Is there an absolute morality?

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

VirOptimus said:
Humans are animals by definition.

Try again.

But unlike other animals we have the ability to know right from wrong and have a sense of moral duty and to take responsibility for our actions.

Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action.
human uniqueness | PNAS

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

Moral Orel said:
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.

If you read the studies they state that moral behaviour was innate. That means its a natural part of being human. Some even say through evolution. So if thats the case then its something all humans inherit.

Either way they state that this moral knowledge is something humans have just like how hunger is innate in humans. It states that this baby moral knowledge is the foundation for morality and lines up with adult morality. So it is something we all have and need unless the person hasnt got the capacity to know right from wrong.

So the 25% difference you are talking about is not relating to some babies just not having this innate knowledge. Otherwise we would have to say that 25% of babies don't have the capacity to know right from wrong. That would be a silly consclusion as we know this is not the case. We all have a conscience. Only those without a conscience and have some mental disorder like a sociopath cannot know right from wrong.

Infant’s expectations reflect an early-emerging concern for fairness. This possibility is consistent with recent speculation that a few socio moral norms-evolved to facilitate positive interactions and cooperation within social groups – are innate and universal though elaborated in various ways by cultures.
(PDF) Do Infants Have a Sense of Fairness?

People everywhere have some sense of right and wrong. You won’t find a society where people don’t have some notion of fairness, don’t put some value on loyalty and kindness, don’t distinguish between acts of cruelty and innocent mistakes, don’t categorize people as nasty or nice.
All of this research, taken together, supports a general picture of baby morality.

Babies probably have no conscious access to moral notions, no idea why certain acts are good or bad. They respond on a gut level.

Morality, then, is a synthesis of the biological and the cultural, of the unlearned, the discovered and the invented. Babies possess certain moral foundations — the capacity and willingness to judge the actions of others, some sense of justice, gut responses to altruism and nastiness. Regardless of how smart we are, if we didn’t start with this basic apparatus, we would be nothing more than amoral agents, ruthlessly driven to pursue our self-interest.
The Moral Life of Babies (Published 2010)

The point made that babies know about morals on a gut level is interesting as this may relate to our intuition. We start out with this basic intuition already there. Then we can develop that and our intuition becomes more refined.

Another interesting thing about this support is that it comes from other fields beside ethics like psychology and biology. So its findings seem to converge with other areas giving it more support.

Ken-1122 · Nov 24, 2021

Moral Orel said:
You mean this response here?

My bad; I must have mistaken you for somebody else.

So…. You made the claim that Ice cream has intrinsic value because people value it. I retort humans valuing it does not make it intrinsically valuable, it has to have value in and of itself whether humans value it or not; and you claim I am making your point. Do you see the contradiction of your statements? IMO intrinsic value is a contradiction in terms because value has to be valued by others, and intrinsic means apart from others.

Tinker Grey · Nov 24, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
My bad; I must have mistaken you for somebody else.

So…. You made the claim that Ice cream has intrinsic value because people value it. I retort humans valuing it does not make it intrinsically valuable, it has to have value in and of itself whether humans value it or not; and you claim I am making your point. Do you see the contradiction of your statements? IMO intrinsic value is a contradiction in terms because value has to be valued by others, and intrinsic means apart from others.

It was a joke, a parody, a poe.

Astrid · Nov 24, 2021

Deletrd

durangodawood · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
intrinsic value is something that has value in its own right and does not depend on something else that has intrinsic value.....

I dont understand how a thing could have value if no one values it.

If value isnt a sort of regard that a being has for something.... then what is it?

Astrid · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
in what way. I know chocolate lovers think the world of chocolate.

Lets look at it this way, by generalizing to food in,
general
Does food have intrinsic value?
Kind of obvious answer in, as they say, mho.
.

VirOptimus · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
But unlike other animals we have the ability to know right from wrong and have a sense of moral duty and to take responsibility for our actions.

Humans have a moral sense because their biological makeup determines the presence of three necessary conditions for ethical behavior: (i) the ability to anticipate the consequences of one's own actions; (ii) the ability to make value judgments; and (iii) the ability to choose between alternative courses of action.
human uniqueness | PNAS

Whenever you are shown to be wrong you just move the goalposts and continue.

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

durangodawood said:
I dont understand how a thing could have value if no one values it.

If value isnt a sort of regard that a being has for something.... then what is it?

All I know is that it appears all ethical theories hold certain things as intrinsically valuable in one way or another. This is usually something like "Life" itself, happiness or human flourishing.

Intrinsic value just means it doesnt depend on individuals or cultures to give it value. It has value in its own right. Like water for example. We can reason that water holds value as it sustains life not because we think it does but because it just does. The evdience is everywhere. Even before humans came along water has value for sustaining life.

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

VirOptimus said:
Whenever you are shown to be wrong you just move the goalposts and continue.

Show me where I was shown to be wrong in my discussion with Moral Orel. The debate you stepped into was still about the same issue as to whether people can force others to conform besides morality.

Moral Orel gave an example and I was refuting it. Thats what debate is about. He claims I changed the goal posts and I disagred so we were debating about that as well. He claims my link shows that 25% of children cannot know moral right and wrong and I disagree. I provided additional evdience to show that the studies actually say children have an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Innate means its inborn and natural and not something that some have and others don't.

So we are making objections and argueing them out and no one is right or wrong at this stage. We were still on track until you stepped in with "humans are animals" which not only change the goal posts but topic as well.

VirOptimus · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
Show me where I was shown to be wrong in my discussion with Moral Orel. The debate you stepped into was still about the same issue as to whether people can force others to conform besides morality.

Moral Orel gave an example and I was refuting it. Thats what debate is about. He claims I changed the goal posts and I disagred so we were debating about that as well. He claims my link shows that 25% of children cannot know moral right and wrong and I disagree. I provided additional evdience to show that the studies actually say children have an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Innate means its inborn and natural and not something that some have and others don't.

So we are making objections and argueing them out and no one is right or wrong at this stage. We were still on track until you stepped in with "humans are animals" which not only change the goal posts but topic as well.

You never accept that you are wrong.

Astrid · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
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.
Thats a logical falalcy. It doesnt follow that because x amount of people consume chocolate it must be intrinsically valuable. Once again the laws are about stealing. Your logic would mean anything stolen has intrinsic value. Thus is illogical.

Not " anything" stolen. Depends on vircumstances.

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

VirOptimus said:
You never accept that you are wrong.

Ah is that whats its all about. Actually I have acknlwledge I am wrong many times. Come to think of it I don't think I have seen anyone admit they are wrong on this thread.

But with issues like morality it has a history of both sides thinking they are right so no one admits their wrong. Thats their world view so each person is going to believe they are right. The ironic thing is under a subjective moral position I cannot be wrong anyway because my position that morals are objective would just be one of many views about morality and none would be wrong, "Just different".

Yet it is you who are saying I am wrong in some truthful way without any evdience of that. So you are actually making a case that there has to be some right or wrong position for morality which means there must be someone must be mistaken. Thats why its important to have some support for assertions otherwise its just claim and counter claim in a never ending cycyle.

VirOptimus · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
-snip- The ironic thing is under a subjective moral position I cannot be wrong anyway because my position that morals are objective would just be one of many views about morality and none would be wrong, "Just different".
-snip-

.....

No, thats not how it works. You seriously dont understand the different schools in moral philosophy.

Have you even read Kant?

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

Estrid said:
Not " anything" stolen. Depends on vircumstances.

Yes which means not everything has intrinsic value. We have to work out what has that value and what doesnt. The thing with food tastes is that it is subjective. One person may like chocolate and others don't for subjective reasons which can skew peoples thinking about values.

Is it of real value independnt of peoples preferences, feelings ect or is this percieved value clouded by personal experiences. Whereas something like H2o can be seen as valuable in itself. Subjective feelings or preferences cannot devalue it because its value is seen in nature.

Chocolate is the end product of other things. From what I understand the beans of cocoa plant taste horrible and bitter. So the chocolate we consume has been conccoted to cater to the market based on peoples desires and pleasure. So the value has more or less been created by marketers and is more like an a instrumental value.

Astrid · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
Yes which means not everything has intrinsic value. We have to work out what has that value and what doesnt. The thing with food tastes is that it is subjective. One person may like chocolate and others don't for subjective reasons which can skew peoples thinking about values.

Is it of real value independnt of peoples preferences, feelings ect or is this percieved value clouded by personal experiences. Whereas something like H2o can be seen as valuable in itself. Subjective feelings or preferences cannot devalue it because its value is seen in nature.

Chocolate is the end product of other things. From what I understand the beans of cocoa plant taste horrible and bitter. So the chocolate we consume has been conccoted to cater to the market based on peoples desires and pleasure. So the value has more or less been created by marketers and is more like an a instrumental value.

Value is a human concept so value other than to people is meaningless.

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

VirOptimus said:
.....

No, thats not how it works. You seriously dont understand the different schools in moral philosophy.

Have you even read Kant?

Yes I covers ethics in a couple of units at Uni as part of my degree in human services. This covered the basic like deonology (Kant) teleology (consequentialism) utalitarianism (Bentham, Mill) eudaemonism, and everything in between.

stevevw · Nov 24, 2021

Estrid said:
Value is a human concept so value other than to people is meaningless.

I don't know about that. It seems all ethical theories make some things intrinsically valuable so its a fundelmental part of ethics.

I think the debate is still open as to whether there are values beyond human subjective thinking. Nature seems to hold value in itself. We may come to appreciate or recognise that value. But to do that we must have the ability to value things and value them in degrees. So is this a case of part humans doing the valuing in their subjective way and part recognition of something of value outside humans innate in nature for example.

If we look at nature and see water sustaining life, creatures with mechanism that allow them do all sorts of incredible things and ecosystems that work better than anything humans can make we would have to see some value in that in itself and not because some persons subjective view (which may be wrong) thinks its valuable. Logic tells us there more value in it than just what we think.

VirOptimus · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
Yes I covers ethics in a couple of units at Uni as part of my degree in human services. This covered the basic like deonology (Kant) teleology (consequentialism) utalitarianism (Bentham, Mill) eudaemonism, and everything in between.

Uhu, but have you read Kant?

Moral Orel · Nov 24, 2021

stevevw said:
We all have a conscience. Only those without a conscience...

There you go, now you're proving my point for me. These two sentences cannot both be true.

Is there an absolute morality?

inquisitive

inquisitive

Newbie

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

re Member

Well-Known Member

A nihilist who cares.

inquisitive

inquisitive

A nihilist who cares.

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

A nihilist who cares.

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

A nihilist who cares.

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency