Find me an Absolute

[Brimshack]

…and since I am getting a descriptive statements, I have edited the OP to specify that moral principles ought to express an ought, and they ought to do so directly. I am not asking people to wax philosophical on what they think makes morality work, how they think it came into existence, or what book they think I will find it in. I am asking for a clear expression of a specific moral principle that someone thiks may be universally applicable. Thus far, we don't even have a single moral principle on the table. So, I'll field one myself.

"Honor thy mother an father!"

The problems with this one are numerous. Honor is to vague to determine specific courses of action. But if we change it to:

"Do as your mother and father say!"

…now we have defiite consequences, but definite problems as well:

- It assumes a culture using paternal authority in the family, thud ignoring some kinship sysems in whih the maternal uncle is the male role model, and dad is just the guy who knocked mom up. (E.g. Western Apache, as I recall).

- It assumes both parents are of sound mind, reasonable judgement, and benign intent. This is normally the case, but if this were truly absolute, there would be NO exceptions. If ones father were to tell him to slaughter babies in a horrid manner, I do not acept that this principle would justify doing so.

Thus the principle as stated is not universal. It is both culture-specific, and excludes contexts within it's home culture as well. Perhaps one could re-interpret the original, but I doubt that would give us better results.

Now, that is just an example of the type of response I am lookig for. If there are moral principles that can be meaningfully said to be universal, then we should be able to state them directly, their implcations should be clear, and we should not be able to find plausible contexts which would negate their moral force.

 

[Philosoft]

Ms Shelby: That was Philosoft's contribution, and he has succesffully won the contest as far as I am concerned. We are looking for the second place option.

Alas, the powers-that-be put the kibosh on my attempt at humor. Had I looked longer and harder, I might have found an image of Absolut Eucharist. Or something.

 

[Brimshack]

Interesting Jayem. I don't have a great deal of time, so I may have to take another stab at it later. BTW: Yours IS an example of what I am looking for. (Sorry, I hadn't seen it while I was working on the long post.)

 

[Faith In God]

Truth is absolute, and so is good and evil

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Thank you for completely failing to answer the question with the deft use of meaningless religious rhetoric.

Well, the debate club is back together. Let's have T-shirts made.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Whitehorse: Interesting narrative, but you did not answer the question. I am not (as I thnk you may have been implying) looking for a way to avoid morality. Rather I was asking for an example of a moral principle that many here assure me does exist. I would submit that if all you can do is promise me that such a thing can be found indicates a high probability that you have not found it yourself. Otherwise, the fruits of your own search would have yielded an answer to the question.

Well, you did put a lot of words in my mouth there. I answered your question more thoroughly than you apparently realize. But I didn't take it in the direction you wanted me to, is all.

 

[Brimshack]

butxifxnot: Lacking an answer, you merely assert what you choose to believe. Believing in absolutes is no substitute for understanding the.

Whitehorse: I will regard this matter as closed at this point.

Jayem: By producing the greatest good for everyone, does this mean the standard refers to the collective good? I keep looking for a way in which this could be construed as mandating good treatmentfor each individual person. If the former, then my concerns (perhaps rather predictable I guess) would lie with exploitation of minorities. If the latter, then I don't see how a greatest good for everyone can be calculated. Either way, I think this fails the test.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Whitehorse: I will regard this matter as closed at this point.

Thank you for the compliment!

 

[de Unamuno]

Can anyone here produce for me an absolute moral value? By that, I mean a moral value that:

1) …is precise enough to have definite consequences.
2) …is contingent on no context-specific assumptions, such that it's force could be off-set by changing those assumptions.

Adited to add: 3) …it should be expressed in the form of a statement inidcating how one ought or ought not to act.

If an answer exists, it would imply that one might have to first know the nature of the world in which the absolute moral value exists. I believe this breaks rule #2? For example, an absolute moral value of "hate all matter" might exist, but you wouldn't know it unless you had knowledge that matter was created (by an otherwise independed force) in order to be hated by all sentient beings within that material world.

In this sense, if Christianity is true, then any of the commandments could be considered "absolute", right?

Again, I'm not sure what you mean by Condition #2, but it seems that the context and nature of the world in question is very material to validating an absolute moral.

 

[Brimshack]

de Unamo: I understand that one could well assume an absolute value would presuppose absolute knowledge of the universe, but this imposes a truth functional equasion on the problem. Since I am actually talking about ethics rather than epistemology. I don't really think a moral principle requires an external source of validation (objective or otherwise); they are simply questions of meaning. if someone can present to me a moral principle with a sufficiently general scope of application that it's universality cannot be trumped by showing a practical contingency throwing it off, then as far as I am concerned that is sufficient. the question is not whether or not such a principle exists in the world , per se, but can you or anyone else formulate one yourself.


FYI Whtehorse, I regard our EXCHANGE as settled, not the original topic.

 

[Smilin]

The thread title caught my eye and I thought it was about vodka. Dang. Oh well, sorry to interupt.

Michelle

If you're not allowed to enter the Catholic pub anymore...

Break out the vodka...they'll come to you....

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

FYI Whtehorse, I regard our EXCHANGE as settled, not the original topic.

Yes, I understood you.

 

[de Unamuno]

de Unamo: I understand that one could well assume an absolute value would presuppose absolute knowledge of the universe, but this imposes a truth functional equasion on the problem. Since I am actually talking about ethics rather than epistemology. I don't really think a moral principle requires an external source of validation (objective or otherwise); they are simply questions of meaning. if someone can present to me a moral principle with a sufficiently general scope of application that it's universality cannot be trumped by showing a practical contingency throwing it off, then as far as I am concerned that is sufficient. the question is not whether or not such a principle exists in the world , per se, but can you or anyone else formulate one yourself.

YI Whtehorse, I regard our EXCHANGE as settled, not the original topic.

Indeed, if it is universal, then by its own nature the moral law can only apply within the confines of the physical and logical universe we are talking about. Your question begs an absolute without taking into account the background. It's like saying, prove to me that my cell phone exists, but I don't want to hear about a four dimensional universe consisting of energy in the form of matter. You have to start from a truth function, or else the question (and answer) is meaningless.

If your question indeed requires a truth function, then the answer is that one must first have a knowledge of the ultimate truth and nature of the universe. If that truth is knowable, then we have the new challenge of identifying whose ultimate truth is the right truth. If that truth is unknowable, then either 1) ultimate morality does not exist but we wouldn't know it, or 2) it does exist but we cannot emphatically know the morality that comes from it. In all cases, the question cannot be answered emphatically or uncontestably, so why again are we asking this question?

Am I just muddying the waters here?

 

[Brimshack]

Meaning is logically prior to truth, De Unamo. One cannot determine whether or not a statement is true until after one has determined what it means. Your assumptions effectively demand that we know the truth BEFORE we know what we mean. This effectively makes everything unknowable, not just universals.

Add to this the fact that moral values simply aren't truth runctional. If I say; "Don't lie!" it makes no sense to say that that is true or that it is false. If, as you maintain I must know what lying is, fine that is another funtion of meaning, not validation in some external world.

It strikes me that your vision of an absolute truth is actually an argument in favor of complete nihilism. Since we cannot know the world as a thing in itself, we cannot even begin to ask questions about the meaning of our own values. This is precisely what you are arguing. And it is precisely the sort of abstract metaphysics which I had hoped to avoid. It is based on completely unrealistic assumptions about how knowledge and meaning actually operate, and it leads us nowhere. So, I'm sorry, but I do tend to think you are muddying the waters. In any event, the crucial mistake is the first one, I believe, the notion that truth comes first. No,we assess truth AFTER we understand what we mean to begin with.

 

[de Unamuno]

Of course, one might argue that I am presenting the only alternative to my own beliefs, that nihilism is the only alternative if no absolute exists. Personally, I believe in an absolute, therefore it seems to strengthen my case (if I wanted to make a case) if the only other alternative is a complete and utter lack of truth, which I think most of us will reject if for not other reason than by sheer horror.

I'm comfortable with an all-or-nothing view, if logic supports it. Indeed, many philosophers have found God that way.

 

[Brimshack]

But you are not demonstrating that nihilism is the only alternative to your views. You are demonstrating that there are no absolutes in your way of thinking. You may in fact believe in the prospect of an absolute, but it is your approach which makes that absolute into a completely unobtainable fiction.

 

[jayem]

Jayem: By producing the greatest good for everyone, does this mean the standard refers to the collective good? I keep looking for a way in which this could be construed as mandating good treatmentfor each individual person. If the former, then my concerns (perhaps rather predictable I guess) would lie with exploitation of minorities. If the latter, then I don't see how a greatest good for everyone can be calculated. Either way, I think this fails the test.

It means acting provide the greatest good for each individual person, meaning yourself and all others. I see two problems: 1) What exactly is "good?" 2) It's so general, as to be rather useless in a practical sense. For any moral precept to even come close to being absolute, it would have to be extremely non-specific. The human condition is so convoluted that exceptions can be found for any ethical guideline.

 

[mpshiel]

"Honor thy mother an father!"

The problems with this one are numerous. Honor is to vague to determine specific courses of action. But if we change it to:

"Do as your mother and father say!"

Brimshack, you have created a paradox in that while there are contextual and cultural values which are understood though abstract, you require them to be defined in clear declaratory statements and then attack the nature of language itself. Even Plato only expected a representation of the absolute, not a complete manifestation in any one particular.

To honor and to obey are quite different. It is possible to give honor to someone even who is dangerously insane. It is the nature of honoring that is it flexible, not rigid like obediance. If you wish for simple answers, I guess Ayn Rand is the best bet.

Or perhaps you would prefer the sort of pithy universal morals:

Don't take a dump in the river upstream from your home.

Don't eat yellow snow

I think the closest to the absolute in language would be first stated by a divinty in a burning bush and later repeated by Descarte

I am

The morality is that the sentence is alway ready for finishing. It is both subjective, universal and flexible.

 

[Magisterium]

I don't think moral absolutes exist, but this is from Kai Nielsen. It's utilitarianism with a twist, and at least, worth thinking about:

Always act so as to produce the greatest good for everyone.

Actually Brim, I'm kinda surprised that you were impressed by this statement.

This is one of those rhetorical statements that is almost universally attractive because it appeals to mankind's natural desire to do good. However, beyond this appeal, it's relatively devoid of any real principle.

This is because in order for this statement to have any meaning at all, we must first define "produce". We must establish whether it is a direct and complete production, or if implication or indirect causation qualifies for instance... Next we must we have to establish "greatest". Not ony does this need to be quantified, but it's almost impossible to ever know the "greatest" of anything until that thing has been completely defined which takes me to my next point. This whole statement hinges upon this word "Good" but fails to even attempt to define what good is.

In all this statement is essentially undefined but appeals to an inner emotional desire do good which most of us possess. It leaves the reader (or listener) feeling really "good" and inspired, but provides no critera with which to place itself into action.

 

[Mekkala]

Hey Brim, I've pointed out the error in your query.

The problem is that you've grouped together words which are incompatible in this context. The word absolute refers to the idea of needing no qualification or quantification. However, the very next word, "moral" refers to right and wrong. As you know, the entire idea of right and wrong must in fact be based upon some established standard. In that respect, anything moral is necessarilly context specific. That context being the standard of right and wrong itself. Finally, the word value. Value as it is used here, is necesarilly a precept based again upon some established standard or criteria.

Effectively, you're asking for something and at the same time ruling that thing out.

Um, I'm confused now. Are you saying there are no absolute moral values, or are you trying to defend moral absolutism by saying that it's logically inconsistent to demand an actual moral absolute?