Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

I KNOW what you said.
If you cant see any problem with it, you cant.
Try though. VirO gets it, you can if you try.

Then tell me how torturing a child for fun can have any other arbitrarily determined moral alternative than it being wrong not just for you and me but everyone including all cultures in the world.

 

[Astrid]

Its a fact because there is no alternative. There is only one alternative and that is that Torturing a child for fun is morally wrong when we reason things.

No there is not just one alternative. Binary thinking!

Once a ( sigh )gain, you pick a specific sort of case like
from a court case.
There is no general rule. Without it you have nothing
but case by case SUBJECTIVE evaluation.

A severely defective child with but hours to live
suffers a few moments of moderate pain and
dies, but the result is saving thousands.
Torture child still bad?

TRY THINKING THINGS THRU INSTEAD OF ARGUING!

Nobody thinks you make sense. Coz you dont.

 

[Moral Orel]

Its a fact because there is no alternative. There is only one alternative and that is that Torturing a child for fun is morally wrong when we reason things.

Then show me the logical argument if you've "reasoned things".

 

[Neogaia777]

@stevevw

As @Estrid pointed out to you just now, people can go through some very bad things but come out of it with a testimony that could help save thousands, or millions or billions, etc, or just help them in general in some kind of very important and pivotal way, etc...

Was it still bad or evil or wrong, etc...?

Because that is the question you have to ask yourself, etc...

And all of the opinions on this are going to be all very different, and all them subjective and not one of them 100% completely objective, etc... At least, not with us anyway, etc...

Was what Jesus went through bad or evil or wrong, etc...?

Because most of us consider it very, very good because of the results, etc... Well, most christians do or should anyway, etc... It is or should be core to our theology, etc... "Good Friday", etc... So how can it be considered very, very good if it was very, very bad, etc...? Are we in error, etc...?

As you can see you/me/we need further definitions, etc, ones that consider and fully take into account all, etc, and that's where the letter of the law comes in, but to list them all, and spell them all out in great detail, and in every single detail, etc, could possibly take more books than the whole world can hold and/or contain, etc...

But if we are the ones defining them, they will all still be very subjective still, etc, as they could all change drastically with changes with other things, etc, things like circumstances, and times or ages or time periods possibly also, and/or other kinds of situations and circumstances changing also, etc, at which point laws and rules and morality needs updating and/or changing again, etc...

Anyway...?

Be Blessed...

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

Well theres a number of reason for how it has authority over you. If a moral value stands independent of anyone then it has authority. Its not something subjectively determined but is a fact. Just like 2+2=4 is a fact and has authority in that it stands and people have no choice but to uphold this in their daily lives. Try disregarding Math for a day and see how it is necessary.

There are the obvious cases where a person cannot just go around stealing, murdering, abusing and raping people. Try doing any of these and see how far you get. Not just legally but socially as people ostrasize and condemn them. But this cannot be the case if morals are relative or subjective as each culture and subjects view is not morally wrong. So the fact that we can stand up against moral wrong and otrasize and condemn people shows morals are objective.

Then there are the moral truths we live with everyday just to be able to be human and engage with others. There are certain epistemic values we apply and are bound by. For example "being honest" in any discussion seeking the truth of a matter. We cannot engage without making "Honesty" a stand alone value that is not subject to peoples personal opinions.

Sure you can choose not to engage but you can never have a coherent discussion that involves seeking the truth. This comes down to a simple fact like a Math equation. You cannot find the truth of a matter without making the "truth" a moral value that guides things independent of the human subject.

First, its obvious you dont understand what math is or how it works, its not anything like metaphysics.

Secondly, you have not answered where the authority comes from. Who/what gave the authority? If its society (i.e. Humans) its not objective.

 

[stevevw]

No there is not just one alternative. Binary thinking!

Once a ( sigh )gain, you pick a specific sort of case like
from a court case.

Its still a moral wrong just like murder. All of the core morals are also illegal but that doesnt mean they are not immoral. You need to show that torturing a child for fun is morally good. Otherwise its a fact that its wrong and no one can change this by subjective thinking.

There is no general rule. Without it you have nothing
but case by case SUBJECTIVE evaluation.

The determination that torturing a child for fun is not arbitrarily determined. The meaning of arbitrary is
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.
No one decides such an important issue as torture by a whim. WE reason and find that it is wrong because it harms children.

A severely defective child with but hours to live
suffers a few moments of moderate pain and
dies, but the result is saving thousands.

What do you mean. Are you talking about assisted suicide or torture as they are completely different.

Torture child still bad?

Torturing a child for fun is always bad, never good.

TRY THINKING THINGS THRU INSTEAD OF ARGUING!
Nobody thinks you make sense. Coz you dont.

That is just a arguement ad populum. As if because others disagree with me on this thread therefore I am wrong.

If you are going to use that sort of logic to say that I am wrong then I can use the fact that the majority of philosophers (over twice as many antirealists) who are much more of an expert in ethics than you or me or anyone on this thread support moral realism (objective morality).

Many philosophers claim that moral realism may be dated back at least to Plato as a philosophical doctrine,[3] and that it is a fully defensible form of moral doctrine.[4] A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[6] Another study in 2020 found 62.1% accept or lean towards realism.[7]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism

But even philosophers that are anti-realists think that moral realism (objective morality) makes sense and is a rational position. So I have thought it through and I am in good company with others that have thought it through and we are in the majority. It is the anti realist who needs to rethink things. .

But even philosophers who are committed to moral anti-realism think that there are some good reasons to be a moral realist. They don’t think that proponents of objective morality are just confused, rhetorically sneaky, or crypto-theists.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhiloso..._there_good_arguments_for_objective_morality/

 

[Neogaia777]

God may have, or might have allowed/be allowing right now, someone to torture a child, or many children, for fun, etc...

And has always had the power to put an end to it or stop it at any time, etc...

But luckily, He has a much higher goal and much higher eventual purpose to it or in mind in the end than it just being for someone else's "fun" though, etc...

But He is allowing it to go on and/or happen even right now, etc, has the power to fully stop it, etc...

So does that make God evil, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[FireDragon76]

Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

I tend towards virtue ethics, so I'm not sure which choice that would apply to. I do think different people are capable of manifesting different virtues depending on their circumstances, so perhaps it depends a great deal on context.

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw
As @Estrid pointed out to you just now, people can go through some very bad things but come out of it with a testimony that could help save thousands, or millions or billions, etc, or just help them in general in some kind of very important and pivotal way, etc...

Was it still bad or evil or wrong, etc...? Because that is the question you have to ask yourself, etc...

I am not sure that I understand what you are saying. As far as I understand an act is either good or bad. The fact that someone goes through something bad and uses that for good doesn't turn the act from a bad one to a good one as far as I understand.

And all of the opinions on this are going to be all very different, and all them subjective and not one of them 100% completely objective, etc... At least, not with us anyway, etc...

As I mentioned to the other posters you would have to come up with some way to show that torturing a child for fun is morally ok.

Was what Jesus went through bad or evil or wrong, etc...?
Because most of us consider it very, very good because of the results, etc... Well, most christians do or should anyway, etc... It is or should be core to our theology, etc... "Good Friday", etc... So how can it be considered very, very good if it was very, very bad, etc...? Are we in error, etc...?

I think your conflating two different things here. The act of crucifying Jesus was morally wrong as he was an inncoent man. The conspiracy and decietful actions of those involved is explained in the Bible. But the act of Jesus dying on the cross was a good act. Two different things.

If we say that the BIble is Truth then I think all Christians and in fact most people would agree with this. Thats unless they either want to say that the people who plotted against Jesus were being morally good or that Jesus was morally bad to die on the cross. I don't think many people are going to say this.

So here we see how this situation can really only have one truth when we take all into consideration. Anyone who says that the plotters are morally good or that Jesus act is morally bad are just plain mistaken. There is no room for subjective thinking.

As you can see you/me/we need further definitions, etc, ones that consider and fully take into account all, etc, and that's where the letter of the law comes in, but to list them all, and spell them all out in great detail, and in every single detail, etc, could possibly take more books than the whole world can hold and/or contain, etc...

I beg to differ. Just because something appears hard and complicated to work out to find the truth doesn't mean there is no truth.

Needing further "definitions and detail" about what happened so we can work out whether an act is wrong or not implies that there is some objective base (truth) that we are using to determine if its right or wrong to find that truth. If there are no moral truths then any "further investigation" is not needed.

Rather its only about "Differences" like different tastes for food which can never be right or wrong. Or each cultural relative position can never be wrong in the overall scheme of things as that is their truth.

But if we are the ones defining them, they will all still be very subjective still, etc,

I think thats another logical fallacy that doesn't follow. Just because we need to define things doesn't mean morality is subjective.

In fact as I mentioned having to define things, to reason things out implies an objective base to reason and define things against. This would not make sense if there was no objective basis because under relative morality there is nothing to define or reason about in any "truthful"way beyond cultures or subjects.

as they could all change drastically with changes with other things, etc, things like circumstances, and times or ages or time periods possibly also, and/or other kinds of situations and circumstances changing also, etc, at which point laws and rules and morality needs updating and/or changing again, etc...

But morality doesn't need to be updated or improved under relative/subjective morality. When slavery was abolished this wasn't a progressive moral change. It was just a different one like a new trend or fashion. Moral reformists like Wilberforce would have been seen as trouble makers and out of step with their cultures view that slavery was morally OK.

You cannot improve morality or prgress from one bad moral to a better/best moral as there is no such thing under relative or subjective morality. As far as I understand relative morality states that each culture has their own moral truths relative to their cultural setting and no culture is wrong in any ultimate way (objectively). So if some culture practiced slavery today we would have to say they are not doing anything wrong in a truthful way.

So it is with past so called immoral acts. Under relative morality we cannot say that past acts were immoral because each culture throughout time has thought that their morals were right and none were wrong in any truthful way. But ironically the fact that we see this as moral progression, improving morality shows that there must be some objective anchor point to measure that progression away from some point and towards another. That only makes sense if there is a moral truth to measure this against.

Anyway...?

Be Blessed...

God Bless!

Yes thankyou for your input and God bless.[/quote]

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip- You need to show that torturing a child for fun is morally good.
-snip-

Do you understand that not accepting objective morals make no moral stance objective.

The above shows that you are truly ignorant on the subject.

 

[stevevw]

God may have, or might have allowed/be allowing right now, someone to torture a child, or many children, for fun, etc...

And has always had the power to put an end to it or stop it at any time, etc...

But luckily, He has a much higher goal and much higher eventual purpose to it or in mind in the end than it just being for someone else's "fun" though, etc...

But He is allowing it to go on and/or happen even right now, etc, has the power to fully stop it, etc...

So does that make God evil, etc...?

Umm I think this is going down a path that takes things way off track. Anyone could say show me evidence for God. That would end any arguement for morality based on God. I think its more about how humans percieve and understand morality in practical ways. If God did make His law known to everyone then we would expect to find this "Moral sense" and knowledge in the way we act/react morally.

But I don't think we can start appealing to special knowledge or understandings that are beyond us when it comes to God as we can never know his mind. I don't think we can say that God has ever justified torturing children for fun as being morally good.

He even understood human nature with slavery and that it was something created by humans and helps create a system that controlled slavery towards its ending rather than snap his fingers and it disappeared. God does not sin and nor is He evil, it is humans who tortures and enslaves and this is always wrong and evil.

God Bless!

God Bless

 

[Neogaia777]

Umm I think this is going down a path that takes things way off track. Anyone could say show me evidence for God. That would end any arguement for morality based on God. I think its more about how humans percieve and understand morality in practical ways. If God did make His law known to everyone then we would expect to find this "Moral sense" and knowledge in the way we act/react morally.

But I don't think we can start appealing to special knowledge or understandings that are beyond us when it comes to God as we can never know his mind. I don't think we can say that God has ever justified torturing children for fun as being morally good.

He evern understood human nature with slavery and that it was something created by humans and helps create a system that controlled slavery towards its ending rather than snap his fingers and it disappeared. God does not sin and nor is He evil, it is humans who tortures and enslaves and this is always wrong and evil.

God Bless

Merry Christmas Man.

Be Blessed.

God Bless!

 

[FireDragon76]

As I mentioned to the other posters you would have to come up with some way to show that torturing a child for fun is morally ok.

Yes, but is it wrong because it's "objectively" wrong, that's the issue..

Christians want to argue that certain things are always wrong, regardless of circumstances, because they want to set us up with the dilemma of needing salvation from our "sins" for having violated some kind of moral absolute law that exists apart from any actual context. However, some of us don't believe anything like that can actually exist.

Needing further "definitions and detail" about what happened so we can work out whether an act is wrong or not implies that there is some objective base (truth) that we are using to determine if its right or wrong to find that truth.

Nope. Not all ethical systems require perfect knowledge or objective truth. Pragmatism, for instance, doesn't require that sort of proof.

This would not make sense if there was no objective basis because under relative morality there is nothing to define or reason about in any "truthful"way beyond cultures or subjects.

Now you're presenting a false choice/strawman. That's just cheap polemics.

But morality doesn't need to be updated or improved under relative/subjective morality....

It doesn't need to be but that isn't the same as saying it can't be.

Moral reformists like Wilberforce would have been seen as trouble makers and out of step with their cultures view that slavery was morally OK.

Conveniently, Christians created the transatlantic slave trade in the first place.

Look, the burden of proof is on those making extraordinary claims, not people that are arguing for moral relativism, pragmatism, or a dozen other ethical stances. The notion that there are unchanging moral absolutes is an extraordinary claim.

You cannot improve morality or prgress from one bad moral to a better/best moral as there is no such thing under relative or subjective morality.

That only works if you presuppose a certain standard of goodness that the "moral relativist" doesn't necessarily believe in. In short people mean different things by the term "good", whether the adjective "good" relates to the concept of goodness univocally, or analogically, for instance.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yes, but is it wrong because it's "objectively" wrong, that's the issue...

Yes, I think maybe that he has a completely different definition of "objective" than the rest of us do maybe, etc...?

Even if all humans could agree, and never disagree, etc, there still might be other places, or other situations/circumstances, or other "beings", etc, where things might still be or work or operate differently, that still might not think or agree with us always completely all the same, etc...

And is still therefore "not objective", etc...

Christians want to argue that certain things are always wrong, regardless of circumstances, because they want to set us up with the dilemma of needing salvation from our "sins" for having violated some kind of moral absolute law that exists apart from any actual context. However, some of us don't believe anything like that can actually exist.

That was the OT, and OC, that was always meant to go on and not actually save anyone until Christ came to end it and be the fulfillment/ender of it, etc...

Things are a bit different after that now, etc...

The OC was never meant for or ever made or meant to save, etc, or keep anyone or anything holy, etc, or "whatever", etc, but was actually made to do the opposite, and make sin even much more worse until Jesus came, etc...

Things are (supposed to be) different now, etc...

But unfortunately, we still have a lot of people (Christians) that have not fully accepted the new ways, or all of the NT/NC ways yet completely, etc, but are still just only believing and following the Old still, etc, or are trying to mix the two when they just don't mix, etc, this was a major problem from the very start of the NT/NC, and down through the ages, and unfortunately, still is still now today, etc...

However, some of us don't believe anything like that can actually exist.

It could maybe could or might with the true Highest Father maybe, etc...?

But, other than that, most of us think pretty much "no", unless a thing quite literally is all, (or none), (or both, etc), or else exists in a total and complete vacuum, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Anytime there is any disagreement with or among anyone, or any or all of every kind of being, etc, and even when it is just even just only one of them, etc, then it is not objective anymore, etc... But it is seeming very difficult to explain that to @stevevw, etc...?

One day maybe, but not right now, because right now, no being is even close right now, let alone all beings everywhere, etc...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

Merry Christmas Man.

Be Blessed.

God Bless!

Thankyou, I like the way you debate as it allows for differences and leaves it at that to ponder. God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Thankyou, I like the way you debate as it allows for differences and leaves it at that to ponder. God Bless.

Thank you very much brother/sir, I greatly appreciate the compliment...

Well, I'm headed for bed...

So, goodnight all!

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

Anytime there is any disagreement with or among anyone, or any or all of every kind of being, etc, and even when it is just even just only one of them, etc, then it is not objective anymore, etc... But it is seeming very difficult to explain that to @stevevw, etc...?

One day maybe, but not right now, because right now, no being is even close right now, let alone all beings everywhere, etc...

God Bless!

So let me ask you. Morality is obviously a contested topic. There are several moral positions such as moral realism (objectivism), relativism, subjectivism. These are based on a number of theories such as

• Virtue Ethics - Aristotle (teleological) - Maintain a virtuous disposition ...
• Natural Law - Aquinas (teleological) ...
• Categorical Imperative - Kant (deontological) ...
• Utilitarianism - Mill (teleological) ...
• Theory of Justice - Rawls (deontological) ...
• Prima Facie Duties - Ross (deontological)

So there is a lot of debate. I would say at the very least morality is still up for debate. Its a complicated and hard to prove issue unlike scientific methodology which explains the material world. So either side will find it hard to come up with clear support. Both will appeal to moral behaviour (people disagree so morality is subjective), cultures condition people relative to their envioronment so morality must be relative or people act/react like morals are objective.

I try to argue (though badly) but try to show how morality is an important matter where we need a moral truth to be able to be human and live together. I think even moral anti-realists agree that we need moral norms. Many atheists also agree like Sam Harris that morality can be objective using science. Though some say it doesn't work. The point is he understands that morality needs a truth basis and attempts to find one.

So I think it is justified to continue to debate this issue as neither side has shown what morality really is or how it works. As many philosophers acknowledge morality is a strange beast that is hard to explain. But as the issue is not settled we can go on investigating things.

Just like with science such as Quantum physics and even classical physics like with Dark Matter. We cannot understand and explain things now but we will continue to try and understand and find the physical facts or in the case of morality the truth.

God Bless

 

[Neogaia777]

So let me ask you. Morality is obviously a contested topic. There are several moral positions such as moral realism (objectivism), relativism, subjectivism. These are based on a number of theories such as

• Virtue Ethics - Aristotle (teleological) - Maintain a virtuous disposition ...
• Natural Law - Aquinas (teleological) ...
• Categorical Imperative - Kant (deontological) ...
• Utilitarianism - Mill (teleological) ...
• Theory of Justice - Rawls (deontological) ...
• Prima Facie Duties - Ross (deontological)

So there is a lot of debate. I would say at the very least morality is still up for debate. Its a complicated and hard to prove issue unlike scientific methodology which explains the material world. So either side will find it hard to come up with clear support. Both will appeal to moral behaviour (people disagree so morality is subjective), cultures condition people relative to their envioronment so morality must be relative or people act/react like morals are objective.

I try to argue (though badly) but try to show how morality is an important matter where we need a moral truth to be able to be human and live together. I think even moral anti-realists agree that we need moral norms. Many atheists also agree like Sam Harris that morality can be objective using science. Though some say it doesn't work. The point is he understands that morality needs a truth basis and attempts to find one.

So I think it is justified to continue to debate this issue as neither side has shown what morality really is or how it works. As many philosophers acknowledge morality is a strange beast that is hard to explain. But as the issue is not settled we can go on investigating things.

Just like with science such as Quantum physics and even classical physics like with Dark Matter. We cannot understand and explain things now but we will continue to try and understand and find the physical facts or in the case of morality the truth.

God Bless

I think some people groups can agree among themselves as a people group temporarily, etc, but that there are going to be disagreements among people groups comparing themselves to one another, etc, and I also believe that maybe all humans, or all those individual people groups, could also maybe all agree on some maybe very basic simple somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but also that none of it is ever objective; at least, not in the way I define or understand objective to mean or be right now anyway, etc, but also doesn't mean that we all cannot agree on some very basic and very simple (and for the moment very reasonable) certain somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but I don't think it's "objective", but would be "subjective" to the human race temporarily in this case if it could be or happen right now maybe, etc... That the entire human race could all agree and not even one disagree I mean, etc... On a certain set of some very basic and very simple certain somethings I mean, etc... It would still all be in the "context" of humanity or being human I mean, etc... And if there are other beings out there, (or already here), then we do not know how they would think, or the way they would see things, which could be different, etc, and therefore not 100% neutral or completely objective, or always covering or working for all in my book, etc... Especially not forever and always, etc... Everything changes with time, and given enough time, and with "the times" always, etc... So it is subject to that always also on top of everything else that it is subjective/subject to, etc...

Oh, and nor do I believe that they would ever be absolute either, etc...

Anyway, headed for bed...

Have a good night.

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

I think some people groups can agree among themselves as a people group temporarily, etc, but that there are going to be disagreements among people groups comparing themselves to one another, etc, and I also believe that maybe all humans, or all those individual people groups, could also maybe all agree on some maybe very basic simple somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but also that none of it is ever objective; at least, not in the way I define or understand objective to mean or be right now anyway, etc, but also doesn't mean that we all cannot agree on some very basic and very simple (and for the moment very reasonable) certain somethings temporarily maybe, etc, but I don't think it's "objective", but would be "subjective" to the human race temporarily in this case if it could be or happen right now maybe, etc... That the entire human race could all agree and not even one disagree I mean, etc... On a certain set of some very basic and very simple certain somethings I mean, etc... It would still all be in the "context" of humanity or being human I mean, etc... And if there are other beings out there, or already here, then we do not know how they would think, or the way they would see things, which could be different, etc, and therefore not 100% neutral or completely objective, or always covering or working for all in my book, etc... Especially not forever and always, etc... Everything changes with time, and given enough time, and with "the times" always, etc...

Anyway, headed for bed...

Have a good night.

God Bless!

No worries goodnight. God Bless and sleep tight. Don't let the bed bugs bite lol. I had to say it.