Morality without Absolute Morality

[durangodawood]

"Absolute morality."

Well its got a lot of different senses to it. So its important to define terms before launching a discussion. I dont think that happened here.

 

[zippy2006]

Well its got a lot of different senses to it. So its important to define terms before launching a discussion. I dont think that happened here.

Sure, but does it ever happen? I've never run across the term "absolute morality" in any professional or academic ethical or metaethical writing.

It's a bit like the word "fascist." All it really means in most people's mouths is, "The undefinable bad thing that, because I am not it, I am therefore good." It's just a way to declare victory without having to do anything.

 

[durangodawood]

Sure, but does it ever happen? I've never run across the term "absolute morality" in any professional or academic ethical or metaethical writing.

I see. But for better or worse this thread is open to non pros and folks like me with lowly bachelors degrees in non related subjects.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't think anyone who uses that word against their opponents knows what they mean by it.

What do you think the term means?

 

[zippy2006]

I see. But for better or worse this thread is open to non pros and folks like me with lowly bachelors degrees in non related subjects.

For better or worse the internet is full of people who want to "declare victory without having to do anything." But again, the question is, "Does it ever happen?" Does anyone ever come clean about what their mysterious accusation is supposed to mean? What religious rites must I be initiated into before I am to understand the mysterious meaning of "absolute morality"?

 

[durangodawood]

For better or worse the internet is full of people who want to "declare victory without having to do anything." But again, the question is, "Does it ever happen?" Does anyone ever come clean about what their mysterious accusation is supposed to mean? What religious rites must I be initiated into before I am to understand the mysterious meaning of "absolute morality"?

You should just respond to them directly and ask what they mean.

I usually assume people mean moral laws set for us by some divine order. But I have to admit, that concept starts to lose coherence when I examine at any deeper than surface level.

I mean, if a moral law doesnt serve a rational purpose, then it seems arbitrary. And if the law does emerge from a rational purpose, then no divine originator is required. The main role remaining for the divine seems to be enforcement. Executive, but not legislative, so to speak.

 

[zippy2006]

I usually assume people mean moral laws set for us by some divine order. But I have to admit, that concept starts to lose coherence when I examine at any deeper than surface level.

I mean, if a moral law doesnt serve a rational purpose, then it seems arbitrary. And if the law does emerge from a rational purpose, then no divine originator is required. The main role remaining for the divine seems to be enforcement. Executive, but not legislative, so to speak.

Right, and so we could rename the thread, "Morality without the divine," which is perhaps a more fitting title. That is, what you've done here is argued against the necessity of divine law for "legislative" purposes. That's an intelligible argument. I follow the general contours of the reasoning. There are no words like "absolute" which are ever-ambiguous.

 

[durangodawood]

Right, and so we could rename the thread, "Morality without the divine," which is perhaps a more fitting title. That is, what you've done here is argued against the necessity of divine law for "legislative" purposes. That's an intelligible argument. I follow the general contours of the reasoning. There are no words like "absolute" which are ever-ambiguous.

Remember discussions about "objective" morality? Oy vey!

 

[Oompa Loompa]

What do you think the term means?

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.


Now. Please continue.

 

[Bradskii]

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.

Agreed.

 

[zippy2006]

Remember discussions about "objective" morality? Oy vey!

Yes, but I'll take those over these discussions about "absolute" morality. At least the opponents self-identify as holding to objective morality, and so it is not merely a one-way label.

 

[zippy2006]

Agreed.

So do you yourself believe that raping a woman is wrong "regardless of context, culture, or circumstances"? Or is there some context, culture, or circumstance where you yourself would greenlight rape?

Are you then a "moral absolutist"?

 

[Bradskii]

So do you yourself believe that raping a woman is wrong "regardless of context, culture, or circumstances"? Or is there some context, culture, or circumstance where you yourself would greenlight rape?

Let's look at some examples of whether an act is morally acceptable or not.

Killing an animal. Well, can we have some context?
It's for food and the only way your family is going to eat. That's morally acceptable.
It's for fun. That's immoral.
The animal is in great pain and needs to be euthanised. That's morally acceptable.
It's annoying and you want it to stop. That's morally unacceptable.

Lying. Context again?
Your wife wants to know if her new dress makes her bum look big. Lying is morally acceptable.
You lie about a co-worker to get a promotion. That's immoral.
'There's no-one hiding in the basement'. That's morally acceptable.
You promise to be faithful, but you cheat. Immoral

Having sex with a woman. And the context?
You're paying for it. Morally acceptable.
You are married to different people. Morally unacceptable.
It's a one night stand and you're both over the age of consent. Acceptable.
You've plied her with booze, she's drunk and passed out. Morally unacceptable.

I've got a definite view on each of those. I think that they are most definitely right or wrong as noted. I don't think anyone in their right mind could call me an absolutist based on the above. Because each act has it's own context. Has it's own circumstances. They are examples of a relative morality. Including the very last one.

 

[zippy2006]

Let's look at some examples of whether an act is morally acceptable or not.

You wrote a bunch of words and managed to evade the question put to you entirely. Predictable.

Part of the incoherence of "absolute morality" construals is the arbitrariness of "context" that you are showcasing. You want to say, for example, that the act is having sex and the context is non-consent, and therefore a prohibition against rape is a contextual and therefore non-"absolute" prohibition.

The reason this is arbitrary is because it can be done for anything you like. Every so-called "absolute moral rule" that you propose could be recast as a "contextual moral rule."

• "My prohibition against rape is not absolute because rape is sex in the context of non-consent, and therefore is contextual rather than 'absolute'."
• "My prohibition against murder is not absolute because murder is killing in the context of an innocent person, and therefore is contextual rather than 'absolute'."

This is the same sort of sophistry that you are always engaged in.

 

[Bradskii]

You wrote a bunch of words and managed to evade the question put to you entirely. Predictable.

Evaded it? You'll see that the last example addressed it precisely. Here's the answer again:

Having sex with a woman after plying her with booze to get her so drunk that she passes out (which is rape) is morally unacceptable.

You asked me if I thought that rape was immoral or not and I gave you a very specific answer, so how is that evading the question? Your problem seems to be that I gave it some context. You can give your own context if you like. That answer will be the same.

Part of the incoherence of "absolute morality" construals is the arbitrariness of "context" that you are showcasing. You want to say, for example, that the act is having sex and the context is non-consent, and therefore a prohibition against rape is a contextual and therefore non-"absolute" prohibition.

The context isn't arbitrary. It's always present and always extremely specific. It's literally the facts of the matter. Which will determine the morality of the act.

I'd guess that you'd concede that many acts are relative to the context. In fact, I'm pretty certain that you'd agree with the fact that all the examples I gave were context dependent. You might not agree with my decision as to whether they were moral or not, but your decision, if it is different, would likewise be based on the context as well. But your position would render all moral questions absolute. There wouldn't be any relative morality at all.

Do you agree that killing animals for fun is immoral?
Yes.
Ah, so you're an absolutist.

Do you agree that cheating on your wife is immoral?
Yes.
Ah, so you're an absolutist.

Do you agree that getting a woman blind drunk and having sex with her is immoral?
Yes.
Ah, so you're an absolutist.

You can literally give enough specific context to any act to get a definite yes or not from someone as to the morality of the act and then declare them an absolutist. Relative morality then ceases to exist. Which, quite honestly, is plainly nonsensical.

 

[zippy2006]

Having sex with a woman after plying her with booze to get her so drunk that she passes out (which is rape) is morally unacceptable.

But that's not the meaning of 'rape'. It is one form of rape. I asked you about rape itself, not a specific form involving alcohol.

But your position would render all moral questions absolute. There wouldn't be any relative morality at all.

Right, and that's because the notion of "absolute morality" is incoherent, which is my whole point. You're the one who wants to use the incoherent concept of "absolute morality," and yet the way you use it is completely pointless and nonsensical. You are claiming that an unconditional prohibition against rape is not an absolute moral rule because rape is sex in the context of coercion.

Folks like yourself who want to utilize this strange notion of "absolute morality" make either everyone a moral absolutist or else everyone a moral relativist, which is itself proof that your notion of "absolute morality" is not linguistically coherent. I have no desire to use such meaningless terms at all. That's been my point from the start.

So I would suggest that folks like yourself should either stop using the term or else provide a definition that is coherent, namely one in which some people could truly be called moral absolutists and others could truly be called non-absolutists.

 

[Bradskii]

But that's not the meaning of 'rape'. It is one form of rape. I asked you about rape itself, not a specific form involving alcohol.

So if I add context you don't like the answer? That makes no sense. What if you ask if killing someone is wrong? If I say that if you do it in self defence it's OK, then what's your response going to be? 'No, that's just one form of killing. I asked you about killing itself, not a specific form involving self defence'.

You are using the word rape as you'd use the word murder. Murder is killing someone unlawfully with premeditation. That is the context. Rape is having sexual intercourse with someone without consent. Again, that is the context. There is no act possible without there being some context.

Right, and that's because the notion of "absolute morality" is incoherent, which is my whole point.

It's my point as well.

You're the one who wants to use the incoherent concept of "absolute morality," and yet the way you use it is completely pointless and nonsensical. You are claiming that an unconditional prohibition against rape is not an absolute moral rule because rape is sex in the context of coercion.

Folks like yourself who want to utilize this strange notion of "absolute morality" make either everyone a moral absolutist or else everyone a moral relativist, which is itself proof that your notion of "absolute morality" is not linguistically coherent.

So I would suggest that folks like yourself should either stop using the term or else provide a definition that is coherent, namely one in which some people could truly be called moral absolutists and others could truly be called non-absolutists.

See post 196. I'm quite happy with that definition. It pretty much matches the ones given by any number of searches. And I had a poke around for 'non absolutism'... From here: Is there a rigorous formalization of Moral Absolutism vs Non-Moral Absolutism?

'It seems that under the non-absolutist view, the statement "lying is always wrong" is indeterminate because the ethical proposition isn't fully specified. The theory requires extra predicate(s) in order to render a truth or false value. However, once that predicate is introduced, it seems that we are able to generate some type of absolutism relative to that necessary criterion being satisfied. '

So if you define an given act with enough predicates, with enough context, with an understanding of the specific circumstances of the act then we can determine if it's morally acceptable or not relative to those predicates. Relative to the context. Relative to the circumstances. How that is not relativism is beyond me.

 

[zippy2006]

So if I add context you don't like the answer? That makes no sense.

If I ask you the question, "Do you think cars should be outlawed," and you answer by saying, "I think Toyota Camrys should be outlawed," then you have not answered my question.

There is no act possible without there being some context.

Then your definition of "absolute morality" is entirely otiose. It is not logically possible for anyone to be a moral absolutist, given your definition. That's why it's such a dumb term. It is a bogeyman term, through and through.

See post 196. I'm quite happy with that definition.

Post 196 doesn't exist yet.

And I had a poke around for 'non absolutism'

Non-X means something that is not X.

How that is not relativism is beyond me.

So you've cooked up a definition of "moral absolutism" whereby everyone must be a moral relativist. Again:

It's just a way to declare victory without having to do anything.

The first rule of discourse is that if you've cooked up a concept that is impossible for anyone to hold, then you have cooked up a monster strawman.

 

[Bradskii]

If I ask you the question, "Do you think cars should be outlawed,"

My very first question would be 'What cars? Who's car? And under what circumstances?' The question is pretty meaningless as it stands. No context.

Then your definition of "absolute morality" is entirely otiose. It is not logically possible for anyone to be a moral absolutist, given your definition. That's why it's such a dumb term. It is a bogeyman term, through and through.

Again, it's not my definition. But I agree with you that using what is the normal, everyday definition does mean that it's not possible for an absolute morality to exist. Feel free to offer a different definition if you like.

Post 196 doesn't exist yet.

Apologies. It was a typo that I could have sworn I corrected. It's post 149. But surely you must have read it already..?

Non-X means something that is not X.

So if you don't hold to absolute morality then using the only definition that we have at the moment means that all morality is relative. As that passage that I quoted explained.

So you've cooked up a definition of "moral absolutism" whereby everyone must be a moral relativist.

Yet again, it's not my definition. It's the standard, everyday, run-of-the-mill usual definition.

The first rule of discourse is that if you've cooked up a concept that is impossible for anyone to hold, then you have cooked up a monster strawman.

I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat that it's not my concept. I really didn't think I'd have to posts a link to explain how everyone understands it.

Ethics Explainer: Moral Absolutism

A moral absolutist such as Immanual Kant believes there are certain immutable universal ethical standards that apply to all people.

ethics.org.au

 

[durangodawood]

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.

Did you write that?