Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

No, this is what you said: 'moral situations are given meaning by humans through their making morals objective by reasoning them.' In other words, the meaning is due to the people reasoning it themselves. In other words: Why do morals have meaning? Because people 'give morality meaning'.

But the key you keep overlooking is using reasoning, (rationality and logic). These are tools that allow us to work out the truth and facts of what behaviour is right or wrong from the subjective thinking.

You have said the exact opposite to how one might find something is objectively moral. Which would be by discovering it. By my reasoning I determine that euthanasia is acceptable in some circumstances. Your reasoning may lead you to a different conclusion.

The idea of reasoning is to steer away from personal opinions and discover facts and truths. This can be done for right and wrong morla behaviour.

If it's objectively right, then how would we know?

Rationality, logic (reasoning) are cognitive thinking consistent with objective morality and is the opposite of subjective thinking. If you reason your self to a conclusion that suits your subjective preferences or feelings then you havn't found any objective truth but rather your subjective state. But rationality and logic are tools for determining independent truths and facts beyond humans (the subject). So we can navigate beyond subjective thinking to find moral truths and facts.

 

[Bradskii]

But rationality and logic are tools for determining independent truths and facts. So we can navigate beyond subjective thinking to find moral truths and facts.

I'll bet you any amount you'd care to wager that what you say has been correctly determined to be objectively immoral aligns exactly with your views.

You can give any example that will reject that statement. Otherwise, what you are saying is that anyone who has used 'rationality and logic' to come to a different conclusion to you is simply wrong.

 

[Neogaia777]

Just as a side note about maybe almost nothing being truly objective, etc... (maybe AI can get it right, IDK, guess we'll see I guess...?)

Anyway, some are now even saying that not even reality itself is truly objective these days, and that it is subjective, and is subject to us, and our input makes it what it is, or will be or will become, which involves how we feel or our state of mind, etc...

Just a side note, etc...

Thought it might be interesting maybe...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

'...you’re not appreciating that moral situations are given meaning by humans...'

Words fail me.

He really really dont understand the very basics of subjective/objective/value nihilism.

 

[Moral Orel]

You guys are just talking about the topic of the other thread.

The idea of reasoning is to steer away from personal opinions and discover facts and truths. This can be done for right and wrong morla behaviour.

No you can't. And I proved it here: Is there Objective Morality?

 

[stevevw]

I'll bet you any amount you'd care to wager that what you say has been correctly determined to be objectively immoral aligns exactly with your views.

You can give any example that will reject that statement. Otherwise, what you are saying is that anyone who has used 'rationality and logic' to come to a different conclusion to you is simply wrong.

But the reason why no individual or culture can align reasoned facts and truth to their views is because its not based on relative/subjective views or opinions but substanciated truths and facts like in Math. For example we can reason torturing children for fun is objectively wrong. We can determine that kindness is better than torture by the way kindness helps humans and human interaction and torture doesn't.

That determination is not based on my or any cultures belief or opinion no more than anyones. Its just a rational and logically determined way to behave considering who humans are and how they should know how to behave as humans in these situations. So what is right and wrong is independently determined by reasoning and not subjective feelings or opinions.

For example The WEst thinks genital c ircumcision is barbaric and should be stopped. But the African tribe that practice this think its OK. So who is right. How can the US and other Western nations condemn the African Tribe if morality is relative.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, this is what you said: 'moral situations are given meaning by humans through their making morals objective by reasoning them.' In other words, the meaning is due to the people reasoning it themselves. In other words: Why do morals have meaning? Because people 'give morality meaning'.

You have said the exact opposite to how one might find something is objectively moral. Which would be by discovering it. By my reasoning I determine that euthanasia is acceptable in some circumstances. Your reasoning may lead you to a different conclusion.

If it's objectively right, then how would we know?

Clearly, absolute morality isn't real if objective morality isn't real. So now you guys are just talking about the topic of the other thread. If absolute morality interests you, I'd suggest granting that objective morality is true, just for the sake of argument, and then asking if its absolute. No sense carrying on the same conversation in two different threads.

 

[Neogaia777]

But the reason why no individual can align reasoned facts and truth to their views is because its not based on subjective views or opinions but substanciated truths and facts like in Math. For example we can reason torturing children for fun is objectively wrong. We can determine that kindness is better than torture by the way kindness helps humans and human interaction and torture doesn't.

That determination is not based on my belief or opinion no more than anyones. Its just a rational and logically determined way to behave considering who humans are and how they should know how to behave as humans in these situations. So what is right and wrong is independently determined by reasoning and not subjective feelings or opinions.

I guess it depends on how you define it, and how far you think humans are capable of truly objective views or thoughts, etc, because to me, it would be a lot like math, or the way a computer might think, etc...

But we probably can agree on some things, as a human race, or as different nationalities or things, but it still could be argued that none of that would ever be truly objective, etc, but is in rooted in what represents that nationality or culture or race and how they see the/their world, and "human" is a "race" here, etc...

Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it or decide it to establish law, but that also goes back to what I said about the law earlier as well also...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

He really really dont understand the very basics of subjective/objective/value nihilism.

I don't think many people do understand subjective/objective/value nihilism. I am still bring myself up to understanding of nihilism. Its an interesting school of thought. I wonder is post modern thinking a little nihilistic.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't think many people do understand subjective/objective/value nihilism. I am still bring myself up to understanding of nihilism. Its an interesting school of thought. I wonder is post modern thinking a little nihilistic.

Post modernism has some value nihilism yes, but its not exactly the same.

 

[stevevw]

I guess it depends on how you define it, and how far you think humans are capable of truly objective views or thoughts, etc, because to me, it would be a lot like math, or the way a computer might think, etc...

I think the moral truths are there. They can be just blotted out or not understood. Some moral truths are pretty obvious like rape, child abuse, mugging old ladies is wrong, keeping promises is morally good. Others are sometimes harder to define. But that doesnt mean that there are no moral truth to be found.

You are right that humans are not really good at determining the truth. As humans we have a 100 different things going on impacting on us and how we see things. But still we seem to agree on certain moral truths. Like we know they are like laws or facts we should take notice of and follow. Anyone who says the opposite would be considered strange and wrong.

But we probably can agree on some things, as a human race, or as different nationalities or things, but it still could be argued that none of that would ever be truly objective, etc, but is in rooted in what represents that nationality or culture or race and how they see the/their world, and "human" is a "race" here, etc...

Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it or decide it to establish law, but that also goes back to what I said about the law earlier as well also...

Anyway,

Yes I see how with relative morality in how different cultures see things differently. But having different/relative moral views doesn't mean no moral truth. Relative morality sounds great, "You see it your way and I see it mine" relative to our setting. So there is not really any truth to the matter.

But as I said humans don't act/react that way. We protest the other culture that they are doing something barbaric, immoral. In taking that stance we are actually saying "Our cultural view of morality is the "Truth" and all other views are wrong. So humans make morality objective in the way they speak and act.

There is a saying that "You act out your beliefs". As humans we can't help but act like moral situations matter and that there is some truth and justice to be found outside ourselves.

God Bless!

Likewise God Bless you.

 

[stevevw]

Post modernism has some value nihilism yes, but its not exactly the same.

Yes its just me getting my head around nihilism. Don't worry I think I am getting some understanding.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes its just me getting my head around nihilism. Don't worry I think I am getting some understanding.

Its not nihilism, its value nihilism.

 

[stevevw]

Its not nihilism, its value nihilism.

yeah sorry I am learning that too. It seems Nietzsche’s conception of value nihilism was to mean the expression of will to nothingness, that life lacks attainable highest values.

 

[stevevw]

Getting back to "is there an absolute morality" The opposite of absolute morality is relative morality. So I am assuming that the the poster takes the relative moral position. If thats the case I am interested in finding out what people who support relative morality think about this example and whether this is a true representation of the difficulty relative morality has in being applied practically in todays society.

According to relative morality each culture will have their own view of morality relative to their culture. So one culture can view spanking is ok and in another culture it is wrong.

It follows then that no culture is absolutely right therefore no culture is absolutely wrong in their view of morality.

I am wondering if this is a true representation of relative/absolute morality

 

[VirOptimus]

yeah sorry I am learning that too. It seems Nietzsche’s conception of value nihilism was to mean the expression of will to nothingness, that life lacks attainable highest values.

Thats not value nihilsm. Nietzsche was not a value nihilist.

But you should read him, Kant, Shopenhauer and Heidegger at a minimum.

 

[VirOptimus]

Getting back to "is there an absolute morality" The opposite of absolute morality is relative morality. So I am assuming that the the poster takes the relative moral position. If thats the case I am interested in finding out what people who support relative morality think about this example and whether this is a true representation of the difficulty relative morality has in being applied practically in todays society.

According to relative morality each culture will have their own view of morality relative to their culture. So one culture can view spanking is ok and in another culture it is wrong.

It follows then that no culture is absolutely right therefore no culture is absolutely wrong in their view of morality.

I am wondering if this is a true representation of relative/absolute morality

Using absolute right and wrong only show that you dont understand the fundamentals.

 

[Rachel20]

According to scripture, there are things that are always morally right ie "against such there is no law" (Gal 5). But these are soul traits, not actions. Though if you wanted to be able to point to something in the physical realm and say "that is love", you would more often find yourself pointing to acts of sacrifice.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am wondering if this is a true representation of relative/absolute morality

It's not a bad representation of Moral Relativity, however there's a difference between ascribing to Moral Relativity and believing morals are relative. Moral Relativity is specifically about cultures and societies making the rules. But morals can be relative to other things as well. Proving that morals would be relative to circumstances is sufficient to disprove that morals are absolute without requiring one ascribe to a specific moral theory.

Consider the stuff you've already been over in the other thread. "One ought not lie" is not an absolute, as you've already agreed folks were right to lie to Nazis when they were hiding Jews in their attic.

 

[Bradskii]

But the reason why no individual...etc

You avoided the point of the post. My fault as I should have presented it as a question:

Is it true that what you say has been correctly determined to be objectively immoral aligns exactly with your views.