Morality without Absolute Morality

[Hans Blaster]

Did I say that? C'mon, Sir Bradskii! I think you know what, or who, I mean when I analogize by a 'North Star.'

You think the Earth is flat?

 

[Bradskii]

I can see there's no fooling you, Bradskii, regardless of how many qualified, nuanced words I use.

Lesson learned.

Well, that was disappointing. I was all primed for a decent argument.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You think the Earth is flat?

Are you asking me if I think everyone in the world has Asperger's and that I must, absolutely present my analogies accordingly?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, that was disappointing. I was all primed for a decent argument.

There's no argument: my main rebuttal to doubtingmerle was regarding his affirmation that "any path leads to the same moral destination," which I obviously disagree with ............

But yeah. Besides that, I do think Jesus is the Way and the Life. So sue me!

 

[doubtingmerle]

There's no argument: my main rebuttal to doubtingmerle was regarding his affirmation that "any path leads to the same moral destination," which I obviously disagree with ............

Why did you put that in quotes when that is not what I said?

Many moral destinations have been worked out. Ultimately, these all come down to some version of the basic idea that if people want a good life, then they must do certain things, such as restricting murder, respecting property rights, and not allowing false accusations. How that works out in the details varies from culture to culture. Where there are differences, we can generally figure out ways to live together by working out a set of rules that we will enforce together.

None of this requires an absolute morality.

Declaring one morality to be absolute does nothing to improve things.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Are you asking me if I think everyone in the world has Asperger's and that I must, absolutely present my analogies accordingly?

What? It was an astronomy joke. It had nothing to do with Asperger's or any other ASD condition.

An analogy involving a star you can't see is about as useful as an absolute morality from a source you can't see.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why did you put that in quotes when that is not what I said?

Many moral destinations have been worked out.

What exactly is a "moral destination"? That term is vague and inadequate by which to show any form of moral equivalence.

Ultimately, these all come down to some version of the basic idea that if people want a good life, then they must do certain things, such as restricting murder, respecting property rights, and not allowing false accusations.

While these basic principles are find and dandy, I think we both know there is a lot, lot more that goes into the formation of domestic peace and well-being that merely these alone.

How that works out in the details varies from culture to culture.

Not exactly. I think you're obscuring the historical actualities by appealing to vague notions of "success" ......................

Where there are differences, we can generally figure out ways to live together by working out a set of rules that we will enforce together.

And your sources on Ethics, Social Philosophy and World History by which you're asserting this truism are what? Please cite them.

None of this requires an absolute morality.

Declaring one morality to be absolute does nothing to improve things.

Nowhere did I state or hint that an "absolute morality" is one that can be declared a priori; asserting as such wasn't my point.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What? It was an astronomy joke. It had nothing to do with Asperger's or any other ASD condition.

An analogy involving a star you can't see is about as useful as an absolute morality from a source you can't see.

Ok, Mr. Astronomer, I'll ignore my reference to Celestial Navigation | Time and Navigation.

What celestial analogy should I have used to make a more copacetic moral analogy alluding to the Absolute moral value of Jesus Christ?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok, Mr. Astronomer, I'll ignore my reference to Celestial Navigation | Time and Navigation.

What celestial analogy should I have used to make a more copacetic moral analogy alluding to the Absolute moral value of Jesus Christ?

Russell's teapot.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Russell's teapot.

 

[Bradskii]

But yeah. Besides that, I do think Jesus is the Way and the Life. So sue me!

Which doesn't assume an absolute morality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Which doesn't assume an absolute morality.

The problem with claims of absolute morality is that we have to trust those who claim to have a source of absolute morality. I do not find any of them trustworthy.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The problem with claims of absolute morality is that we have to trust those who claim to have a source of absolute morality. I do not find any of them trustworthy.

This aligns with what I often say: those that think there is an objective morality believe that somehow it's theirs.

Yeah, I don't believe you.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Which doesn't assume an absolute morality.

The funniest thing is that my Social Philosophy professor years ago said to all of us 30+ students in his class that, with an understanding of what 'absolute morality' actually is conceptually, we're all absolutist if we're each convinced that there is a right way to be moral.

Oh. And he was an atheist.

As for Jesus, well, I think He thought that His commands and admonitions and assorted moral teachings carried absolute authority, even if many people who heard Him were a bit dim witted and couldn't understand why it was indeed the case. Sort of like people today.

 

[Colo Millz]

Which doesn't assume an absolute morality.

Do you absolutely believe that?

 

[Bradskii]

The funniest thing is that my Social Philosophy professor years ago said to all of us 30+ students in his class that, with an understanding of what 'absolute morality' actually is conceptually, we're all absolutist if we're each convinced that there is a right way to be moral.

Deciding that it's a fact that morality is relative is not a problem. Facts are absolute by definition. Morality is not. And your philosophy prof didn't know that?

As for Jesus, well, I think He thought that His commands and admonitions and assorted moral teachings carried absolute authority...

I agree with what he taught. The fact that I have to make that decision myself makes it a relative morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Do you absolutely believe that?

As a fact, yes. See post above. Facts and positions on morality are not the same. Facts are absolute: There is a pen on the table. Morality is relative: Killing animals for fun is wrong.

Everyone with the capacity to reason.

So my morality is absolute. As is yours. So when we have two different moral positions on a given matter they are both absolute?

I'm not sure you thought that through.

 

[Colo Millz]

So my morality is absolute. As is yours. So when we have two different moral positions on a given matter they are both absolute?

I'm not sure you thought that through.

I said the capacity to reason.

If you require clarification: everyone with reason shares in the natural law, which is an expression of absolute morality.

Further clarification: first principles of morality are absolute and universal, binding on all people, so, in principle, everyone with reason has access to objective morality.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Deciding that it's a fact that morality is relative is not a problem. Facts are absolute by definition.

Bull. Different kinds of facts are subject to varying degrees of interpretation. So no, facts are not absolute in all cases.

Morality is not. And your philosophy prof didn't know that?

Our perspectives on what we each may think morality should be is subject to relative contexts, and my philosophy professor knew that. But that wasn't his point. Of course, relative to the fact that you weren't in the class, you didn't know that.

I agree with what he taught. The fact that I have to make that decision myself makes it a relative morality.

I think you're conflating the decision making process and its motive with epistemic relativity. If it's wrong to kill innocent children within conditions A, B, C, & D, then it's at least objective to say so regardless of whether or not someone else's moral decisions are retarded by their own individual limited comprehension. In such a case that we do have an individual who intentionally and carelessly flouts those objective conditions, then it is an absolute moral truth that he is a sociopath and not merely a subject of moral relativism.

In other words, there is no room on a humanly devised moral continuum for sociopaths and psychopaths. They are off the grid of epistemic and moral consideration and are thus prone to deciding for what we know is immoral.

Moreover, there seem to be competing definitions for "moral relativism." The one I hold is the following:

Moral Relativism - Ethics Unwrapped

Moral Relativism asserts that moral standards are culturally-defined and therefore it may be impossible to determine what is truly right or wrong.

ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu

 

[doubtingmerle]

While these basic principles are find and dandy, I think we both know there is a lot, lot more that goes into the formation of domestic peace and well-being that merely these alone.

Of course. I provided you with three examples of moral laws, specifically those that address killing, stealing, and false witness. However, the fact that I offered just three examples in no way implies that there is nothing more to morality than following these three examples. I was not intending in the least to claim that "the formation of domestic peace and well-being" requires "merely these alone."

That was a cheap blow. Are you even trying to understand what I say?

Does your absolute morality condemn cheap blows that falsely report what another person is saying?

Nowhere did I state or hint that an "absolute morality" is one that can be declared a priori; asserting as such wasn't my point.

Well, on what basis can you declare a claimed absolute morality to be absolute? If you want to propose that a specific moral code represents moral absolutes, I would like to know your reasoning. Do you have a reason for declaring it is absolute?

All that we need to know about morality can be determined using reason similar to that which I described in the opening post. Can you think of a single moral principle that you believe is absolute that cannot be derived from reason?

If your "absolute morality" cannot contribute one thing to our moral knowledge that we could not already derive from reason, what good is it?