execution and murder morality things can get very fuzzy, as what is regarded as a legitimate fight verses killing another for personal gain, becomes debatable. Clearly to maintain control the power base has to assert what it regards as justice and what is a threat to its power base.

Biologically if you look at humans we are weak, and our anger and aggression is very restrained. We do not have massive bouts of anger displays or fighting in our lives. It suggests we are very social creatures who obtain objectives through culture and social interaction at a very complex level, which necessitates rules and concepts of ownership and rights.

It strikes me that because this morality is embedded in physical power issues and social standing, you could never abstract this outside this context, as it exists to help the context work well.

 

[Moral Orel]

All you need is one valid reason to justify something. Just because you might then need another valid reason to satisfy another question doesn't mean the first reason is somehow invalid. It means the person asking another question doesn't want to accept or agree with the valid reason, or they just want to keep asking questions, like children sometimes do. Not saying that's a bad thing, but it can get tiresome, especially if they aren't accepting your valid reasons.

But you have to be able to show that the reason you gave was valid in the first place. Making a true statement does not mean that you gave a valid reason. Consider this example exchange:

Jimmy: You shouldn't cut your hair.
Billy: Why not?
Jimmy: Because it would be shorter.

Yes, it's true that shorter hair is the outcome of getting a hair cut. But that isn't a valid reason to not cut Jimmy's hair. This is exactly the way our exchange has gone:

Chrill: You shouldn't bother innocent people that don't want to be bothered.
Orel: Why shouldn't I?
Chrill: Because it would cause harm.

Yes, it's true that harm is the outcome of bothering people. But that isn't a valid reason to not bother innocent people that don't want to be bothered. Your reason is not valid. Instead, the only valid reason you could give would be "You should not cause harm". That would be valid, but you still need to prove that such a thing is true.

You yourself are appealing to reason/logic to justify why you think it's wrong to think you can justify morality. Sorry, but that's a self-defeating argument.

That's interesting. How so?

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, they are innocent no matter what others think.

So I'm going to shoot next doors dog because it keeps barking. I think that's perfectly acceptable. I'm innocent no matter what others think.

 

[Bradskii]

By people yes. But not by God.

Seems God is calling the shots each time. And you know what God desires. Or else how do you know what is right ot wrong?

 

[Bradskii]

God only knows my intentions and why I did what I did.

So you don't know if it was right ot wrong?

 

[Chriliman]

But you have to be able to show that the reason you gave was valid in the first place. Making a true statement does not mean that you gave a valid reason. Consider this example exchange:

Jimmy: You shouldn't cut your hair.
Billy: Why not?
Jimmy: Because it would be shorter.

I don't understand why you think a true statement isn't a valid reason? Isn't that essentially the definition of 'valid'?

I'd also like to give your example a bit of moral weight. It would go like this:

Jimmy: You shouldn't cut your hair.
Billy: Why not?
Jimmy: Because I don't want you to.

Jimmy's valid reason is that he doesn't want Billy to cut his hair because he likes it longer. It's a fact that he likes it longer, therefore, valid. Now its up to Billy to weigh the morality of the situation based on the facts. Your previous example had no moral weight to it, just a 'should' with no valid moral reason.

Chrill: You shouldn't bother innocent people that don't want to be bothered.
Orel: Why shouldn't I?
Chrill: Because it would cause harm.

Yes, it's true that harm is the outcome of bothering people. But that isn't a valid reason to not bother innocent people that don't want to be bothered. Your reason is not valid. Instead, the only valid reason you could give would be "You should not cause harm". That would be valid, but you still need to prove that such a thing is true.

I don't understand why you think it being true that harm is the outcome of bothering people, isn't a valid reason to not harm people? But, saying "You should not cause harm" is a valid reason?

Those things are intricately connected in my mind, the statement being based on the valid reason that bothering people causes harm.

That's interesting. How so?

Well, you think I'm wrong for thinking morality can be justified, right? And you're trying to use logic/reason to justify your position in order to convince me that I'm wrong, correct? Therefore, you're trying to justify your moral position on why morality can't be justified. Self-defeating.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't understand why you think a true statement isn't a valid reason? Isn't that definition of 'valid'?

The word "valid" means that IF it were true, it would support your argument. You also have to prove it's actually true.

I'd also like to give your example a bit of moral weight. It would go like this:

Jimmy: You shouldn't cut your hair.
Billy: Why not?
Jimmy: Because I don't want you to.

Jimmy's valid reason is that he doesn't want Billy to cut his hair because he likes it longer. It's a fact that he likes it longer, therefore, valid. Now its up to Billy to weigh the morality of the situation based on the facts. Your previous example had no moral weight to it, just a 'should' with no valid moral reason.

"I don't want you to" is not a valid reason any more than "It will be shorter". You're just describing something else.

I don't understand why you think it being true that harm is the outcome of bothering people, isn't a valid reason to not harm people? But, saying "You should not cause harm" is a valid reason. Those things are intricately connected in my mind, the statement being based on the valid reason that bothering people causes harm.

Because you believe "One shouldn't cause harm" to be true. Can you justify that belief? The only way it is wrong to bother someone is IF it's wrong to cause harm. So now you have to prove it's wrong to cause harm.

Well, you think I'm wrong for thinking morality can be justified, right? And you're trying to use logic/reason to justify your position in order to convince me that I'm wrong, correct? Therefore, you're trying to justify your moral position on why morality can't be justified. Self-defeating.

My claim isn't a moral position. A moral position is a claim about how one should behave.

 

[Kylie]

Yes, to a far simpler degree than our degrees.

So you're back peddaling.

You went from, "They can't do it," to "They can do it, but not as well as we can."

You'll forgive me if I find your arguments lack credibility.

 

[Kylie]

No more easily than the Moroccan MoJ in the situation cited. Most science was repeatedly thrown out and we are with difficulty recovering some; merely to point out that that specific example doesn't help this part of your contrast at this point in your argument.

What in the world are you talking about?

If we lost all knowledge of science, people will be able to reach the same conclusions. They will eventually figure out again the average distance between the Earth and the sun, and it will be the same value that we have today.

This will not happen with morality.

 

[Kylie]

They aren't zero sum. Which "topic" are you referring to?

Q ... any ideology that devalues me in the name of a power bigger than me frightens me ...

I don't see how this is at all relevant to the discussion. UQ

The moral wars are waged by people bigger than us to cow us. We can't defeat them by caving in.

Then show me something which is completely subjective and yet at the same time completely objective.