Is there an absolute morality?

[Kylie]

In these discussions there is a basic problem. We reference emotional experience based on our own feelings and awareness of it. Because this is a subjective experience, without having had different traumatic issues it is hard to gauge the impact or meaning of our behaviour verses how we cope. Two things I would point to is grief and mental illness.

Grief is like waking up one morning without an arm. Of course you are still alive but something you assumed being there has now gone, forever. It changes you and you have to become someone different. If you have a relative who you love who is mentally ill, you can get sucked into the emotional rabbit hole from which there is no obvious way out. It seems to make emotional sense, but just gets more and more traumatic without proper reference points.

People with a secure sense of themselves can indulge their desires with superficial contacts but with massive sexual content. In youth it appears no harm is done, and one can shrug off love for the chemistry high one has. As life gets older, and love more important, and being significant with other people, being consistent and trusted is of more value than these highs. It is why monogomous relationships rule our society, because consistency matters, and knowing another in a deep way is the foundation of our lives.

The best argument I have heard from people is that is just weakness, dependency, trust which just leads to pain and disappointment. "Who needs a heart is a heart can be broken"

The value of love is the risk and the choice to love despite that risk, which is embodied in Jesus.
The power of Jesus is this reality lies in all of us, and we know. My family and how it has grown is testimony to me of this reality from ideas into emotional reality that truly matters.

As far as I can define objective reality, this is lifes objective reality. Many live broken lives with broken relationships, which was summarised to me by a comment on a social gathering as "cockroaches meeting together to take chunks out of each other."

I see people as who they are, and desire where I can to encourage them more and show love as Jesus did. God bless you

Everything you say here would seem to point towards a subjective view of morality.

 

[Bradskii]

I think I have a pretty good what others mean to say when they use the term, but that's not what you want me to do.

Orel: No thing has the property of being "immoral".
Brad: How do you determine if a thing has the property of being "immoral"?

That's how the conversation reads, and you're flustered that I won't give an answer to that nonsense. That is exactly equivalent, grammatically, to the question you're asking me. If you mean something else, then state exactly what you mean.

I haven't asked you how some thing has the 'property of being immoral'. I think I said a few posts upstream that it's not a 'property'. If you think that's a nonsensical proposition then I will agree with you. Acts are moral or immoral. What someone does can de described as moral or immoral. So in the sentences I used as examples 'moral outrage' is outrage at an act or acts. A 'moral vacuum' is indifference to acts which are immoral. 'Moral courage' is the courage to do something morally correct when there are personal costs.

You understand all of this. These sentences make sense to you. You understand what is meant. So you can obviously (and personally) differentiate between a moral act or an immoral one. Otherwise you couldn't understand the difference between moral outrage and a moral vacuum.

So if you understand the concept of moral and immoral (and you obviously do), I want to know how you differentiate between the two. Not what other people mean.

 

[rturner76]

I guess when it comes to absolutes we must look to physics. A body in motion stays in motion. Every cause has an effect. Similar to Karma. Effects have a cause and causes have effects, that is absolute morality in the physical world

 

[Moral Orel]

I would say that by and large...

There, see, you're already preparing yourself for exceptions because you know that "Take without permission" is not sufficient.

If you take something of mine when I either have not said you may take it, or if I have specifically said you may NOT take it, then I would say you have stolen it.

Then you would say the government stole from me via taxes, and you would say the teacher stole the comic, and you would say the waiter stole my food.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess when it comes to absolutes we must look to physics. A body in motion stays in motion. Every cause has an effect. Similar to Karma. Effects have a cause and causes have effects, that is absolute morality in the physical world

That would be determinism. As a Catholic I thought you'd reject that concept. It denies free will.

 

[Moral Orel]

I haven't asked you how some thing has the 'property of being immoral'. I think I said a few posts upstream that it's not a 'property'. If you think that's a nonsensical proposition then I will agree with you. Acts are moral or immoral.

Wrong. An "act" is a noun; nouns are things.

The statement "N is A", where N is any noun and A is any adjective, means that A is a property of N. "Earth is round" means that roundness is a property that the Earth has. "Murder is immoral" means that immoralness is a property that murder has.

No thing has the property of being "immoral". If an act causes harm, then you would prefer that act not happen. Your preference for a thing is about your personal experience of the thing and it says absolutely nothing about the thing itself. You don't determine "immoralness" about any thing. No one does because no thing has the property of being "immoral".

 

[Bradskii]

No thing has the property of being "immoral". If an act causes harm, then you would prefer that act not happen. Your preference for a thing is about your personal experience of the thing and it says absolutely nothing about the thing itself. You don't determine "immoralness" about any thing. No one does because no thing has the property of being "immoral".

We agree. No thing has the property of immorality. No act in isolation has the property of immorality. That's the very raison d'etre of the thread. Can acts be considered immoral in themselves. No, they can't. Only in context.

I stick a needle into a child's arm. Is that immoral? We have no idea. In itself, the act in isolation cannot be determined as moral or immoral. 'Sticking a needle into a child's arm' doesn't have the 'property' if you like of being moral or immoral.

But if I tell you that I am doing it because I like to cause pain, then we have enough info to make a determination. And it would be nonsensical to say we couldn't. Causing pain to a child simply for the enjoyment you would from their pain would be an immoral act. Now, as sure as I'm sittin here, that makes sense to you.

And if it makes sense to you, then what is your personal method of deciding that it is indeed immoral?

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I have the intention to harm you but don't act on it...then there's nothing to be decided. Can my intention in itself be immoral? I'd say no.

If I intend to harm you and swing a punch but miss? Harm was intended. The the act was immoral.

Suppose I intend to cause harm but somehow end up doing good instead?

Mad scientist works on mind-control drug but ends up inventing cure for cancer instead...

If you get hit upside the head but I didn't intend to cause harm...well, there's the concept of criminal negligence which might be applicable. But if you leave a loaded gun where a child could access it, are we talking about morality in that case? Doing something stupid doesn't necessarily mean doing something immoral.

Even if I know there are children in the area? When does carelessness become responsibility?

 

[rturner76]

That would be determinism. As a Catholic I thought you'd reject that concept. It denies free will.

I didn't mean to deny free will. I was trying to observe that what goes around comes around in the physical world. God made the laws of physics that govern the real world. In absolutism, I assume that the laws of physics rule as they are the laws that can be proven. But for the record, my Catholic faith does not negate the laws of physics If that notion clashes with free will, I will have to reexamine the question.

 

[Bradskii]

Suppose I intend to cause harm but somehow end up doing good instead?

Mad scientist works on mind-control drug but ends up inventing cure for cancer instead...

Even if I know there are children in the area? When does carelessness become responsibility?

Mad scientist? I'm going immoral because of the intent. And carelessness is not a moral concern. But if it leads to irresponsible behaviour? I'd say not because of the lack of intent. You didn't mean for the kid to shoot his sister.

 

[Kylie]

There, see, you're already preparing yourself for exceptions because you know that "Take without permission" is not sufficient.

Maybe that's because I think that there are always going to exceptions and justifications. You are asking for an absolute answer that will apply in every case when there is no such answer.

Then you would say the government stole from me via taxes,

I don't hold to the idea that taxation is theft. Taxation is a contribution to the upkeep of the infrastructure of our society. I don't know about you, but I like driving on well-maintained roads, and I like having my daughter go to a well funded school

and you would say the teacher stole the comic,

Yep.

and you would say the waiter stole my food.

That argument could certainly be made.

 

[Moral Orel]

We agree. No thing has the property of immorality. No act in isolation has the property of immorality.

No thing has the property of immorality.
An "act" is a thing; it is a noun.
No act has the property of immorality. In isolation or otherwise.

I honestly can't fathom how you reasoned to put those two sentences right next to each other.

 

[Moral Orel]

Maybe that's because I think that there are always going to exceptions and justifications. You are asking for an absolute answer that will apply in every case when there is no such answer.

I never said anything about "absolute". We can be more precise than "taking without permission" though.

I don't hold to the idea that taxation is theft. Taxation is a contribution to the upkeep of the infrastructure of our society. I don't know about you, but I like driving on well-maintained roads, and I like having my daughter go to a well funded school

I like those things too, but the gubmint didn't ask permission, I didn't give permission, ergo it is stealing by your use of the term.

Yep.

So the teacher stole the comic. Then it would definitely follow that the police steal drugs when they arrest dealers, huh?

That argument could certainly be made.

There's one of those wishy-washy answers again. This is nothing more than a semantic argument we're having. There isn't any real point to it. The question is whether you would say it is stealing. How vaguely, and broadly do you use the term.

 

[rturner76]

An "act" is a thing; it is a noun.

No am "act" is an action=verb, action word.

 

[Moral Orel]

No am "act" is an action=verb, action word.

No, it can be used in both ways, but "an act" is how we're using it which is as a noun. If we said "to act" then we would be using it as a verb.

 

[Bradskii]

No thing has the property of immorality.
An "act" is a thing; it is a noun.
No act has the property of immorality. In isolation or otherwise.

Then you're saying that nothing can be immoral. Torturing a child is an act. And therefore it cannot be immoral? That's...nonsense.

 

[rturner76]

No, it can be used in both ways, but "an act" is how we're using it which is as a noun. If we said "to act" then we would be using it as a verb.

So an act is not action? I'm confused

 

[Chriliman]

Fair enough. Sometimes I am unaware of the pervasiveness of the word "should" and it's ambiguity. So for clarity, let's hammer out exactly what "should" and "ought" mean.

They're used to denote obligation, duty or correctness. So if we say that "One ought not murder", this means that if one chooses to murder, then they have made an incorrect choice. The same way that if we ask, "What is two plus two? a. 1 b. 2 c. 3 d. 4" the correct choice is 'd'. Just like how if we say "Murder is wrong", it is meant literally, as in choosing to murder is the wrong choice, just like choosing 'a' is the wrong choice.


Yeah, you'll need to tell me exactly what you mean by a "justifiable want".

Is there such a thing as a "just wrong" as opposed to an "unjust wrong"? Aren't all "wrongs" unjust? If so, then your wording is redundant. And if that's the case, then P2 is what's known as a "tautology". Which is where you define something with itself. Remember that we agreed the phrases "X is wrong" and "One shouldn't X" are equivalent. So P2 sounds to me like "We shouldn't do things that we shouldn't do".

Remember that a conclusion follows from the premises if whatever is in the conclusion appears in the premises. It works the other way around too. If you only mention something once in the premises and not in the conclusion, it's probably unnecessary. I can't see "Nancy feels wronged" as being required at all.

And the conclusion would be more aptly applied to the premises worded like this: "I shouldn't disrespect Nancy's justifiable wants".

I’m thinking a justifiable want is a want that is fair, right, innocent and based on facts. So in Nancy’s case, not wanting to have her car stolen is justifiable because she’s the rightful owner of the car. Now the person wanting to steal it does not have a justifiable want because they’re not the rightful owner of the car and they want to steal it for personal gain(not to save a life, lol)

I’m thinking a just wrong, is the wrong someone feels when they’re feeling guilty or being justly punished. Whereas an unjust wrong is the wrong inflicted on the innocent, like Nancy.

So based on that and your input, here’s the revised argument:

P1 Nancy feels unjustly wronged when her justifiable wants aren’t respected(I think it’s important that we know she feels wronged here)
C I shouldn't disrespect Nancy's justifiable wants because it causes unjust wrong

 

[Bradskii]

So an act is not action? I'm confused

You're not the only one. Shooting someone is an act and not an action? Sticking needles into children is an act and not an action? Therefore they somehow becomes nouns and cannot have morality associated with them?

Maybe being confused is an act as well.

 

[Kylie]

I never said anything about "absolute". We can be more precise than "taking without permission" though.

In some cases, the extra clarification is useful. In other cases, "Taking without permission" works fine. You were asking me to say whether it was a sufficient definition or not, and you allowed no flexibility. So it sure seems like you were asking for an absolute!

I like those things too, but the gubmint didn't ask permission, I didn't give permission, ergo it is stealing by your use of the term.

Rubbish. When you are employed, you are aware that some part of your wages will be taxed. If you don't like it, go live off the land.

You seriously think it's theft when the government expects you to contribute towards the upkeep of the society you are a part of?

So the teacher stole the comic. Then it would definitely follow that the police steal drugs when they arrest dealers, huh?

I'm sure the people who had the drugs would say so.

There's one of those wishy-washy answers again. This is nothing more than a semantic argument we're having. There isn't any real point to it. The question is whether you would say it is stealing. How vaguely, and broadly do you use the term.

You're only complaining that my answer is wishy washy because I'm not giving you the absolute, one-size-fits-all answer you're demanding.