Find me an Absolute

[justaman]

Brimshack

While I agree with you, I want to play devil's advocate here because of exactly what you are asking Christians to do here.

You are asking for an objective truth in a 'moral absolute'. You are asking someone to dictate to you something which they know to be objectively true. This is simply impossible for a human to do, regardless of the existence of that objective truth.

Since we are subjective perspectives and can only experience reality subjectively, we only hold subjective truths which (a given Christian) may hope lies in line with an objective truth. But that Christian can only impart to you the subjective truth he believes (i.e. Thou shalt not judge) and you can only compare that to your own set of subjective truths that you've graded against what could be objectively true.

So by a Christian's subjective standards, 'Thou shalt not judge' is entirely a description of objective morality because God is essentially the manifestation of objectivity (ie he knows and has created all) and this subjective standard is a direct reflection of their assumed objectively true standard. You, however, do not define objectivity in that way, so it is impossible for the connection to be made.

Ergo, you are asking Christians to articulate something that is not in their power to describe, since neither you nor they deal with objectivity directly, you can only suppose it through subjectivity.

Just a thought.

 

[Shane Roach]

Why can I not see the supposed new post on this thread?

test test test

How absolutely bizarre. For whatever reason, the next page wouldn't load till I posted this note. But now I have it!!! I am so clever...

Drat. I have nothing to add to that. Carry on.

 

[Brimshack]

I've been wondering about that myself Shane.

Justaman, I am not sure that I am asking for an objective principle. It seems to me that a subjective principle has at least some prospects of being absolute (e.g. Kant's categorical imperative). But in any event, I would regard the common contrast between subject and object to be a flawed starting point. The two are actually part of a schematic relationship in which both must be present. If the criterion of objectivity is that no subjective input may be detected, then you are right. If on the other hand, the criterion for an objective principle is that the specific grounds for the principle must be rooted in the objective end of the spectrum, then I see no reason to reject the possibility out of hand. It's a basic question of reaslism. Anyone who imagines they can produce a judgement free of subjective input is kidding themselves, but if someone wants to suggest that an objective principle must be something other than pure subjectivity, then we can talk. All of which is somewhat askew from the questin of whether or not a given principle is absolute.

 

[Brimshack]

RT: I don't consider semantics a step down. The reality is that we have been dealing with questions of meaning all along, and judging simply is not equivalent to belittling. I'm not sure how I would define judging, but I am quite sure that I would consider it appropriate activity in a great variety of contexts, though not all of them. As to belittling, I have already pointed out that it is the common means of social control in a variety of cultural contexts, making it culture-specific. I really think it would be more promising to try to define the harm which belittling and judging may do and try to see if one can fashion a rule against that harm. (Although, a part of me wonders if proscriptions of any kind are good candidates for absolutes. Ultimately, I suspect the grounds for any real ethics will have to be affirmative in nature.)

Sorry about the typoes Shane. My point is that many if not most people have a variety of neurotic charcteristics, and love is often a source of anger and destructive actions. To exclude people with such characteristics from your moral principle would be to construct an ethic which applied to a rather small portion of the human race. This would also mean that by definition the principle was relative to the mental health of the person to apply it. Hence, not absolute.

 

[Risen Tree]

RT: I don't consider semantics a step down. The reality is that we have been dealing with questions of meaning all along, and judging simply is not equivalent to belittling. I'm not sure how I would define judging, but I am quite sure that I would consider it appropriate activity in a great variety of contexts, though not all of them. As to belittling, I have already pointed out that it is the common means of social control in a variety of cultural contexts, making it culture-specific. I really think it would be more promising to try to define the harm which belittling and judging may do and try to see if one can fashion a rule against that harm. (Although, a part of me wonders if proscriptions of any kind are good candidates for absolutes. Ultimately, I suspect the grounds for any real ethics will have to be affirmative in nature.)

So there are times where it is appropriate to look down and deride someone's beliefs or actions? Like what?

 

[Shane Roach]

Sorry about the typoes Shane. My point is that many if not most people have a variety of neurotic charcteristics, and love is often a source of anger and destructive actions. To exclude people with such characteristics from your moral principle would be to construct an ethic which applied to a rather small portion of the human race. This would also mean that by definition the principle was relative to the mental health of the person to apply it. Hence, not absolute.

And this applies equally to the treating others as you would have them treat you, why?

 

[justaman]

I've been wondering about that myself Shane.

Justaman, I am not sure that I am asking for an objective principle. It seems to me that a subjective principle has at least some prospects of being absolute (e.g. Kant's categorical imperative). But in any event, I would regard the common contrast between subject and object to be a flawed starting point. The two are actually part of a schematic relationship in which both must be present. If the criterion of objectivity is that no subjective input may be detected, then you are right. If on the other hand, the criterion for an objective principle is that the specific grounds for the principle must be rooted in the objective end of the spectrum, then I see no reason to reject the possibility out of hand. It's a basic question of reaslism. Anyone who imagines they can produce a judgement free of subjective input is kidding themselves, but if someone wants to suggest that an objective principle must be something other than pure subjectivity, then we can talk. All of which is somewhat askew from the questin of whether or not a given principle is absolute.

I see what you're saying - and for the record again, I do agree with you - but I'm suggesting that your concept of absolute morality is conceptually impossible (hence you don't believe in it) while the Christian's concept is. That's because they have a supernatural diety which removes the logical leap required between subjective beliefs and some absolute/objective standard of morals.

Seebs, for instance, argues that there may well be an objective set of morals, but that we will never know if we've got it right or not, we can only suppose subjectively. If this is the case, a Christian is never going to be able to prove something to be absolute because it definitionally does not appear absolute in their own system. They can only assume it to be so through faith, and thus the logical leap is made.

For you and me, that's an unacceptable way of doing business. For the Christian, it's a natural part of their belief system.

I just think that's the fundamental difficulty with what you're trying to achieve here. You're speaking two different languages.