Is there an absolute morality?

VCR-2000

Well-Known Member
Dec 27, 2018
1,077
391
32
PA/New York
✟106,416.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Who provided those people with life?
That's the downside to life. The One that chose to create is also the One that may choose to take away. We may have a free will, but we are not free.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,570
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, no, no. I value it, therefore I ought to value it. Me valuing it is me recognizing that it has intrinsic value.
Actually chocolate is something that brings you pleasure or whatever it brings up (nice taste) which makes it instrumentally valuable. Perhaps cocoa is intrinsically valuable but then the plant relies on other intrinsic things like sunlight and water so it doesnt really make coaoa intrinsically valuable.

Also choccolate is a mix of other ingredients like sugar, milk products, so the end produce of chocoalte relies on other things to make it what it is so is not intrinsically valuable.
Everyone knows that chocolate ice cream is intrinsically valuable. Every year there is about 6.4 billion pounds of ice cream produced amounting to $13.1 billion dollars of value to the US economy. And that's just the US! No way would humans do all of that for something that isn't valuable.
Thats a logical falalcy. It doesnt follow that because x amount of people consume chocolate it must be intrinsically valuable.
There are laws against stealing chocolate ice cream because we recognize that something of intrinsic value was lost. There are laws about how it's produced. Those are objective. We don't write laws for subjective things. Chocolate ice cream is intrinsically valuable and everyone knows it, even if they disagree because of their subjective feelings.
Once again the laws are about stealing. Your logic would mean anything stolen has intrinsic value. Thus is illogical.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,570
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No we dont. I value life. But the whole idea of "intrinsic value" is nonsense to me.

Value is a regard some entity has for something. I cannot even conceive of the meaning of "value" as contextless. IF value can be intrinsic, then what is it when its intrinsic, when its not valued by someone?
intrinsic value is something that has value in its own right and does not depend on something else that has intrinsic value. In that sense we could say Water (H2o) is intrinsically valuable.

Extrinsic values are centred on external approval or rewards; for instance wealth, social status, self image and personal security.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
intrinsic value is something that has value in its own right and does not depend on something else that has intrinsic value. In that sense we could say Water (H2o) is intrinsically valuable.

Extrinsic values are centred on external approval or rewards; for instance wealth, social status, self image and personal security.

All of that have to have agents to have values. None of it is intrinsic.

Do you even understand what intrinsic means?
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,570
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nobody cares if valuing life is a "valid position". We just typically value it because that the sort of beings we are (whether we were created that way or we evolved).
But that is more or less feeding into the idea that life is intrinsically valuable. When you say "thats the sort of beings we are" that is exactly the point. As humans we are what we are and we recognise our worth. There is something about human life that makes it special and we know it. Its not because of any arguemnet we can make we just know humans life is intrinsically valuable.
A minority of people dont value life. The majority simply overrules them with laws and social pressures.
None of this requires life to have intrinsic value beyond the value beings have for it.
But they don't overrule others who don't value life forno good reason. Its because life is recognised as being intrinically valuable that we force laws on others to value life.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,570
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
All of that have to have agents to have values. None of it is intrinsic.

Do you even understand what intrinsic means?
All of what. If you mean wealth, social status, self image and personal security I have said that has Extrinsic values rather than intrinsic value. That means it depends on something else intrinsic to give it value. But something like water and human life has intrinsic value because they don't depend on anything else that has intrinisc value.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
All of what. If you mean wealth, social status, self image and personal security I have said that has Extrinsic values rather than intrinsic value. But something like water and human life has intrinsic value because they don't depend on anything else that has intrinisc value.

No, value has to be for someone, an agent. Value cannot be independent of the agent.

Neither life or water has intrinsic value.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,570
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, value has to be for someone, an agent. Value cannot be independent of the agent.

Neither life or water has intrinsic value.
then how do you explain this

All major normative ethical theories identify something as being intrinsically valuable.

All major normative ethical theories identify something as being intrinsically valuable. For instance, for a virtue ethicist, eudaimonia (human flourishing, sometimes translated as "happiness") has intrinsic value, whereas things that bring you happiness (such as having a family) may be merely instrumentally valuable.

Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia

 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
then how do you explain this

All major normative ethical theories identify something as being intrinsically valuable.

All major normative ethical theories identify something as being intrinsically valuable. For instance, for a virtue ethicist, eudaimonia (human flourishing, sometimes translated as "happiness") has intrinsic value, whereas things that bring you happiness (such as having a family) may be merely instrumentally valuable.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia

Yes, some belive that, but it still requires an agent. And ethics are not objective.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,570
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, some belive that, but it still requires an agent. And ethics are not objective.
Its not just some. It states "all normative ethical theories" identify something as being intrinsically valuable.

What you are talking about with humans making something valuable is called relative intrinsic value. But there is also absolute intrinsic value in ethics.

Absolute and relative[edit]
There may be a distinction between absolute and relative ethic value regarding intrinsic value.

Relative intrinsic value is subjective, depending on individual and cultural views and/or the individual choice of life stance. Absolute intrinsic value, on the other hand, is philosophically absolute and independent of individual and cultural views, as well as independent on whether it discovered or not what object has it.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
There is something about human life that makes it special and we know it.
I'm thinking of a number. You tell me what it is, and I'll accept this claim. If you can't tell me what that number is, stop pretending you can read minds.
 
Upvote 0

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
I was responding to his point, not yours.
You mean this response here?
All the points you've made is about humans valuing Ice cream. Nobody denies humans value Ice cream because we find it delicious, but to have intrinsic value, it's value has to go beyond humans valuing it. If humans did not exist, would ice cream have value? I know my dog likes ice cream also so she values it, but suppose no humans or mammals that considers ice cream delicious; existed? Would you still claim ice cream has value? If so, where does this value lie?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
In what way am I reading minds.
You claim to know the contents of the knowledge of all humans. "We all know this" and "All humans know that" and such. If you can tell me what I know, then you can tell me what number I'm thinking of. If you can't tell me what number I'm thinking of, then you can't tell me what I know.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,570
945
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,729.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You claim to know the contents of the knowledge of all humans. "We all know this" and "All humans know that" and such. If you can tell me what I know, then you can tell me what number I'm thinking of. If you can't tell me what number I'm thinking of, then you can't tell me what I know.
I get you now. But unfortunately that is not the case. Knowing a specific number you are thinking and understanding some of the accepted ways humans think or act is different. Through the sciences we can get to know some basic common thinking and bahviours common to all humans. Through Epistemology we can work out what how humans know and what they can know. That is all I was referring to. For example research shows that children as youn g as 6 months know right from wrong. So its seems to be an ability humans just have.

Children know the difference between right and wrong before they reach the age of two, according to new research published today. Scientists have found that babies aged between 19 and 21 months understand fairness and can apply it in different situations.23 Feb 2012
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months

Another example is that we know humans are different to animals so we can understand some common abilities humans have including how we think in similar ways that animals don't have. Psychology allows us to determine ways humans think which tells us that we have some common thinking including moral thinking.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Its not just some. It states "all normative ethical theories" identify something as being intrinsically valuable.

What you are talking about with humans making something valuable is called relative intrinsic value. But there is also absolute intrinsic value in ethics.

Absolute and relative[edit]
There may be a distinction between absolute and relative ethic value regarding intrinsic value.

Relative intrinsic value is subjective, depending on individual and cultural views and/or the individual choice of life stance. Absolute intrinsic value, on the other hand, is philosophically absolute and independent of individual and cultural views, as well as independent on whether it discovered or not what object has it.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia
Yes, you dont know what you are talking about.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I get you now. But unfortunately that is not the case. Knowing a specific number you are thinking and understanding some of the accepted ways humans think or act is different. Through the sciences we can get to know some basic common thinking and bahviours common to all humans. Through Epistemology we can work out what how humans know and what they can know. That is all I was referring to. For example research shows that children as youn g as 6 months know right from wrong. So its seems to be an ability humans just have.

Children know the difference between right and wrong before they reach the age of two, according to new research published today. Scientists have found that babies aged between 19 and 21 months understand fairness and can apply it in different situations.23 Feb 2012
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months

Another example is that we know humans are different to animals so we can understand some common abilities humans have including how we think in similar ways that animals don't have. Psychology allows us to determine ways humans think which tells us that we have some common thinking including moral thinking.
Humans are animals by definition.

Try again.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Moral Orel

Proud Citizen of Moralton
Supporter
May 22, 2015
7,379
2,641
✟476,748.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Through the sciences we can get to know some basic common thinking and bahviours common to all humans. Through Epistemology we can work out what how humans know and what they can know. That is all I was referring to. For example research shows that children as youn g as 6 months know right from wrong. So its seems to be an ability humans just have.

Children know the difference between right and wrong before they reach the age of two, according to new research published today. Scientists have found that babies aged between 19 and 21 months understand fairness and can apply it in different situations.23 Feb 2012
Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months
Okay, let's look at the source your provided to prove that all humans think and act the same in some ways. 75% of the infants acted one way, 25% of the infants didn't. Try again.
 
Upvote 0