Is there an absolute morality?

[Larniavc]

God never specifically targeted killing babies, except for with the plague of the killing of the firstborn of Egypt

Do you want to re read that? God never, except that time he did.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, I don't think it's possible for an act not to have a context, so how much of a role that should play in our judging might be something we could maybe talk about I guess...?

Lying is the usual example given. As in 'It's absolutely wrong to lie, whatever the context'. Or more simply 'Lying is always wrong'.

 

[Neogaia777]

Lying is the usual example given. As in 'It's absolutely wrong to lie, whatever the context'. Or more simply 'Lying is always wrong'.

Well, I agree judgement might be based on what might at first seem to us to be a "curve", etc...

And in more than that, sometimes even completely turned on it's head from our view at first sometimes maybe, etc...

But it is only at first, etc... Because then, after that, we will get to see what He (God) sees, or saw, etc... And then we will know, and understand, etc... And that it was our judgement that was flawed or bent, that made it only look like a curve, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Well, I agree judgement might be based on what might at first seem to us to be a "curve", etc...

And in more than that, sometimes even completely turned on it's head from our view at first sometimes maybe, etc...

But it is only at first, etc... Because then, after that, we will get to see what He (God) sees, or saw, etc... And then we will know, and understand, etc... And that it was our judgement that was flawed or bent, that made it only look like a curve, etc.

Well, we play with the cards that are dealt. I'm not going to tell the bad guys that the family is hiding in the basement because I don't know what God knows.

 

[Neogaia777]

Well, we play with the cards that are dealt. I'm not going to tell the bad guys that the family is hiding in the basement because I don't know what God knows.

I believe you make yourself an idol when you do that...

(If you were to rat them out for your own personal pride/ego and/or integrity, etc)...

Don't tell me the law makes no exceptions, or has no mercy at all, or that true justice is always an across the board absolute, when the Bible, and life, is chocked completely full of them, (exceptions to the normal rules), etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

I believe you make yourself an idol when you do that...

So what mental process would you go through? 'If I lie then they're safe, if I tell the truth then they die. I don't know what God wants, therefore I'll tell the truth just in case'.

The obvious question is: Just in case of what? Do you think God will punish you for saving innocent people?

 

[Neogaia777]

So what mental process would you go through? 'If I lie then they're safe, if I tell the truth then they die. I don't know what God wants, therefore I'll tell the truth just in case'.

The obvious question is: Just in case of what? Do you think God will punish you for saving innocent people?

If I don't know what God wants, then I always do that which I think is for the higher and highest and greatest moral good, considering both in the end and at the moment, etc...?

Or at least I will try to do that always, etc...

Either way, it still let's me know, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

If I don't know what God wants, then I always do that which I think is for the higher and highest and greatest moral good, considering both in the end and at the moment, etc...?

So in the example we're looking at, what's your decision?

 

[Neogaia777]

So in the example we're looking at, what's your decision?

Seek God first maybe, if He doesn't answer, or show you, then make the best judgment call you can with what He gave you, etc...

If it's like a Hitler Nazi regime wanting to kill Jews simply because they are Jews, and your hiding some of them, then the answer should be obvious, etc...

You lie to the bad guys when and if you have to,.and if and when you feel you must, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

You lie to the bad guys when and if you have to,.and if and when you feel you must, etc...

My view exactly.

 

[stevevw]

No. I would have no problem saying that killing babies is objectively wrong. Am I right in thinking that statement surprises you?

No. I would have no problem saying that killing babies is objectively wrong. Am I right in thinking that statement surprises you?

No it doesnt surprise me as that is the intuitive position we should take if killing babies is objectively wrong. What I am pointing out is that if you are a subjectivist you can certainly say that killing babies is objectively wrong but that claim is only about you. It doesnt say anything about killing babies is really wrong in any way beyond you.

Under a subjective moral system there is no right and wrong objectively. So anyone who says its OK to kill babies is not morally wrong, they are just expressing their subjective opinion which cann be morally wrong.

So claiming someone is objectively wrong doesnt make sense, and is inconsistent with subjectivity. It has no meaning or weight of conviction outside the person who says it. So I could just fob it off as someones opinion and nothing more. Thats why I say humans act like morals are ojective regardless of subjective morality. You can be a subjectivists and claim something is really wrong beyond your personal opinion.

 

[stevevw]

Seek God first maybe, if He doesn't answer, or show you, then make the best judgment call you can with what He gave you, etc...

If it's like a Hitler Nazi regime wanting to kill Jews simply because they are Jews, and your hiding some of them, then the answer should be obvious, etc...

You lie to the bad guys when and if you have to,.and if and when you feel you must, etc...

God Bless!

But I don't think we should be determining whether to lie based on a feeling or view of what is the right or wrong thing to do. Its more important than that. We need to reason what is the better/best way to act in that situation.

 

[stevevw]

That’s great. Without God we can agree on a right or wrong.

Of course we can. We all intuitively know what is morally right and wrong whether where Christians or atheists. Otherwise this world would be even crazier than it is.

 

[stevevw]

Indeed, so why do you constantly appeal to majority opinions and humans "intuituition"?

I think thats an exaggeration. Ive probably appeal to majority 2 or 3 times in 200 + pages. The appeal to majority opinions was to authority, qualification, accreditation. Thats more than an appeal to majority opinions. We use the Heart Foundation or the Medical authority for expert opinion. They know what they are talking about.

But nevertheless I have appealed to much more than majority of opinion and intuition. Intution is the intitial sense that something is wrong. We know this intutively because we have experienced that moral situation or seen how it lives out many times so we have already processed things to know. So its a good start for us that something is morally wrong and research shows it is often correct.

Then we can use rationality and logic to determine what is the better/best way to act morally. We know that there will be better ways to behave by assessing each way we can be behave in that situation. Some will be better or best ways as opposed to others. As I have mentioned several times morality is a rational enterprise. So logically we should be able to find a better/best way to behave.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think thats an exaggeration. Ive probably appeal to majority 2 or 3 times in 200 + pages. The appeal to majority opinions was to authority, qualification, accreditation. Thats more than an appeal to majority opinions. We use the Heart Foundation or the Medical authority for expert opinion. They know what they are talking about.

But nevertheless I have appealed to much more than majority of opinion and intuition. Intution is the intitial sense that something is wrong. We know this intutively because we have experienced that moral situation or seen how it lives out many times so we have already processed things to know. So its a good start for us that something is morally wrong and research shows it is often correct.

Then we can use rationality and logic to determine what is the better/best way to act morally. We know that there will be better ways to behave by assessing each way we can be behave in that situation. Some will be better or best ways as opposed to others. As I have mentioned several times morality is a rational enterprise. So logically we should be able to find a better/best way to behave.

What you are describing is not "objective morality".

Objective morality is always right, no matter how many agree or disagree.

 

[Larniavc]

So anyone who says its OK to kill babies is not morally wrong, they are just expressing their subjective opinion which cann be morally wrong.

I disagree. From my perspective they would be morally wrong and my perspective is the only one that counts (from my perspective).

 

[Ken-1122]

Is it wrong to rape and murder a child?
It is a universally accepted truth that doing such an act is wrong.

When you consider the definition of rape and murder, and what constitutes a child; no it is not.

 

[stevevw]

What you are describing is not "objective morality".

Why, why can't we find the moral truth in any situation by reasoning out what is the best moral behaviour. Morality is about right and wrong behaviour. We already have many Schemas of moral truths that have been tested already through experience. We can just about say that intuition alone is sufficient evidence that there are moral truths.

One of the most distinctive features of Ethical Intuitionism is its epistemology. All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument.
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

But we can test those intuitions as well. We would say it was counter intuitive to say torturing children is OK. We would like to think that the majority if not everyone thinks it better to be kind to children than torture them. So we can reason that not torturing kids is right sort of behaviour. We may be able to reason out even better behaviours thatn this as well. In fact we do everyday.

Objective morality is always right, no matter how many agree or disagree.

Yes but you have to determine the moral truth (objective) independently of subjective disagreement. That requires some reasoning. Get some idea of what is right and wrong behaviour based on the necessity of the moral and its general convergence of all things we consider good. This can be reasoned to find the better/best moral truth.

In a lot of cases we already have done this. We havnt even stopped to make an arguement for how or why. We just believe it intuitively. Like going back to torturing a child. We don't really have to reason out why, its just a truth that "Torturing" children is morally wrong. It doesnt sit or fit well, it seems strange, weird sometimes, often wrong, head turning wrong.

We can say that about stealing from your neighbour, not keeping promises, sexually harrassing our co-workers. These are moral truths we have given independent status and value to because they are not open to be changed by subjective opinion. They are like laws, they work practcially, help humans, help societies.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why, why can't we find the moral truth in any situation by reasoning out what is the best moral behaviour. Morality is about right and wrong behaviour. We already have many Schemas of moral truths that have been tested already through experience. We can just about say that intuition alone is sufficient evidence that there are moral truths.

One of the most distinctive features of Ethical Intuitionism is its epistemology. All of the classic intuitionists maintained that basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument.
Intuitionism in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Very few things are "self evident". Morality sure aint one of them.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intuitionism-ethics/#Int

But we can test those intuitions as well. We would say it was counter intuitive to say torturing children is OK. We would like to think that the majority if not everyone thinks it better to be kind to children than torture them. So we can reason that not torturing kids is right sort of behaviour. We may be able to reason out even better behaviours thatn this as well. In fact we do everyday.

Yes but you have to determine the moral truth (objective) independently of subjective disagreement. That requires some reasoning. Get some idea of what is right and wrong behaviour based on the necessity of the moral and its general convergence of all things we consider good. This can be reasoned to find the better/best moral truth.

"Good" is a value judgement and can never be objective, the above is not objective morality reasoning.

In a lot of cases we already have done this. We havnt even stopped to make an arguement for how or why. We just believe it intuitively. Like going back to torturing a child. We don't really have to reason out why, its just a truth that "Torturing" children is morally wrong.

We can say that about stealing from your neighbour, not keeping promises, sexually harrassing our co-workers. These are moral truths we have given independent status and value to because they are not open to be changed by subjective opinion.

No, thats not how it works. And again, stop with your links, learn to write shorter posts.

When you reason you presume lots of things that is not "objectively true".

There is f.ex. no objective truth in that life is valueable or that pain is bad. Its most peoples opinion that it is so but nothing more.

We have lots of reasons for disliking torturing children, but none of them are "objective".

 

[stevevw]

Very few things are "self evident". Morality sure aint one of them.

Well who are we to believe your personal opinion or the experts. Surely we caný just base this assertion on a personal opinion.

"Good" is a value judgement and can never be objective, the above is not objective morality reasoning.
No, thats not how it works. And again, stop with your links, learn to write shorter posts.

When you reason you presume lots of things that is not "objectively true".

Yes as we do in science. But we test those assumptions and in the case of morality it is how we can be justified that our belief in our intuitions of morality are a real and truthful representation of morality. How we behave kike morals are objective. How we can then reason that certain behaviours in these moral situations are better/best than others.

This is what determines moral truths. We recognize them, act them out, react like morals are objective. We already know the truth and we can test that truth.

There is f.ex. no objective truth in that life is valueable or that pain is bad. Its most peoples opinion that it is so but nothing more.

Yes and we can take all those things into consideration when determining moral truths. But the truth should stand independent of all human opinions and value judgements.

Humans know that life is intrinsically valuable. Whether it's by evolution (survival behaviour) or religion (beliefs) this knowledge is in us and we cannot pretend that life has no value. So its self-evident in the way we act like life has intrinsic value. Thats the basis for most other moral truths as it comes back to "Human life"being valuable.

We have lots of reasons for disliking torturing children, but none of them are "objective".

If that is the case then we can say that "Torturing" children is not really wrong.
"You cannot be wrong for liking peas".
"You cannot be wrong for liking to torture children".

That seems like an unreal and counter intuitive way to view things or behave. Thats because there is not basis for whether torturing children is actually forbidden to do.