Absolute morality

[cloudyday2]

Often theists claim that absolute morality is necessary, and then they use this necessity to "prove" the existence of a supreme god. I have been wondering if the belief in absolute morality might have led to most of the tragedies in history. What good is the existence of absolute morality if nobody agrees on it? A person who believes in absolute morality is more likely to see others as absolutely wrong and mistreat them. A person who believes in relative morality is more likely to mind his/her own business.

 

[Chriliman]

Often theists claim that absolute morality is necessary, and then they use this necessity to "prove" the existence of a supreme god. I have been wondering if the belief in absolute morality might have led to most of the tragedies in history. What good is the existence of absolute morality if nobody agrees on it? A person who believes in absolute morality is more likely to see others as absolutely wrong and mistreat them. A person who believes in relative morality is more likely to mind his/her own business.

The morality I hold to consists of the following:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

 

[cloudyday2]

The morality I hold to consists of the following:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."

I just finished a book about WWII where there was an anecdote about a German family treated badly by conquering US soldiers. It seems that people are at their worst when they think they have absolute truth. The US soldiers felt that the Nazi regime was "wrong" and this feeling of certainty encouraged excesses. Pearl Harbor seemed to justify fire bombing Tokyo. Etc. The draconian terms of the Versailles Treaty seemed to justify Nazi ideas. When people think they know clearly what is "right" and what is "wrong" - that is when bad things often happen.

 

[anonymous person]

Often theists claim that absolute morality is necessary,

I'm not familiar with this view.

In my lectures and debates, I argue rather that objective moral values and duties exist, and that God is the best explanation for their existence.

and then they use this necessity to "prove" the existence of a supreme god.

No this is incorrect. Proofs are found in mathematics.

Rather, I argue that God is the most plausible grounds for objective moral values and duties. This is a far more modest claim than attempting to offer some sort of undeniable proof.

I have been wondering if the belief in absolute morality might have led to most of the tragedies in history.

The Nazi's morality dictated that they should eradicate Jews. So no doubt, them acting on their moral convictions led to a great tradgedy being perpetrated.

What good is the existence of absolute morality if nobody agrees on it?

This is a loaded question. You would need to show that nobody has commonly agreed upon moral values and duties, which I think is clearly false.

A person who believes in absolute morality is more likely to see others as absolutely wrong and mistreat them. A person who believes in relative morality is more likely to mind his/her own business.

I believe that we should always love our neighbors as ourselves as Jesus commanded. This means even those that disagree with me. So I am an absolutist that would never mistreat someone who disagrees with me so whether or not an absolutist mistreats someone who disagrees with them would depend on the content of their beliefs and whether they act in accordance with said beliefs.

Secondly, if moral values and duties are not objectively grounded in God, then notions like mistreatment, or injustice, or right and wrong are arguably merely expressions of opinion. In such a world, there simply was nothing objectively wrong with what the Nazis did.

But obviously we don't have to be rocket scientists to see that what they did was really, objectively wrong.

Thirdly, moral relativists are some of the most vocal and outspoken people I know of when it comes to protesting for or against certain things they feel very strongly about.

In fact, many of them believe people have a moral obligation to be moral relativists!!!

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm not familiar with this view.

It's been a popular view. I think Kant popularized it.

William Lane Craig *cough* garbage debater *cough* uses it a lot.

 

[anonymous person]

It's been a popular view. I think Kant popularized it.

William Lane Craig *cough* garbage debater *cough* uses it a lot.

No, Dr. Craig doesn't argue that absolute morality is necessary.

He argues that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties.

Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary.

 

[cloudyday2]

He argues that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties.

Is there a list somewhere of the objective moral values and duties that some of these philosophers claim exists? It seems like an absurd claim to me.

 

[cloudyday2]

I believe that we should always love our neighbors as ourselves as Jesus commanded. This means even those that disagree with me. So I am an absolutist that would never mistreat someone who disagrees with me so whether or not an absolutist mistreats someone who disagrees with them would depend on the content of their beliefs and whether they act in accordance with said beliefs.

War is one environment when we must kill one neighbor to save another neighbor.

Secondly, if moral values and duties are not objectively grounded in God, then notions like mistreatment, or injustice, or right and wrong are arguably merely expressions of opinion. In such a world, there simply was nothing objectively wrong with what the Nazis did.

Yes, I have a negative opinion of Nazi Germany, but that is only my opinion and the opinion of most people.

 

[Non sequitur]

No, Dr. Craig doesn't argue that absolute morality is necessary.

He argues that God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties.

Craig is a tricky fellow. I know at some point I noticed he heavily started stating he doesn't like to use the term "absolute", because it means "regardless of circumstances", and there are varying circumstances and all not may be absolute. I've always found him changing sources (used to reference Jacob Kremer) and things to keep up with recent issues.

I did have something saved by him, a long time ago, but I can't find it

Good debater, though.

 

[Non sequitur]

Is there a list somewhere of the objective moral values and duties that some of these philosophers claim exists? It seems like an absurd claim to me.

I know WLC doesn't list them.

He argues the merits and ideas of objective moral values vs other things.

 

[Chriliman]

I just finished a book about WWII where there was an anecdote about a German family treated badly by conquering US soldiers. It seems that people are at their worst when they think they have absolute truth. The US soldiers felt that the Nazi regime was "wrong" and this feeling of certainty encouraged excesses. Pearl Harbor seemed to justify fire bombing Tokyo. Etc. The draconian terms of the Versailles Treaty seemed to justify Nazi ideas. When people think they know clearly what is "right" and what is "wrong" - that is when bad things often happen.

I can see how someone who vehemently believes their right about something may be lead by their desires to commit wrong actions, but I would not say everyone who believes they know the truth act in that way.

 

[ShamashUruk]

Often theists claim that absolute morality is necessary, and then they use this necessity to "prove" the existence of a supreme god. I have been wondering if the belief in absolute morality might have led to most of the tragedies in history. What good is the existence of absolute morality if nobody agrees on it? A person who believes in absolute morality is more likely to see others as absolutely wrong and mistreat them. A person who believes in relative morality is more likely to mind his/her own business.

I guess the dictionary term of absolute is "viewed or existing independently and not in relation to other things". Morality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."

So if the term absolute means to view independently and not in relation to other things, then the term absolute would not include a God figure.

Morality is the difference between right and wrong.

By the very definition of absolute it is not in relation to other things, in this case God. Morality is difference between right and wrong.

So when a theist and by the very defintion states that absolute (a view independent of other things) and morality (right and wrong) cannot be asserted without a God, it is a contradiction at least by a dictionaries definition.

Usually debates like this end up being defeating and simply no one agrees and it gets frustrating. There is no discussion but by principle, and when you debate on principles it can get very circular.

 

[cloudyday2]

By the very definition of absolute it is not in relation to other things, in this case God. Morality is difference between right and wrong.

So when a theist and by the very defintion states that absolute (a view independent of other things) and morality (right and wrong) cannot be asserted without a God, it is a contradiction at least by a dictionaries definition.

I think the theist belief is that God existed before Creation, so He existed independently of other things - i.e. absolutely. The absolutes claimed by theists are attributes of a Creator God as opposed to things defined relative to God.

Relative morality is the belief that what is moral for you might not be moral for me - morality is only a matter of personal opinion with some limited consensus among groups of people.

My feeling is that any absolute morality that might exist is useless to humans if God doesn't make them known to us. Humans sometimes claim to have absolute morals, but it is generally only a justification for persecuting those who disagree with them.

 

[ShamashUruk]

I think the theist belief is that God existed before Creation, so He existed independently of other things - i.e. absolutely. The absolutes claimed by theists are attributes of a Creator God as opposed to things defined relative to God.

Relative morality is the belief that what is moral for you might not be moral for me - morality is only a matter of personal opinion with some limited consensus among groups of people.

My feeling is that any absolute morality that might exist is useless to humans if God doesn't make them known to us. Humans sometimes claim to have absolute morals, but it is generally only a justification for persecuting those who disagree with them.

Ahhh okay, very clever Christian argument (absolute morality). So let's see if I can tackle this issue, this type of assertion seems to be a trap.

There is a street preacher I have seen on youtube named Sye Ten Bruggencate that makes this argument I think. I have seen his videos before and he states do absolutes exist, and are you absolutely sure, then ties it all to God being a creator.

So let me tackle this issue now that it is clear what is going on.

Firstly, monotheism (belief in one God) develops historically from polytheism (belief in many Gods), so the monotheist that asserts this claim does so on a premise of Christian philosophy, but it fails. It fails because, since monotheism develops from polytheism.

Secondly, and I firmly believe we were engendered (created if you'd like) creation itself is a reflection of a creator or Gods who engender. Meaning the term "absolute" itself is then irrelevant, because what we see in the earliest creation epics are Gods given power to create mankind, these are Gods of one God (children of one God if you will).

But let's say you stick to your Christian guns and state we were absolutely created by a perfect God. This leads me to think of the verse talking about how we were created in his (God) "image" and "likeness", meaning that since we are living breathing human's, and since there is no difference in the concrete nouns "image" and "likeness" then God must also be corporeal and humanoid, this is a huge problem concerning idol worship, hence by our very being we are violating the 2nd commandment, prohibiting us from idol worship; I posted the entire argument before, do you care to read it?

However, let's say you went the atheist route and stated "relative morality", generally speaking morality is dictated by society so in that case it is morality as a whole that is dictated by society. So if your action is in violation of societal laws then you face consequences.

Let's say you went the Christian monotheist route, well if we were all created then by society establishing what it thinks morality is based on bible folklore then by simply being created in his "image" and "likeness" our morality reflects our creator (see my above posting on "image" and "likeness").

 

[cloudyday2]

Ahhh okay, very clever Christian argument (absolute morality). So let's see if I can tackle this issue, this type of assertion seems to be a trap.

There is a street preacher I have seen on youtube named Sye Ten Bruggencate that makes this argument I think. I have seen his videos before and he states do absolutes exist, and are you absolutely sure, then ties it all to God being a creator.

So let me tackle this issue now that it is clear what is going on.

Firstly, monotheism (belief in one God) develops historically from polytheism (belief in many Gods), so the monotheist that asserts this claim does so on a premise of Christian philosophy, but it fails. It fails because, since monotheism develops from polytheism.

Secondly, and I firmly believe we were engendered (created if you'd like) creation itself is a reflection of a creator or Gods who engender. Meaning the term "absolute" itself is then irrelevant, because what we see in the earliest creation epics are Gods given power to create mankind, these are Gods of one God (children of one God if you will).

But let's say you stick to your Christian guns and state we were absolutely created by a perfect God. This leads me to think of the verse talking about how we were created in his (God) "image" and "likeness", meaning that since we are living breathing human's, and since there is no difference in the concrete nouns "image" and "likeness" then God must also be corporeal and humanoid, this is a huge problem concerning idol worship, hence by our very being we are violating the 2nd commandment, prohibiting us from idol worship; I posted the entire argument before, do you care to read it?

However, let's say you went the atheist route and stated "relative morality", generally speaking morality is dictated by society so in that case it is morality as a whole that is dictated by society. So if your action is in violation of societal laws then you face consequences.

Let's say you went the Christian monotheist route, well if we were all created then by society establishing what it thinks morality is based on bible folklore then by simply being created in his "image" and "likeness" our morality reflects our creator (see my above posting on "image" and "likeness").

To be honest, I don't follow what you are saying. Maybe it will make sense later.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Absolute Morality is hardly necessary. You could have relative moralities, in fact, that is what we find in practice.

However, to say one thing is more moral than another, requires both to be held to a standard. So to state our moral rejection of infanticide say, is better than the Roman acceptance thereof, of course means our moral code is closer to this standard upon which both are measured. For this to be anything more than our preference, our Jingoistic Hubris in favour of our own values, requires this standard to be an Absolute one - that there is a very real differentiation here, a better and worse option. In this view, Absolute Morality becomes very much a necessity.

So you could deny the standard exists, and have an absolute relative morality - which gives Might makes Right, or Nietschean morality of our Will to Power, or simple majority, etc. as the basis for determining morality. This hardly counts though, as allows us to justify all kinds of things that most would consider atrocity, and still suffers from the problem of Our Preference being the arbitrar. This is not how most view our 'Moral views' in practice, even if this is the theory they espouse, as the same outrage is often illicited and appeals to the universally understood Moral Option is made. Few are as aware of themselves as the more honest proponents of this, like Nietsche or Marx. For here our standard is only a collective and conventional illusion.

Alternately we can place something else as our Absolute. There is no reason that it has to be God, of necessity - Platonic Forms, or the One of Plotinus, or the Tao, or Stoic Destiny, would do just as nicely.
We are merely measuring our human moralities against this ingrained standard of course. One we instinctively recognise, even though often only in retrospect.

Once you take the leap of Theism, Absolute Morality is a powerful supportive argument for God, in my opinion, but is a fairly weak one in and of itself. God works very well here, indeed. It is not proof though.


Relative Morality has as much, if not more, blood on its hands though. It was Relative Morality that gave us the Holocaust, Stalinisation, Gulags, the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and the Khmer Rouge. It was the relative moral position of the Enlightenment that gave precedence to material well-being, that led to the White Man's Burden and Colonialism for the Native's own good in the 19th.
The Absolute Morality camp has however always decried the excesses done in its name. For each Crusader, there is a Bishop writing about the abhorrence of the violence. For each Conquistador, a Las Casas. For every slave or oppressed poor, a Ball or an Abolitionist - usually contemporaries. They have been equivocal in it, and rejected it wholesale once the fog of their times has worn off.
The relative morality camp has however excused it and continues to do so, and historically speaking, seldom suffered dissent of its supposed 'relative' positions.
I don't think one can easily weigh the evils wrought by adherents of the one view against the other, but it is far too simplistic and specious to declare Absolute viewpoints to blame for most human evils.