Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

You listed most folk living like life is valuable as one of those reasons that we should value life. That doesn't follow.

Ok yes it doesn't follow logically but yet it does in reality as morality is more than logic. Many of the reasons we place on why life is valuable are abstract and logic alone cannot account for them. So the reasons why people live like life is valuable also need to taken into consideration. Those reasons matter to us.

Those reasons I gave give us good reasons why we should value life and therefore make the value of life like a law. Its a law or a truth if you like because they have been determined rationally by rational beings who understand the importance of the value of life and that it should be protected and respected. Laws like in a legal sense have authority over us and as we are moral beings we understand our obligation.

So we don't just live like "Life" is intrinsically valuable we actually make it that way. We are the ones who create the narrative and do the actions such as with Human Rights and National laws around valuing life. So I am not sure if what you say is the case because as moral and rational beings we make "Life" as being valuable normative which makes it a reality.

So logically it may not follow but in reality we obligate ourselves so it does follow that we are obligated to uphold the value of life.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
So we don't just live like "Life" is intrinsically valuable we actually make it that way. We are the ones who create the narrative and do the actions such as with Human Rights and National laws around valuing life. -snip-

If "we" make it that way, then its not objective.

 

[Moral Orel]

So we don't just live like "Life" is intrinsically valuable we actually make it that way. We are the ones who create the narrative and do the actions such as with Human Rights and National laws around valuing life.

If we "make" it that way, then its not intrinsic.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok yes it doesn't follow logically but yet it does

Okay, I think that's it, bub. You clearly don't have a rational argument if you're okay with violating the law of non-contradiction. Once you have to defend that X = ~X, you've abandoned all reason.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Is there an absolute morality?

Nope. Morality comes down to value judgements. "Absolute value" is an oxymoron. So is "objective value".

Even if there were such thing, I wouldn't adopt it. Moral philosophies that don't allow for nuance are worthless.

 

[Bradskii]

Why is it wrong when a person kills for fun but not wrong when a cat kills for fun?
I'm trying to answer that. Whats the difference between the cat and the person?

Empathy. The cat doesn't appreciate the pain that the mouse is suffering. At least, it's hard to tell with a cat. Although other animals do seem to posses it to some extent. Dogs, elephants, dolphins.

 

[stevevw]

If "we" make it that way, then its not objective.

Its no different to how we made Math a narrative and facts/laws. We didn't just make it that way by pulling the relative/subjective moral views out of a hat and appointing that view normative. Not any moral view will do for a moral normative system.

As rational beings we reasoned these moral laws as being rational and so we have independent reasons why we make them law and independent reasons are not based on relative/subjective thinking.

 

[Kylie]

Yes so I qualified that with the list of reasons.

Yes, your claim that rare = valuable.

 

[VirOptimus]

Its no different to how we made Math a narrative and facts/laws. We didn't just make it that way by pulling the relative/subjective moral views out of a hat and appointing that view normative. Not any moral view will do for a moral normative system.

As rational beings we reasoned these moral laws as being rational and so we have independent reasons why we make them law and independent reasons are not based on relative/subjective thinking.

You should stop using math as an example as you obviously dont know math. Have you even studied calculus? Ever made a math proof?

And you just keep arguing not objective. Hilarious.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. Morality comes down to value judgements. "Absolute value" is an oxymoron. So is "objective value".

Even if there were such thing, I wouldn't adopt it. Moral philosophies that don't allow for nuance are worthless.

From my understanding it is a relative moral system that creates the oxymoron because it has to accommodate morals being both relative while at the same time claiming there are moral truth beyond cultural.

 

[VirOptimus]

From my understanding it is a relative moral system that creates the oxymoron because it has to accommodate morals being both relative while at the same time claiming there are moral truth beyond cultural.

No, you are in error.

 

[stevevw]

You should stop using math as an example as you obviously dont know math. Have you even studied calculus? Ever made a math proof?

And you just keep arguing not objective. Hilarious.

And yet Math facts are often used as a comparison to moral facts.

Derek Parfit, an Oxford scholar whom some regard as one of the most brilliant philosophers of our time, recently produced a massive work on ethics titled On What Matters. One of its main claims is that morality is objective, and we can and do know moral truths but not because moral judgments describe some fact. Indeed, moral judgments do not describe anything in the external world, nor do they refer to our own feelings. Rather Moral judgments express objective truths. Parfit’s solution? Ethics is analogous to mathematics.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

Many philosophers have have proposed that moral knowledge has its basis in non-natural aspects of the world that can be apprehended only through a faculty of moral intuition or reason that is independent of sense experience. Moral reality, so conceived, is posited as sui generis, reducible to neither the natural nor the supernatural and requiring a mode of apprehension comparable to mathematical intuition.
Spencer Case, From Epistemic to Moral Realism - PhilPapers

Ross maintains that ‘both in mathematics and in ethics we have certain crystal-clear intuitions from which we build up all that we can know about the nature of numbers and the nature of duty’ (FE 144). ).
The analogy with mathematics is instructive, for we acquire our moral knowledge in the same way we acquire knowledge of mathematical axioms.
William David Ross (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[stevevw]

No, you are in error.

OK so tell me how do we condemn a culture for say child prostitution if it is their relative moral position which to them is not morally wrong. How can we ever attempt to rid the owrld of this wrong if its not regarded as wrong in anyway beyond that culture.

Why do most philosophers reject moral relativism.

In conclusion, while moral relativism is in many ways a widely held view, when we go beneath the surface, we can see that there are insurmountable philosophical problems for the view. Given this and given the problems of applying the view to daily life, we should reject it.
There is such a thing as moral truth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism

J.L. Mackie suggests that global relativism is self-refuting in the strong sense of being self-contradictory.
http://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/files/1256890094-Self-refutationFINAL.pdf

A standard objection to cognitive relativism, which is sometimes advanced against moral relativism, is that it is pragmatically self-refuting. The basic idea behind it is that moral relativists, whatever their official meta-ethical position, cannot avoid being implicitly committed to certain fundamental norms and values, and they presuppose this commitment in the very act of arguing for moral relativism.
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Consider the example of the early, abolitionist movement in the United States prior to the abolishment of slavery: Was it wrong for a group of people in America to hold anti-slavery views given that the majority of the country was pro-slavery and the laws reflected such beliefs? Is it wrong for minority groups in other nations to hold views contrary to popular opinion and written law? If metaethical relativism is true, then a moral claim is true if it accords with the moral view of the culture and false if it is not. This would mean that the abolitionists held a false moral view because it diverged from the view of the wider culture.
Aren’t Right and Wrong Just Matters of Opinion? On Moral Relativism and Subjectivism – Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

Empathy. The cat doesn't appreciate the pain that the mouse is suffering. At least, it's hard to tell with a cat. Although other animals do seem to posses it to some extent. Dogs, elephants, dolphins.

Yeah that's probably part of the answer.
I'm wondering about - if someone had no empathy, would we still expect more of them (morally) than of a cat?
It's hard to say. I'm going to guess the answer "yes".

 

[stevevw]

Yes, your claim that rare = valuable.

Its not just about rarity. I listed a number of reasons that all converge into life being valuable.

So what about the evolutionary, biological, cultural, social and religious reasons. What about the fact that we treat life as valuable because we don't encourage miserable people to commit suicide and grieve the loss of life. What about how we make laws and Rights to protect and respect life because of its value.

What about how a planet with human life on it is much more of value than a planet of rocks or robots. What about how we spend billions on our search for intelligent life and how if found would be the greatest discovery in history and that we would be much more excited about finding intelligent life in the universe than finding a planet with diamonds.

What about how a universe with human life is far more valuable than one wiothout and that humans believe that their life has some meaning in the universe more than say rocks have. How about the fact that non-life cannot create life.

 

[VirOptimus]

And yet Math facts are often used as a comparison to moral facts.

Derek Parfit, an Oxford scholar whom some regard as one of the most brilliant philosophers of our time, recently produced a massive work on ethics titled On What Matters. One of its main claims is that morality is objective, and we can and do know moral truths but not because moral judgments describe some fact. Indeed, moral judgments do not describe anything in the external world, nor do they refer to our own feelings. Rather Moral judgments express objective truths. Parfit’s solution? Ethics is analogous to mathematics.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

Many philosophers have have proposed that moral knowledge has its basis in non-natural aspects of the world that can be apprehended only through a faculty of moral intuition or reason that is independent of sense experience. Moral reality, so conceived, is posited as sui generis, reducible to neither the natural nor the supernatural and requiring a mode of apprehension comparable to mathematical intuition.
Spencer Case, From Epistemic to Moral Realism - PhilPapers

Ross maintains that ‘both in mathematics and in ethics we have certain crystal-clear intuitions from which we build up all that we can know about the nature of numbers and the nature of duty’ (FE 144). ).
The analogy with mathematics is instructive, for we acquire our moral knowledge in the same way we acquire knowledge of mathematical axioms.
William David Ross (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

But I said you shouldnt.

As you dont understand math you are not in a position to use it as a comparison.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK so tell me how do we condemn a culture for say child prostitution if it is their relative moral position which to them is not morally wrong. How can we ever attempt to rid the owrld of this wrong if its not regarded as wrong in anyway beyond that culture.

Why do most philosophers reject moral relativism.

In conclusion, while moral relativism is in many ways a widely held view, when we go beneath the surface, we can see that there are insurmountable philosophical problems for the view. Given this and given the problems of applying the view to daily life, we should reject it.
There is such a thing as moral truth.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog/ethics-everyone/201201/rejecting-moral-relativism

J.L. Mackie suggests that global relativism is self-refuting in the strong sense of being self-contradictory.
http://www.ub.edu/grc_logos/files/1256890094-Self-refutationFINAL.pdf

A standard objection to cognitive relativism, which is sometimes advanced against moral relativism, is that it is pragmatically self-refuting. The basic idea behind it is that moral relativists, whatever their official meta-ethical position, cannot avoid being implicitly committed to certain fundamental norms and values, and they presuppose this commitment in the very act of arguing for moral relativism.
Moral Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Consider the example of the early, abolitionist movement in the United States prior to the abolishment of slavery: Was it wrong for a group of people in America to hold anti-slavery views given that the majority of the country was pro-slavery and the laws reflected such beliefs? Is it wrong for minority groups in other nations to hold views contrary to popular opinion and written law? If metaethical relativism is true, then a moral claim is true if it accords with the moral view of the culture and false if it is not. This would mean that the abolitionists held a false moral view because it diverged from the view of the wider culture.
Aren’t Right and Wrong Just Matters of Opinion? On Moral Relativism and Subjectivism – Introduction to Philosophy: Ethics

I'm not responsible for your education.

Its very basic to understand what a non-onjective morality entails.

 

[stevevw]

But I said you shouldnt.

As you dont understand math you are not in a position to use it as a comparison.

So that is why I can refer to the experts that I linked to help me understand the arguments for using Math facts as an anology for moral facts. Like I said this analogy is not saying that Morals are the same as Math, but that it works like Math in that there is always a factual answer and not subjective ones.

By the way isn't "you shouldn't use Math" a normative statement and therefore you are using an objective norm to claim I should not use objective norms.

 

[VirOptimus]

So that is why I can refer to the experts that I linked to help me understand the arguments for using Math facts as an anology for moral facts. Like I said this analogy is not saying that Morals are the same as Math, but that it works like Math in that there is always a factual answer and not subjective ones.

If morality was like maths you should be able to do formal logical statements about morality. So go ahead.

By the way isn't "you shouldn't use Math" a normative statement and therefore you are using an objective norm to claim I should not use objective norms.

No, its not, its telling you that you are in way over your head. Dunning-Kruger in action.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

From my understanding it is a relative moral system that creates the oxymoron because it has to accommodate morals being both relative while at the same time claiming there are moral truth beyond cultural.

Nope.

In fact, I would say the opposite - morality is necessarily a product of interpersonal relationships. Absent the existence of minds capable of experiencing suffering, wellbeing, etc, it is a vacuous non-concept.

This is true, by the way, regardless of whether or not any gods exist, including Yahweh. We are left to our own devices in any case.