Is there an absolute morality?

I extent the concept to beings of any degree of sentience. If they somehow know they want something, then they value. So I cant say its limited to humans. But this is kind of beside the point.

 

No, I didn't. You imagined that. Go back and read my post again.

 

There is something there, sure.
But maybe no adequate / non equivocal vocab.

 

Ifn God made everything and declared it good its not for us
to say it aint. As i point out to those who, say, hate spiders or snakes.

 

Then I play the "God made it good but then later Satan messed it up" card.

 

In what way are we not free?

 

To be honest not in great detail. I have vague ideas about the details of how Kantian ethics works> I know its rule/duty based and peoples intentions and will is important for determining right and wrong actions. I think reasoning is also important as it can help determine some universal truths based on rationality. But this is something generated by humans capacity to be rational.

Though it has a sort of strict rule based approach where you cannot lie even to save people because lying is a law that cannot be broken there is some room for taking situations into consideration. LIke if reasoning determined a greater moral law would be broken this can be accommodated. This is a sort of escape clause I think for the strict rule based ethics.

Though it seems like absolute morality in some ways its similar to objective morality because it can hold a core set of moral laws as being strict to follow like "Don't Kill or Lie" but it it allows for some scope to consider consequences with a framework of "Imperfect duties". So in some ways its similar to objective morality because it holds a core set of moral truths but circumstances can be considered to reason the moral truth.

 

You could just write ”no”.

You really should, and Hegel, Shopenhauer and Nietzsche too.

 

Well you can make anythink look a certain way that you want it to look by cutting and pasting. Its another word for quote mining. If you take the entire sentence (the rest you cut out highlighted) then it takes on a diferent context

We all have a conscience. Only those without a conscience and have some mental disorder like a sociopath cannot know right from wrong.

Now I have qualified that some people are said to have no conscience because of some damage to their brains. Its like saying we all can rationalise but those who have had damage to their brains cannot be rational because of that damage. In otherwords having a conscience is part of being human but sometimes people lose that ability because of damage. Did I tell you I was not good at grammar.

But heres a tip, if you think I have made such a claim rather than assume that I am making contradictory statements clarify with me. Ask me if that is what I meant.

 

Morality is subjective. There is no absolute morality in the universe in the same way that there is an absolute speed limit.

 

Didnt I sort of in saying "not really". I didnt want to say no as I believe I know more than the average person. I don't mind someone pointing me in the right direction for knowledge on a subject.

The point is you seem to be pushing for a higher criteria for anyone who opposes you than those on your side. I don't see anyone else being scrutinized about what they know and don't know about ethics. I could safely say that there will not be many people on this thread with an extensive teritiary qualification of ethics.

Yes I will, I will not them as someone to research. I have already started on Nietzsche which I am finding interesting. I have come across the other names as well.[/QUOTE]

 

Ok just checked and it seems you havnt addressed my post refuting your claim. So I guess it would be better you addressed that than me have top repeat everything. Or if you can explain what you mean that would help. I have re-read it but still come to a similar conclusion logically. Heres the post #522

 

Do you have objective evdience for this

 

If you lived in Australia you would have good reason to dislike spiders and snakes. We have 20 of the 25 most venomous snakes in the world and we have some of the most deadlest spiders as well. lol.

 

I'm hard pressed thinking you know more then the averge poster in this thread about Kants work.

No, but as you post with confidence about things you obvioulsy have no background or education in its prudent to point this out. This, among other things, makes your assertion that anyone who disagrees with your stance on moral philosophy to be irrational hilarious.

There are a lot of reading to do if you want to get an even basic grip of the subject, (Kirkegaard, Spinoza among others).

There are several good lectures readily available on youtube from real academia (not slanted articles like the ones that you post).

 

There's no different context. Either all humans have a conscience, or not all humans have a conscience. What the cause of a lack of conscience is doesn't matter.

Bologna. We've been going at this point where you've been insisting "All humans know" for days. Now you're backpedaling and blaming me for misunderstanding. You had numerous opportunities to change "all" to "most" if that's what you meant.

 

No, let's go back to the claim I addressed:

As evidence for these ways of thinking and behaviors that are common to all humans you present a study where 75% of the participants acted one way, and 25% of the participants did not. Is 75% the same as 100%? No. You have yet to provide evidence that there are ways of thinking or behaviors that are common to all humans.

Start saying "most" and stop saying "all" or your points will continue to be trivially easy to shoot down.

 

But I know about moral realism as this has been my mainarea of study fro years.

My assertion that anyone who disagrees is irrational is based on fact and logic. Think about it for a sec. If someone says that torturing children is morally good would we think they are irrational.

Well under a subjectiuve moral system the moral views that "torturing an innocent child for fun" and "being kind to a child" make no moral difference because theres no way to detrmine if they are right or wrong behaviours outside human subjetcive views. To me thats irrational. Subjective morality cannot be lived out and applied.

Yeah I'm getting through some. Its a big topic.

 

Your posts show otherwise.

You keep making this strawman. Not beliving morality is objective does not mean you cant have moral stances (in fact, that is impossible if you are sentient).

It is, you should read more before posting assertions.

 

But your creating a strawman. My original point was that there are certain things about humans we all know that they pocess naturally like they have a conscence. Its because of this we can make confident claims about what humans pocess. So my claim that all humans know about morality is supported by the science that shows that as a natural ability.

The fact that some lose that ability or not has nothing to with my point because it doesnt negate that all humans have this ability. I acknowledge that my grammar or way of explaining this may have been poor. But now I am clarifying what I said and meant.

Yes I may have been sloppy with my explanation as I assumed that those who have damage to their conscioence cannot know. Thats obvious. So I will clarify that all people who still have a working conscience know the core moral truths.

But this sort of deminishes the point which is that knowing right and wrong is not something we make up and is based on an innate knowledge of right and wrong that even babies have well before they can be taugfht that. In fact some say it is inherited by evolution. So its tere early and is innate.

That points to it being something we all know but may lose. But the default position is its a human natural ability like bonding is or a love of music. Sure some people lose this but that is in the minority and is because of something that takes away a normal ability just like losing any other natural ability.