Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

I actually wrote 'based on personal preferences' and then changed it to 'personal decisions'. It sounded a bit more thoughtful than what could be claimed is a mere preference. But truth be told, they are mostly interchangeable.

Well, that's where the confusion comes in. Sometimes, we're judging evidence for a thing, and whatever we determine might be a fact. For instance, when we're trying to determine who committed a murder. I might say something like, "In my opinion, Jeff is the murderer" and you might say something like, "In my opinion, Sheila is the murderer." One of us might be correct, in that situation. Hypothetically, if we had knowledge of all the facts, we would know if our statement is correct.

Morality isn't like that. We can't determine a true statement about how one ought to behave because there isn't one. Morality requires us to insert our personal preferences or we won't make a judgement at all.

There aren't any special preferences. No preference is "better" or "more accurate" or "more true" than any other preference. We can distinguish between who a preference belongs to, but all preferences are equal. There's no such thing as a "mere preference" because there's no such thing as a "significant" preference.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, that's where the confusion comes in. Sometimes, we're judging evidence for a thing, and whatever we determine might be a fact. For instance, when we're trying to determine who committed a murder. I might say something like, "In my opinion, Jeff is the murderer" and you might say something like, "In my opinion, Sheila is the murderer." One of us might be correct, in that situation. Hypothetically, if we had knowledge of all the facts, we would know if our statement is correct.

Morality isn't like that. We can't determine a true statement about how one ought to behave because there isn't one. Morality requires us to insert our personal preferences or we won't make a judgement at all.

There aren't any special preferences. No preference is "better" or "more accurate" or "more true" than any other preference. We can distinguish between who a preference belongs to, but all preferences are equal. There's no such thing as a "mere preference" because there's no such thing as a "significant" preference.

I skipped using preference because as sure as God made little green apples, someone would come along with a comment such as 'oh, so it's just a preference that you have that children shouldn't be murdered. Like you prefer it if the icecream was chocolate instead of vanilla'.

There's certainly plenty of that in these type of discussions.

 

[Moral Orel]

I skipped using preference because as sure as God made little green apples, someone would come along with a comment such as 'oh, so it's just a preference that you have that children shouldn't be murdered. Like you prefer it if the icecream was chocolate instead of vanilla'.

There's certainly plenty of that in these type of discussions.

So what if they do? It isn't as though they wouldn't prefer children weren't murdered just like us. It isn't satisfying to admit that, although we feel much more strongly about child murder than we do about chocolate ice cream, we haven't in any way changed how we're using the word "prefer".

 

[o_mlly]

I shot a man in Reno: We don't know if that's immoral or not. The act in itself cannot be described as such.

An innocent man was shot to death.

The morality of that act doesn't matter who (you) , where (Reno) , when or why (just to watch him die). As you have agreed, the act in itself is wrong.

Is this beautiful infant a male or female? You argue, "Well, because we need another picture, a bit lower if you please, that therefore, there are no male or female infants."

 

[Moral Orel]

Is this beautiful infant a male or female?

You'd have to ask the infant. Bwahahaha! Sorry, couldn't resist kicking the hornets nest.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Indeed, the problem here is that you have apparently ignored the statement Jesus made regarding judging righteous judgment.

Apparently it's a little more obscure than most people think.

Joh 7:24 WEB Don’t judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

When I see righteous judgement, I'll judge it.

So far, there's nothing to judge.

 

[TLK Valentine]

An innocent man was shot to death.

Who said he was innocent?

 

[o_mlly]

You'd have to ask the infant. Bwahahaha! Sorry, couldn't resist kicking the hornets nest.

You just got stung. Male or female? Don't know? Well then, we know whatever just stung you wasn't a hornet because they don't exist.

 

[TLK Valentine]

View attachment 313388
You just got stung. Male or female? Don't know? Well then, we know whatever just stung you wasn't a hornet because they don't exist.

Only female hornets sting... so that's one question answered.

 

[o_mlly]

Only female hornets sting... so that's one question answered.

I'll let you and Moral work out whether he was stung or spiked. Only his hornet knows for sure. Back to the thread.

 

[Chriliman]

Enjoying things is something that I do. I don't really know how I would ever use "enjoyment" to form a true statement. The same way I can't fathom how to use "good" to make a true statement.

Isn't “It gives me enjoyment” a grammatically correct and true statement?

Here’s another question:
We agree 2+2=5 is wrong(wrong logic), but we don’t agree that genuinely insisting that it’s true is also wrong(wrong logic + wrong behavior). Right?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'll let you and Moral work out whether he was stung or spiked. Only his hornet knows for sure. Back to the thread.

You said he was stung. I'm working with the available information.

...as we all do when making moral decisions or judgements. We must always be careful when dealing with incomplete information -- there's a temptation to fill in gaps based on a desired result...

For example, who said that man in Reno was innocent?

 

[o_mlly]

For example, who said that man in Reno was innocent?

Ask Brad. He wrote that it's immoral to kill such a person. Let's hear what he's got to say.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ask Brad. He wrote that it's immoral to kill such a person. Let's hear what he's got to say.

Actually, he said we couldn't tell.
Then you said the man was innocent.

 

[o_mlly]

Actually, he said we couldn't tell.

Nope. Go back and read his post.

There are three states of knowledge. Either you know the person is innocent (ought not kill), not innocent (maybe moral to use lethal force), or you're ignorant (ought not kill).

Ignorance + Ignorance = Twice as Ignorant

Get it?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Nope. Go back and read his post.

You mean this one?

I shot a man in Reno: We don't know if that's immoral or not. The act in itself cannot be described as such.

I shot a man in Reno just to watch him die: The act, now we know the intent, is immoral.

And he's right -- the act alone, devoid of context, cannot be morally judged because we don't have enough information.

Get it?

Not from you. Because there's a fourth state of knowledge you didn't consider -- error.

Man comes home (in Reno, of course) one night and finds a man in bed with his wife. She screams "Rape!" and the man instinctively pulls out a gun and shoots the would-be rapist.

Except... it's not rape, merely adultery. The wife panicked, you see.

The man's actions -- based on the knowledge he had at the time -- were morally justified. The wife is a different story.

(A true story, btw -- but in Texas, not Reno. The husband wasn't charged with any crime; the wife got 5 years. Woman Who Falsely Cried Rape Convicted of Manslaughter )

 

[Moral Orel]

Isn't “It gives me enjoyment” a grammatically correct and true statement?

I am experiencing something when I enjoy something. It doesn't have something that it gives to me that I now have.

Here’s another question:
We agree 2+2=5 is wrong(wrong logic), but we don’t agree that genuinely insisting that it’s true is also wrong(wrong logic + wrong behavior). Right?

Well, certainly 2+2=5 is incorrect. As for the second part, no, that isn't an incorrect choice to behave like that.

Now I have to ask, did you mean to imply that a person who insists 2+2=5 is lying? Because the way you've stated it, they could simply be mistaken.

 

[Bradskii]

An innocent man was shot to death.

The morality of that act doesn't matter who (you) , where (Reno) , when or why (just to watch him die). As you have agreed, the act in itself is wrong.

I shot two men. You need to qualify the act to determine its morality. As has already been asked, what makes you say the first man was innocent?

 

[Chriliman]

I am experiencing something when I enjoy something. It doesn't have something that it gives to me that I now have.

Well, certainly 2+2=5 is incorrect. As for the second part, no, that isn't an incorrect choice to behave like that.

Now I have to ask, did you mean to imply that a person who insists 2+2=5 is lying? Because the way you've stated it, they could simply be mistaken.

Regardless if they’re mistaken or lying, why is it correct(isn’t incorrect as you say) to purport something as true when it’s in fact false?

Actually, I bet you’ll say it’s neither correct nor incorrect, even tho we know what they’re saying is incorrect.

 

[Moral Orel]

why is it correct(isn’t incorrect as you say)

It isn't a correct thing to do, nor is it an incorrect thing to do. Acts aren't correct or incorrect. Correctness isn't a property acts have.

You might as well be asking me "Is the number three purple or yellow?". It's neither. Color isn't a property that numbers have.