Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

Why is that arguement wrong. The premise is sound. Human Life is protected under law, by treaty, by UN Human Rights and by Declarations and constitutions that entire nations are built on.

The right to Life and the right to a certain level of Life is a natural law and recognised by humans. Without that intrinsic value placed on life we could not exist as humans. That is also supported by scientific evidence. By nature humans cannot just exist. They have to have a certain type of life to be able to even exist.

So now what you've got is:

P1 Life causes existence
P2 We ought to value existing
C We ought to value life

Now just prove that "We ought to value existing". If that is not true then your argument is not sound. If it is true then it can be proven through a formal argument.

 

[Ken-1122]

So it is with morality. We need to have a measuring base for determining what is right and wrong.

There needs to be a measuring base? No! In order for morality to be objective, there HAS to be a measuring base that all of morality is based on. And this measuring base cannot be the subjective views of each person, it has to be beyond mankind; do you agree? If so, what is this measuring base that you speak of? Please be specific.

 

[Neogaia777]

There needs to be a measuring base? No! In order for morality to be objective, there HAS to be a measuring base that all of morality is based on. And this measuring base cannot be the subjective views of each person, it has to be beyond mankind; do you agree? If so, what is this measuring base that you speak of? Please be specific.

God... or God the Father always more specifically, etc...

Or at least, that's what rang true to me when I read what you wrote just now, etc...?

That One is, and always has been, as close to completely objective as we are ever going to find and/or get, etc...

We must seek Him out, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you think Jesus was objective...?

I think He might have been very, very close to it if he wasn't...

He seemed to save his harshest words of judgement for the Jewish Pharisees most of the time only, or for the most part,, etc...?

Other than that He went around healing and preaching and trying to teach and/or restore and/or heal the rest of the people for the most part, etc...?

Something He was not able to do for the Pharisees, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

God... or God the Father always more specifically, etc...

Or at least, that's what rang true to me when I read what you wrote just now, etc...?

That One is, and always has been, as close to completely objective as we are ever going to find and/or get, etc...

We must seek Him out, etc...

God Bless!

Okay; a little background here. The person I was debating with is claiming mortality is objective; not subjective. He believes there is a single moral base applied to all of mankind not just Christians. The God you speak of is the Christian God, so the idea that Christians have a moral base, based on their God, Hindu’s have a separate moral base based on their God, the same for all other religions would be just another case for subjective morality a morality that varies from person to person; something he was trying to stay away from. IOW a God that is not recognized by everyone as the moral base does not qualify as a moral base for all mankind; thus the God you speak of does not qualify as an objective moral base for all.

 

[Neogaia777]

Okay; a little background here. The person I was debating with is claiming mortality is objective; not subjective. He believes there is a single moral base applied to all of mankind not just Christians. The God you speak of is the Christian God, so the idea that Christians have a moral base, based on their God, Hindu’s have a separate moral base based on their God, the same for all other religions would be just another case for subjective morality a morality that varies from person to person; something he was trying to stay away from. IOW a God that is not recognized by everyone as the moral base does not qualify as a moral base for all mankind; thus the God you speak of does not qualify as an objective moral base for all.

I know, I've been posting occasionally in this thread and have been watching it, and have shared my views, etc...

But, my God is the Christian God, or the Father God of Christ, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

I know, I've been posting occasionally in this thread and have been watching it, and have shared my views, etc...

But, my God is the Christian God, or the Father God of Christ, etc...

God Bless!

Yeah I get it! You are christian, and it makes perfect sense that a Christian would base his morality on the Christian God, and it makes just as much sense that the Muslim would base his morality on Allah, as well as all other theists basing their morality on their God of choice. But this is not a good argument for objective morality, it is an example of morality varying from person to person which is the point I was making.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yeah I get it! You are christian, and it makes perfect sense that a Christian would base his morality on the Christian God, and it makes just as much sense that the Muslim would base his morality on Allah, as well as all other theists basing their morality on their God of choice. But this is not a good argument for objective morality, it is an example of morality varying from person to person which is the point I was making.

The Highest God is not like a human being, and anyone who has a concept or idea of Him can come to believe in Him, and know Him, and know Him regardless of what they call Him, if they truly know Him, etc...

In this instance, it/He happens to be The True Father God of Christ and Christianity, etc...

And you probably don't know of my previous posts in this thread, but I believe almost everything is subjective, even reality maybe, etc, but and/or including morality right now, etc...

Tried to explain some of it to @stevevw but left it and Him alone after I said my piece/peace, etc...

God Bless!

 

[stevevw]

Right. But that makes no sense. As wiki states: "In ethics, value denotes the degree of importance of some thing or action."

"Importance" requires a subject for whom something is important. Makes no sense to say something has import in itself.

But that doesn't mean the subject can't recognise the importance of something in itself. AS the dictionary meaning states
belonging naturally; essential.

Certain qualities and rights are afforded to human life in otself. They dont need the subject to determine this, its just what life is. This is found in things like Human Rights and the US Declaration and other treaties, conventions and laws. It is also recognised by the sciences. Therefore it is a truth beyond human subjective thinking.

 

[durangodawood]

But that doesnt mean the subject can recognise the importance of something in itself. AS the dictionary meaning states
belonging naturally; essential.

Certain qualities and rights are afforded to human life in otself. They dont need the subject to determine this, its just what life is.

Ok. So what IS the importance of something in itself? What is that?

I can explain the value of water for me, the thirsty person. It quenches thirst. It allows my body to function. Etc. But what is the value of water without reference to anything else? Or use a different example if one comes to you.

 

[stevevw]

Prove that existing is objectivly good, with formal logic.

I don't think just existing is either good or bad. It is just a state of being human. But as humans have to exist in a certain way to be humans this is what makes it good/valuable.

 

[Neogaia777]

I don't think just existing is either good or bad. It is just a state of being human. But as humans have to exist in a certain way to be humans this is what makes it good/valuable.

Ok, no one is replying, so...?

Who decides this...? It has changed over time, and also with each new nation and culture over the ages, and now we seem to have the rise of individuals now, etc, which is making some question everything, etc...

But, anyway, my point is that it has always been different, etc... Oh and also, "situational and circumstantial" also seems to matter to us a lot to us as well, etc, as well maybe it always should in our current environment, etc...

But who decides the standard, and gets others to abide by it, etc...? and does it mean the ones who might not wish to abide by it, are wrong for having that view, etc, and/or should maybe be punished, etc...? and then who decides all of that then also, etc...?

So maybe then I should maybe ask you, in what way should or do/did humans always all always exist always, as humans, in a certain way to be humans, that does always make it good/valuable...?

Then is that a good enough reason to be and/or maintain morality as well also...? for one to be pretty moral, morally, etc...?

Just based on the cold hard facts of it being profitable to you or the community, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't think just existing is either good or bad. It is just a state of being human. But as humans have to exist in a certain way to be humans this is what makes it good/valuable.

Good/valuable by what metric? For whom? By what authority?

 

[Moral Orel]

But as humans have to exist in a certain way to be humans this is what makes it good/valuable.

P1 X is required for Y
C One ought to Y

That argument isn't valid.

 

[stevevw]

Ok, no one is replying, so...?

Who decides this...?

As mentioned Intrinsic values/morals are self-evident because they are valuable within themselves. So know one decides but rather recognises and understands this value.

It has changed over time, and also with each new nation and culture over the ages, and now we seem to have the rise of individuals now, etc, which is making some question everything, etc...

First just because things change doesnt mean there is no moral truths. But I am not sure that something like the value of life has really changed that much. Sure there have been people who have not valued life like the many dictators who killed millions. But as with world organisations like the UN and most nations with their own laws and treaties everyone recognised that those acts by dictators were objectively wrong.

They have set certain unalienable rights and values for human life that are not determined by indivisuals or cultures but stand as a value and right in and of themselves. They are classed as a natural born right.

But, anyway, my point is that it has always been different, etc... Oh and also, "situational and circumstantial" also seems to matter to us a lot to us as well, etc, as well maybe it always should in our current environment, etc...

And moral realism can accommodate changing circumstances.

But who decides the standard, and gets others to abide by it, etc...? and does it mean the ones who might not wish to abide by it, are wrong for having that view, etc, and/or should maybe be punished, etc...? and then who decides all of that then also, etc...?

As mentioned there are natural laws which all humans know about. These are intrinsic and self evident. They are reflected in the organisations and institutions mentioned abouve and also in our normative morals that help humans live together in society.

Because they are self-evdient and we intuitive know them we have a duty to act in a certain way to be human. Otherwise we will not survive (not in a evolutionary sense) but epistemically. We reach a point where survival is not enough to be human and therefore certain values (qualities) are connected to human life to be human inclusing having a moral system.

So maybe then I should maybe ask you, in what way should or do/did humans always all always exist always, as humans,

I am not sure. I giess it is something that we have and are gradually recognizing/discovering. I think the more we enagge in moral experience the better we get at recognising moral truths. As moral truths are influenced by facts around the moral technology and a growing better understanding has allowed us to see more clearly moral truths.

in a certain way to be humans, that does always make it good/valuable...?

Yes as human life come with a certain quality to be human these are associated with what we would call good but I think they are the flow on of human life itself.

Then is that a good enough reason to be and/or maintain morality as well also...? for one to be pretty moral, morally, etc...?

Just based on the cold hard facts of it being profitable to you or the community, etc...?

God Bless!

I think there is more to it then cold hard facts. Thats why many philosophers use intuition of moral truths and that these morals (what we think are good and evil) are known to us all and are like laws. Yet we cannot show any concrete evdience for them.

This relates to humans being more than the end product of their evolution, having agency, and that there is another dimension to humans above other animals and consciousness.
God Bless you.

 

[stevevw]

So now what you've got is:

P1 Life causes existence
P2 We ought to value existing
C We ought to value life

Now just prove that "We ought to value existing". If that is not true then your argument is not sound. If it is true then it can be proven through a formal argument.

I thought I had already done that. Like I said life is intrinsically valuable and with that comes certain obligations for being human. The quality and goodness of life being valuable flows naturally to us and we express this through the Rights, treaties, Declarations and sciences showing lifes intrinsic goodness.

Once we understand this we have a duty to do those things which are said to be good for human life. Otherwise we are negating being human in the first place.

 

[VirOptimus]

I thought I had already done that. Like I said life is intrinsically valuable and with that comes certain obligations for being human. The quality and goodness of life being valuable flows naturally to us and we express this through the Rights, treaties, Declarations and sciences showing lifes intrinsic goodness.

Once we understand this we have a duty to do those things which are said to be good for human life. Otherwise we are negating being human in the first place.

No, you havent.

Your platitudes do your ”arguments” no favours.

 

[stevevw]

No, you havent.

Your platitudes do your ”arguments” no favours.

The arguement comes down to P1. I am saying that we all know and accept that "Life" is intrinsically valuable. Once understood we have an obligation to live life like its valuable. Its pretty simple really. There is plenty of evidence that "LIfe" is intrinsically valuable. Such as the Declarations, Treaties and laws of most countries protecting life as intrinsically valuable. Like how all ethical theories refer to some sort of intrinsic values. Like with Natural Law which is widely acepted. Like with HUman Rights being unalienable.

The precepts of the natural law are also knowable by nature. All human beings possess a basic knowledge of the principles of the natural law (ST IaIIae 94, 4). This knowledge is exhibited in our intrinsic directedness toward the various goods that the natural law enjoins us to pursue, and we can make this implicit awareness explicit and propositional through reflection on practice.
In the history of philosophy, relatively few seem to have entertained doubts about the concept of intrinsic value.
The Natural Law Tradition in Ethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Certain rights, however, are non-derogable, that is, they cannot be suspended even in a state of emergency. Article 4(2) of the ICCPR provides that no derogation is permitted for: right to life (art 6)
Absolute rights

Natural law is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society).[2] According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3]

Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics.
Many philosophers take intrinsic value to be crucial to a variety of moral judgments.
All major normative ethical theories identify something as being intrinsically valuable.
Intrinsic value (ethics) - Wikipedia

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable. Natural law is the law of natural rights.

If we have intrinsic value, then it’s good to merely for us to exist.
It seems clear enough that many people find the value of human life to be intuitive. We don’t just feel like we want to live because we are deluded or manipulated by our instincts.
We feel like our lives are highly meaningful parts of the universe. The view that human life has value is uncontroversial.
Does Human Life Have Value?

Human beings are not taught natural law per se, but rather we “discover” it by consistently making choices for good instead of evil.

Examples of Natural Law
When a child tearfully exclaims, “It’s not fair [that]..." or when viewing a documentary about the suffering of war, we feel pain because we're reminded of the horrors of human evil. And in doing this, we are also providing evidence for the existence of natural law.
Natural Law Definition

 

[Moral Orel]

Like I said life is intrinsically valuable and with that comes certain obligations for being human. The quality and goodness of life being valuable flows naturally to us

So you can't give a reason why life ought to be valued. It just is something which ought to be valued.

 

[Moral Orel]

I am saying that we all know and accept that "Life" is intrinsically valuable.

There you go again saying the same old things that are false. Only now you're doing it after explicitly stating that you know it's false:

Its proven to be a fact by the way everyone makes it a fact beyond subjective human thinking.

You keep repeating the same false statements over and over and over again. Not everyone. Do you understand that?

I understand that, not everyone agrees.

No matter how sound my arguments are, you're just going to pretend it never happened, aren't you?