Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

No, I just stated that it wasn't the prerogative of a "creator" to define the "purpose" of a sentient being. One of your presuppositionalist claims.

Something you assert, as if you are the one who gets to define who has what rights.

Not this nonsense again. I don't believe in your god, not one tiny bit. Don't bother claiming that I do, again.

Yet you spend so much of your precious time engaging in counterapologetics. I'm going to stick with what God says, because I know how desperately deceitful the heart of man is.

I hoped that you might be able to understand how being a "creator" isn't sufficient to defining what is true. Alas, I have failed to put it into a form that you could grasp.

By flattening the object of contention, you've done nothing but engaged with a strawman.

It must be bliss.

Certainly is, though it's quite strange to me that people who claim to know so much are so often demanding that I make a demonstration of something that I only know by faith. You would think they'd be happy to share their knowledge with the ignorant.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So then why call some feelings moral? What is the distinction supposed to identify?

It identifies a specific type of feelings. It is interesting to talk about them sometimes.

The ability to ask a question does not imply the right.

The you need to explain what you mean with right in this case, why would the potter have any rights or not regarding the clay?

Well, sorry for the confusion. For me, it was simply a way of emphasis of a particular role.

It's a statement about analytic truth, because its a matter of definition which is not subject to argument.

Analytic truth, axiomatic truth?

I don't particularly care if you care about them. My interest in this disccussion isn't really to defend my particular way of dealing with morality, simply to highlight that so long as there isn't some objective standard to morality then the only rational response is nihilism. Everything else just reeks of desparation.

Do you have a explicit argument for that then? Some would argue that non-cognitivism is nihilistic, but that's also unproblematic.

So feeling good lighting a cat on fire makes it a moral action?

To some of those who do it surely. I would still try to talk them out of it, by trying to find some moral statement on which we agree together with perhaps some appeal to consistency. There is no guarantee that it works, but just because we have different feelings about an act doesn't mean that we can't talk about it.

That certainly could be the case, but I don't really consider it for the same reason I don't really spend much time thinking about a deceitful God messing with my memories, my sense perceptions, empirical information, or anything else really. If such hypotheticals were true, then I couldn't trust anything. So perhaps I should turn the hypothetical around on you?

So why did you present it as a conditional? What do you mean by turning the hypothetical around? But, sure do it.

 

[Fervent]

It identifies a specific type of feelings. It is interesting to talk about them sometimes.

What's supposed to be special about these feelings? Just saying they're special feelings doesn't identify what it is that makes them special feelings.

The you need to explain what you mean with right in this case, why would the potter have any rights or not regarding the clay?

I think the concept of a right should be well enough understood, and the question of "why" is nonsense without specifying who it is that determines who has what rights. So do you have a proposal for who gets to define what rights belong to whom?

Analytic truth, axiomatic truth?

Not quite, tautalogical(trivial) truth. It is a statement that is defined as true, whereas "axiomatic" is a claim about self-evidence.

Do you have a explicit argument for that then? Some would argue that non-cognitivism is nihilistic, but that's also unproblematic.

Ultimately, it boils down to the is-ought problem. Because if we cannot specify a link between observations and prescriptives it doesn't matter if there are moral truths, any evaluation on our part is not going to relate to them. So at the end of the day there's no reason to care about right or wrong, because none of us are competent evaluators.

To some of those who do it surely. I would still try to talk them out of it, by trying to find some moral statement on which we agree together with perhaps some appeal to consistency. There is no guarantee that it works, but just because we have different feelings about an act doesn't mean that we can't talk about it.

Sure, but what weight are your feelings supposed to have with me? We can talk about the fact that you feel that way, but ultimately that's about as interesting as the question of whether eating ice cream makes you feel good or bad. If its just about how things make us feel, with no intrinsic or extrinsic orientation to truth then it has no reason to hold weight with anyone but you.

So why did you present it as a conditional? What do you mean by turning the hypothetical around? But, sure do it.

I simply presented the statement that we can't separate what is true in fact with what we are justified in believing, though I may have put that poorly. As for turning the hypothetical around, I figured that would be inferrable through the context. Basically what I had in mind was something along the lines of questioning how you deal with the hypothetical of a Cartesian demon. How do you know you can trust whatever you think is the most trustworthy source of information if there might exist a malevolent deity that is perpetrating a deception on you?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What's supposed to be special about these feelings? Just saying they're special feelings doesn't identify what it is that makes them special feelings.

It's not that they are special, they feel in a specific way.

I think the concept of a right should be well enough understood, and the question of "why" is nonsense without specifying who it is that determines who has what rights. So do you have a proposal for who gets to define what rights belong to whom?

In reality it seems to be society.

Not quite, tautalogical(trivial) truth. It is a statement that is defined as true, whereas "axiomatic" is a claim about self-evidence.

Ultimately, it boils down to the is-ought problem. Because if we cannot specify a link between observations and prescriptives it doesn't matter if there are moral truths, any evaluation on our part is not going to relate to them. So at the end of the day there's no reason to care about right or wrong, because none of us are competent evaluators.

I don't believe the are objective moral truths. But I do care about my moral feelings, others care about them too, we can and do talk about them.

Sure, but what weight are your feelings supposed to have with me? We can talk about the fact that you feel that way, but ultimately that's about as interesting as the question of whether eating ice cream makes you feel good or bad. If its just about how things make us feel, with no intrinsic or extrinsic orientation to truth then it has no reason to hold weight with anyone but you.

Perhaps nothing, but why should anyone care about telos. Since society codifies morals into law sometimes, many are interested in expressing their moral feelings. We can influence our feelings through discussions. It gives us insights that might change our perception of the acts.

I simply presented the statement that we can't separate what is true in fact with what we are justified in believing, though I may have put that poorly. As for turning the hypothetical around, I figured that would be inferrable through the context. Basically what I had in mind was something along the lines of questioning how you deal with the hypothetical of a Cartesian demon. How do you know you can trust whatever you think is the most trustworthy source of information if there might exist a malevolent deity that is perpetrating a deception on you?

I don't know, but I didn't put forward some conditionals about it either. So what was your conditionals supposed to tell me? If the "then" doesn't follow from the condition being true, can't you just put it forward as a brute fact?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Something you assert, as if you are the one who gets to define who has what rights.

Way to completely not understand a pretty simple point. I only assert that no "creator" has the right to determine *my* purpose. You can give up yours all you want. I don't care.

Yet you spend so much of your precious time engaging in counterapologetics. I'm going to stick with what God says, because I know how desperately deceitful the heart of man is.

Nope. Not counterapologetics. I am not arging against god. I'm just trying to have a discussion on thing that are important to people who believe in a god/creator and those who don't and you (like the other principle Christian participants on the thread) muddy up the conversation with the "everything is dependent on the creator/god" assertions. I have no problem comprehending that you think your god is responsible for it all, why is it so hard for you to realize that I do not.

By flattening the object of contention, you've done nothing but engaged with a strawman.

SMH.

Certainly is, though it's quite strange to me that people who claim to know so much are so often demanding that I make a demonstration of something that I only know by faith. You would think they'd be happy to share their knowledge with the ignorant.

 

[Bradskii]

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances.

I'll just repost that from close to the start of the thread (thank you Oompa). It's the definition that is common wherever you might want to look. It states quite clearly that if an action is right or wrong regardless of context, culture, or circumstances then it cannot be a case of relative morality.

I'm absolutely certain that the following basic question will not be answered. But that's exactly why I want it here. The next time a thread starts on relative morality I'll be able to point to this post to indicate that asking such a basic question is a worthless exercise.


'Please give me an action that you can determine to be right or wrong that disregards context, culture or circumstances'.


Actions which are described in a way that already contains the circumstances are invalid, such as murder (killing an innocent person in a premeditated manner, as opposed to killing in self defence) and rape (sexual intercourse without consent, as opposed to sexual intercourse with consent). This has already been discussed.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'll just repost that from close to the start of the thread (thank you Oompa).

 

[o_mlly]

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

What moral principles does "fundamental reason alone ... determine"?

 

[Bradskii]

What moral principles does "fundamental reason alone ... determine"?

All of them. You can't hold to any moral principle without having a reason to do so.

 

[Fervent]

I'll just repost that from close to the start of the thread (thank you Oompa). It's the definition that is common wherever you might want to look. It states quite clearly that if an action is right or wrong regardless of context, culture, or circumstances then it cannot be a case of relative morality.

I'm absolutely certain that the following basic question will not be answered. But that's exactly why I want it here. The next time a thread starts on relative morality I'll be able to point to this post to indicate that asking such a basic question is a worthless exercise.


'Please give me an action that you can determine to be right or wrong that disregards context, culture or circumstances'.


Actions which are described in a way that already contains the circumstances are invalid, such as murder (killing an innocent person in a premeditated manner, as opposed to killing in self defence) and rape (sexual intercourse without consent, as opposed to sexual intercourse with consent). This has already been discussed.

This seems to be setting up a false dilemma between relativistic morality and deontological absolutes while ignoring a plethora of conceptual frameworks for absolute morality that don't depend on deontological structures. The only thing that matters in an absolute morality is that there is an actual right and an actual wrong, rather than right and wrong being purely in the eye of the beholder.

All of them. You can't hold to any moral principle without having a reason to do so.

Are you intentionally conflating the meaning of "reason" or do you truly not understand that your usage and @o_mlly usage are not the same? Is it intentional intellectual dishonesty, or do you just not comprehend that even if the same word is used the concept in mind can be vastly different?

 

[Ophiolite]

For one of us it did. I just don't accept the insinuation that I suffer from some form of Narcissism. To me, to toss that sort of atribution out toward another person like it's just so much low hanging fruit is a typical leftist form of rhetoric.

But, I'll take it with a grain of salt, extend you an olive branch and apply a little grace by not too firmly assuming you actually had such an insinuation in mind.

I missed this when first posted. I apologise, it seems my British reticence was overdone and the end result unclear. No insinuation was intended. My complaint, however, was not of any narcissism, but too many instances of lack of substance. Lot's of building materials and fragments of plans and authorisations, just no construction at the end of it that people could move into.

The olive branch was a nice gesture, but I'm not sure the Scottish climate is favourable for olives.

 

[Bradskii]

Are you intentionally conflating the meaning of "reason" or do you truly not understand that your usage and @o_mlly usage are not the same?

I'll use reason to determine my position on moral matters. It gives me the reason why I hold to it. One is the process. The other is the result it gives.

Did I really have to spell that out?

 

[Fervent]

I'll use reason to determine my position on moral matters. It gives me the reason why I hold to it. One is the process. The other is the result it gives.

Reason how? How do you make the leap from facts to value statements? What non-fallacious argument do you have to bridge the gap between is and ought?

Did I really have to spell that out?

Considering your statement, yes it needed to be spelled out because you twisted one as if it were identical with the other.

 

[Bradskii]

Reason how? How do you make the leap from facts to value statements?

This is a fact, this is the value I associate with it. That's what morality is. A statement of our personal values. You can hardly use someone else's...

What non-fallacious argument do you have to bridge the gap between is and ought?

Hitting you upside the head IS going to cause you unnecessary pain and distress. That's the fact. Therefore (in my opinion) I OUGHT not to do it. That's the value I associate with it.

That was easy. Ask me another.

Considering your statement, yes it needed to be spelled out because you twisted one as if it were identical with the other.

I hope I clarified my clumsy response.

 

[Fervent]

This is a fact, this is the value I associate with it. That's what morality is. A statement of our personal values. You can hardly use someone else's...

That's not reasoning, it's sophistry.

Hitting you upside the head IS going to cause you unnecessary pain and distress. That's the fact. Therefore (in my opinion) I OUGHT not to do it. That's the value I associate with it

You've presented a non-sequitor, or else you've simply inserted your concluion into your premises. The gap remains, as there is no reasoning involved only the insertion of your opinion.

.

That was easy. Ask me another.

I hope I clarified my clumsy response.

You haven't, you've simply presented sophitry and an invalid form of pseudo-argument.

 

[Bradskii]

That's not reasoning, it's sophistry.

I've explained that morality consists of decisions that I make on moral matters. Who else makes them? Do you make them for yourself or does someone else do it for you?

And I use reasoning to reach my decisions. I can say how I reached my decisions and what facts I used to do so. If you reach a decision how do you do it?

You've presented a non-sequitor, or else you've simply inserted your concluion into your premises. The gap remains, as there is no reasoning involved only the insertion of your opinion.

So let's examine it.

There are facts to consider. If I hit you upside the head then you will be hurt and somewhat annoyed. Empathy allows me to establish that.

I use reason to determine what the likely outcome is likely to be. Are you going to buy me a beer or take a swing at me? The decision there is that you'll likely respond in kind. That IS the fact of the matter as I have determined. You being annoyed and me possibly getting a smack in the mouth.

I can now reach a conclusion. Which is obviously nowhere seen in the premises I've listed. And the conclusion is that I OUGHT not to hit you. Which covers three bases.

Firstly, self protection. Secondly, a desire that society remains reasonably stable (see Kant for further details). And three, I really don't like to see people distressed and I really am adverse to causing harm.

Now if you want to address any of that then do so in some detail. I'm not going to allow you to constantly post versions of 'Oh no it isn't!'

So produce the details of where you see a problem ('the conclusion was in the premise' was patently nonsense) OR tell me how you determine morality and we can discuss that.