Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

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

Just as an aside, I heard this yesterday in a discussion between Stephen Fry and Steven Pinker. Fry asked if our sense of morality was 'Nature, nurture...or Nietzsche'.

 

[stevevw]

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

Ok intrinsically right or wrong

 

[stevevw]

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.

But it can't because what is a moral truth is determined by our intuitions and then is rationally and logicaly determined. So it is not determined by anyones views. I can't rationalize a moral truth when the truth is indepedendent of me.

 

[Moral Orel]

But it can't because what is a moral truth is determined by our intuitions and then is rationally and logicaly determined. So it is not determined by anyones views.

Yeah, those can't both be true.

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok intrinsically right or wrong

Not better.

 

[VirOptimus]

Once again refer to last post. It is widely acknowledged that humans think in terms or morals being truths and objective. ie

If you examine human action you don’t observe questions of right and wrong as boiling down to opinions or preferences.
We do have the intuitive sense that some values are wrong and some values are right, we do have the intuitive sense that some choices are wrong and some are right and this is best seen in our own actions.
We do argue, bitterly, about questions of right and wrong and we think that problems such as abortion aren’t just matters of opinion but actually matter. Our actual observations don’t match up to what we would expect given relativism; they line up much better with what we’d expect to observe given an objective morality that isn’t always clear.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism

https://thebackporchpundits.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/521/

You quote a piece called "The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism" and think thats a good source?

No, and "widely acknowledged" is not a support of your assertion without some scientific study as a source.

A fail.

you’re not appreciating that moral situations are given meaning by humans through their making morals objective by reasoning them. That gives them independence and authority.

This is not "objective morality", in fact this is what is called "subjective morality".

Then how do we account for the US declaration, many countries constitutions, UN Human Rights , most sciences, philosophers all give value, dignity and respect to human life like its an objective instrinsic value. This is because its a self-evident truth we all know that life is valuable in the way we act and live.

If it was self-evident then it wouldnt need to be codified now would it?

I 'm not attributing evolution teleology. I am saying that even evolutionists agree that life has importance. This along with the importance religions and most other sciences ethicists and philosophers do it is safe to say that “Human Life” is an objective basis we can measure most morals from. If we are to determine some standard for morality this is a pretty good one to start with.
Maybe so, but it also means your view carries no weight as its just your opinion and carries no independent support that’ what you claim is actually true.

"Evolutionists" (whatever that would be) do no such thing. Neither do philosophers.

Now, in humanist terms it is an agreeable foundations, but in no way is it "objective".

If one says "it is a pretty good one to start with" then its not objective.

So basically you are creating another fallacy that what I read is crap because it doesn’t match what you think to be the truth rather than address my argument.

No, I urge you to study more because your arguments are crap. There are arguments for a belief in "objective morality" that are more sound, you just dont understand them.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have read indepedent articles. Intuitionalists who happen to be the dominant position say that moral truths are self-evident. They don't need to be argued. When you see a women being assaulted on the streets you don't need to stop and get evidence that its wrong. Its self evident, you know and react like its wrong.
Thats a classic logical fallacy in that just because there are differences in schools of thinking doesn't mean there is no moral truth.

No, thats not how it works. Do you even know what "self-evident" entails?

This shows you don't really understand moral realism. Or morality for that matter. It is well acknowledged that humans speak and act like there are moral (objective) truths. These are just a small example of independent and scientifically supported articles. These are not my assertions but widely accepted knowledge by most philosophers.

Again, an assertion need some data or arguments supporting it. Saying "its self evident" is neither.

As Berny Belvedere points out about subjective/relative morality
that’s not how we normally think about the nature of moral truths. What it is for a truth to be a fundamental moral truth, is to be true independent of any parameter. “Making” moral truths true relative to such parameters is to give up on the very idea of morality.

So it looks like we treat our attitude towards slavery more like a matter of empirical fact than a matter of mere preference. But our confidence in at least one moral proposition seems to be greater than our confidence in any of the arguments for moral anti-realism.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

If you examine human action you don’t observe questions of right and wrong as boiling down to opinions or preferences.
We do have the intuitive sense that some values are wrong and some values are right, we do have the intuitive sense that some choices are wrong and some are right and this is best seen in our own actions.
We do argue, bitterly, about questions of right and wrong and we think that problems such as abortion aren’t just matters of opinion but actually matter. Our actual observations don’t match up to what we would expect given relativism; they line up much better with what we’d expect to observe given an objective morality that isn’t always clear.
The Hypocrisy of Moral Relativism

Also western adults seem to regard moral properties as objective, at least more so than social conventions or taste properties, but less so than scientific facts (Goodwin & Darley 2008).
Shafer-Landau non-naturalist version of moral realism
Shafer-Landau, by contrast thinks that ethical principles are self-evident and can be justifiably believed and known on the basis of intuition.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40041039

Stop spamming links, I dont read them and neither do you, you just spam with something that suppports your point of view.

Why not. We can see if our moral intuitions are supported by reasoning if they support Human life. I am not talking about our basic belief in a god. I am talking about justified beliefs for which we can have about anything. The reason it’s called “Justified” belief is because we have good reason to think it’s true and therefore believe it.

We have no "good reason to believe its true", and besides, if its a belief then its not a fact.

Humans are the authority. Not by their subjective thinking but by their rational and logical thinking. By their belief in their intuitive knowledge of moral truths. Any standard that allows human life.

If humans are the authority then there is no such thing as "objective morals".

 

[Bradskii]

But it can't because what is a moral truth is determined by our intuitions and then is rationally and logicaly determined. So it is not determined by anyones views. I can't rationalize a moral truth when the truth is indepedendent of me.

I'm not asking you to determine if something is objectively right or wrong. I am asking you if all things that are, in your understanding, objectively right or wrong always align with your personal opinion.

 

[stevevw]

I'm not asking you to determine if something is objectively right or wrong. I am asking you if all things that are, in your understanding, objectively right or wrong always align with your personal opinion.

I am not sure. I would have to think about that one. Why is that important.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not sure. I would have to think about that one. Why is that important.

Answer #286 and #287.

 

[Bradskii]

I am not sure. I would have to think about that one. Why is that important.

Well, wouldn't it be quite a coincidence that all moral acts, which you say are right or wrong whatever you might personally think, always align with your personal views? That wouldn't be credible. So there must be moral acts that are right or wrong with which you disagree.

Can you give an example or two?

 

[Sabertooth]

The same act that might be called rape in one place might be called consensual in another.

That is true about statutory rape, but never in the case of forced, unwanted sex.

 

[Bradskii]

That is true about statutory rape, but never in the case of forced, unwanted sex.

What if the woman is is no position to consent?

 

[Sabertooth]

What if the woman is is no position to consent?

1. Refusal/lack of consent is not a contextual consideration.
2. Only the admissibility of consent, if granted, is.

Legal Adult?___Consent Given?___Consent Granted?

• Yes_____________Yes_______________Yes
• No______________Yes_______________No
• Yes_____________No________________No
• No______________No_______________No

Red is always wrong.
Purple depends on local definition of "majority."

 

[Ken-1122]

That is true about statutory rape, but never in the case of forced, unwanted sex.

I wasn't talking about forced unwanted sex, I was talking about rape. There are a lot of actions put under the umbrella of rape that does not constitute unwanted sex. My point was if he is gonna try to use the legal term of rape as an objective morally wrong issue, that is why his argument failed.

 

[Bradskii]

1. Refusal/lack of consent is not a contextual consideration.
2. Only the admissibility of consent, if granted, is.

I appreciate the time you spent in producing the tables. But I'm having difficulty in grasping the meaning of those two comments. I don't know what you mean by 'the admissibilty of consent'. Can you please clarify?

 

[Sabertooth]

I don't know what you mean by 'the admissibilty of consent'. Can you please clarify?

Is [her] consent legally recognized as such?
In the case of a minor, no.
The only "gray" area, there, is that "age of majority" is not universally defined.
A 15yo in the USA, generally, cannot grant legal consent.
A 15yo in another country might be able to.

(This is all a subset of whether the couple is married or not.)

 

[Bradskii]

Is [her] consent legally recognized as such?
In the case of a minor, no.
The only "gray" area, there, is that "age of majority" is not universally defined.
A 15yo in the USA, generally, cannot grant legal consent.
A 15yo in another country might be able to.

(This is all a subset of whether the couple is married or not.)

I think it used to be 12 in the Vatican City.

 

[stevevw]

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.

But that sounds more like an objective moral situation and not an absolute. We can say that lying still remains an objective moral because in the context of the Nazi's hunting down Jews to send them to the gas chambers the moral truth now becomes a matter of saving lives which is a greater moral. So lying is morally right to save those lives. Its often the intent which makes things moral or not.

But as far as I understand it absolute is best understood through its opposite relative morality. This is more about an outside influence such as a culture or environment that group of people are subjected to that causes them to see morality (relative) through that lens. So each culture has its own and different lens to deetrmine how morality works.

So absolute morality would mean that instead of there being many relative views of what is right there would be a single set of morals (absolute) that trumps all relative views. But its more about nations, cultures, groups relative to each other rather than individuals within that group. Each culture can have sub cultures but they will still primarily by based on the dominant culture.

The point to make here is that western nations especially the powerful ones like the US tend to take an absolute moral position in the world by imposing their relative moral view onto others cultures.

For me this says something about the nature of morality. That its impossible to have a system that allows many truths when morality comes down to one truth.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Its a weird question as I don't think we all know our moral positions completely. They may not have all been tested. I can safely say that the core set of moral truths align with my views of morality. As for the rest thats up for debate. But I don't get why you are asking.