Is there an absolute morality?

[Moral Orel]

I have given various arguements.

You give a lot of weird arguments that are supposed to prove morality is objective without demonstrating an actual moral fact.

Can you demonstrate one moral fact, through a purely logical non-fallacious argument, without having to assert that some other moral fact is self-evident?

 

[Moral Orel]

Yet it is a common basis for morality. Harm can be qualified as an action that causes damage to a person which makes them less effective or successful than they were. In that sense any harm is wrong.

No, it doesn't. Why should one be effective? Why should one be successful? I prefer to be effective and successful, but you need more than that.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Thought experiment....

You are alone in the world...an empty barren wasteland devoid of life or comfort. A literal empty place without much of anything useful...but you can survive for whatever reason, grow old, and die.

Is there an immoral or moral action you can do?

 

[stevevw]

What Sam Harris does is assert that morality is objective because it is based on objective facts. (Something others here do). While "if you can't tell why suffering is worse than not suffering, I can't help you" is an interesting statement and I find it perhaps useful as a way to decide what to do in general, I disagree with the sentiment that that moral system is objective. It does not transfer. That there is a rock in my yard may be objective does not entail that "I like the rock in my yard" is objective. Sam is just wrong.

What do you mean
That there is a rock in my yard may be objective does not entail that "I like the rock in my yard" is objective. Sam is just wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

Thought experiment....

You are alone in the world...an empty barren wasteland devoid of life or comfort. A literal empty place without much of anything useful...but you can survive for whatever reason, grow old, and die.

Is there an immoral or moral action you can do?

I'm on my own? Then no. An immoral act has to cause harm. If I can't cause harm to anyone then I can't commit an immoral act.

 

[stevevw]

No, it doesn't. Why should one be effective? Why should one be successful? I prefer to be effective and successful, but you need more than that.

Actually that was a dictionary meaning I linked. I agree that being effective and sucessful is not a good basis as it doesn't tell us why. But as with Sam Harris's position its more about how we now have the ability to look into the human body and especially the brain and understand how humans are effected by acts that can cause damage to their wellbeing.

THese effects show how they damage the human body, and have knock on effects that can lead to more complications and even death but also how its can effect society not just physically but psychologically and spiritually. It is this effect not just because it causes harm but because it negates humans being human and is counter to what humans know how they should live which will enable them to flourish.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm on my own? Then no. An immoral act has to cause harm. If I can't cause harm to anyone then I can't commit an immoral act.

This seems to closely associate a couple of things for you then.

1. Morality is a result of social interaction. I would guess this holds true even for the Christian who believes in an actor observer relationship with God.

....now technically it is undeniably circumstantial and a result of social interaction as sentient creatures. We could stop there...but why?

2. You seem to make it contingent upon harm. Arguably you can harm yourself, but as you are the only one to judge the action, it seems like you would do so preemptively. You could however, by accident, change the condition of your environment, without intent, in a way that harms one long after you are dead.

Would you think that is immoral (whatever behavior unintentionally caused harm)?

 

[Ana the Ist]

What Sam Harris does is assert that morality is objective because it is based on objective facts. (Something others here do). While "if you can't tell why suffering is worse than not suffering, I can't help you" is an interesting statement and I find it perhaps useful as a way to decide what to do in general, I disagree with the sentiment that that moral system is objective. It does not transfer. That there is a rock in my yard may be objective does not entail that "I like the rock in my yard" is objective. Sam is just wrong.

Was Sam a believer at some point?

 

[Bradskii]

This seems to closely associate a couple of things for you then.

1. Morality is a result of social interaction. I would guess this holds true even for the Christian who believes in an actor observer relationship with God.

....now technically it is undeniably circumstantial and a result of social interaction as sentient creatures. We could stop there...but why?

2. You seem to make it contingent upon harm. Arguably you can harm yourself, but as you are the only one to judge the action, it seems like you would do so preemptively. You could however, by accident, change the condition of your environment, without intent, in a way that harms one long after you are dead.

Would you think that is immoral (whatever behavior unintentionally caused harm)?

An immoral act has to cause harm (or is intended to cause harm - so shooting at you and missing is immoral) and it has to be intentional. I think that's pretty clear?

 

[Ana the Ist]

An immoral act has to cause harm (or is intended to cause harm - so shooting at you and missing is immoral) and it has to be intentional. I think that's pretty clear?

So unintentionally harming someone isn't immoral....like when doctors used to "bleed" sick patients who were obviously harmed, because the doctor obviously intended to do good...he's just ignorant.

How about an immoral good? Can you lie to someone sweetly and make them feel better? Is it a moral good then?

You seem to focus on intent, but I don't know if outcomes are important yet...

 

[Bradskii]

How about an immoral good? Can you lie to someone sweetly and make them feel better? Is it a moral good then?

Didn't I say an immoral act needed to cause harm? I'm sure I did.

 

[Moral Orel]

Actually that was a dictionary meaning I linked.

You defined "effective" and "successful". Both of which are not mentioned in the definition of "harm". Sometimes harm is good, sometimes harm is bad. Sometimes we dislike being harmed, sometimes we like being harmed. Harm is not always "wrong".

I agree that being effective and sucessful is not a good basis as it doesn't tell us why. But as with Sam Harris's position its more about how we now have the ability to look into the human body and especially the brain and understand how humans are effected by acts that can cause damage to their wellbeing.

THese effects show how they damage the human body, and have knock on effects that can lead to more complications and even death but also how its can effect society not just physically but psychologically and spiritually. It is this effect not just because it causes harm but because it negates humans being human and is counter to what humans know how they should live which will enable them to flourish.

Then show me a good basis that you can answer "why" it is a good basis. If I claimed that "Blonde hair and blue eyes is intrinsically valuable" we would have a basis for a morality that we can make objective facts about. But so what?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Didn't I say an immoral act needed to cause harm? I'm sure I did.

So it isn't immoral to lie if it doesn't cause harm?

What about adultery? Not immoral if between consenting adults and they don't get caught? What about brother/sister incest so long as they both enjoy the experience once and don't procreate?

 

[Bradskii]

So it isn't immoral to lie if it doesn't cause harm?

What about adultery? Not immoral if between consenting adults and they don't get caught? What about brother/sister incest so long as they both enjoy the experience once and don't procreate?

Do you have a point to make? I'm a little reluctant to be some kind of trained monkey that answers question after question whenever prodded. Especially when every question has already been covered by my initial post. Maybe answer your own questions and we'll see where it goes.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you have a point to make?

Point was made in your first answer. Obviously it's entirely subjective and circumstantial if it suddenly disappeared when you imagined yourself alone.

The rest was just seeing where you imagine your morality sits.

Never would have guessed you were ok with anything that doesn't cause harm. That's a super thin completely subjective line.

 

[Bradskii]

Never would have guessed you were ok with anything that doesn't cause harm.

How could one argue against it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

How could one argue against it?

Same way one argues for it.

 

[Moral Orel]

Never would have guessed you were ok with anything that doesn't cause harm. That's a super thin completely subjective line.

What should the line be?

 

[Bradskii]

Same way one argues for it.

You can argue for something if you think there's a positive benefit in doing it. But if an act has no negative implications, then on what basis could someone argue against it?

 

[VirOptimus]

By that criteria we can say no one has shown that morality is relative or subjective either.

Indeed, but its you who claim that there are such a thing as "objective morality" so the burden of proof is on you.

Its a simple question. Can we state that immoral acts like "rape or child abuse or racial descrimination for that matter is morally OK to do. Can we say that these immoral acts are objectively wrong that is a fact in the world beyond subjective thinking.

I dont know how many times I have to repeat that for me objective is a meaningless term. When will you accept that?

But I think you will find that we don't just abitrarily determine morality when we declare someone is wrong and they should not do something. WE don't just make up some arbitrary reasn and nor do we use feelings, opinions or preferences to determine this either as these things have no wrongness in thefirst place.

We sure do. Look at morality around the world, most of it is because of how it makes us feel and it sure is arbitary in many cases.

But according to moral realism Maths works like morality.

Morality is a formal logical system? I dont know anyone who says that.

1. The Realism/Antirealism Debate
If there are moral facts, how can we know them? For a realist, moral facts are as certain as mathematical facts. Moral facts and mathematical facts are abstract entities, and as such, are different in kind from natural facts. One cannot literally display moral facts as one could display, say, a plant. One can display a token of the type, for example one can write “lying for personal gain is wrong” or one can write an equation; however, one cannot observe moral and mathematical facts in quite the same way as one can observe, with the aid of a microscope, clorophyll in a leaf.

The moral realist may argue for the view that there are moral facts as follows:
(1) Moral sentences are sometimes true.
(2) A sentence is true only if the truth-making relation holds between it and the thing that makes it true.
(3) Thus, true moral sentences are true only because there holds the truth-making relation between them and the things that make them true.
Therefore,
(4) The things that make some moral sentences true must exist.
It is a short inference from the existence of the things that make some moral sentences true to the existence of moral facts.
Moral Realism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Try using your own words, I wont read your links.

Because life is intrinsically valuable harming life goes against this value. In fact there is an obligation for us to uphold the value of life and the qualities that help make it thrive. Because we are rational and moral beings who can understand how certain understanding of the situation leads to certain responsibilities epistemically.

You have not supported that life is intrinsically valuable. And valuable for who? A value has to have an agent to appreciate the value. And by what metric? Who gets to decide?

Therefore understanding "LIfe" has intrinsic value obligates us not to do anything that will contradict life as intrinsically valuable which includes harming people. As epistemological facts are sometimes aligned with morals this means we are morally obligated to not harm others.

Who obligates us? By what authority?

There is however, a clear path to a universal and powerful moral objectivity, the view that morality (or most of it, anyway) is just as objectively true as science and mathematics. The key ingredient is the notion of harm.
The question now is “Why ought we to check (or mitigate) such harm.” The answer is because it is harm! Harm is bad by definition. Morality requires us to avoid doing bad things, again, by definition. Hence, we all have a moral duty not to harm other living things. This moral duty exists objectively because harm exists objectively. Just as 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively true, so “we should not harm other living things” is objectively true. This truth is based simply on the fact that harming exists and should be checked.

You have not supported that harm is "bad by definition". Also, bad for whom? who gets to decide? How is it measured? Who has the authority?