Is there an absolute morality?

[stevevw]

So do we agree that rarity doesn't make something valuable then?

Yes rarity on its own doesn't make something intrinsically valuable. Diamonds are instrumentally value and not intrinsically valuable because it is humans who create the system for which makes diamonds valuable economically. Without that they would be just another rock.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes rarity on its own doesn't make something intrinsically valuable.

Nothing can "make" another thing "intrinsically valuable". If it has to be "made" valuable, then it isn't an intrinsic property. It requires referencing the thing that "made" it valuable.

 

[stevevw]

Nothing can "make" another thing "intrinsically valuable". If it has to be "made" valuable, then it isn't an intrinsic property. It requires referencing the thing that "made" it valuable.

Well its more an instrumental value in that it requires something else to make it valuable and its not valuable in itself. The market system is what makes diamonds valuable and without that they would just be another rock in the ground. But "Life" is valuable in itself and does't need anything else of value to make it valuable.

 

[Moral Orel]

Well its more an instrumental value in that it requires something else to make it valuable and its not valuable in itself. The market system is what makes diamonds valuable and without that they would just be another rock in the ground. But "Life" is valuable in itself and does't need anything else of value to make it valuable.

Diamonds are rare, but that doesn't mean they're intrinsically valuable. So what does rarity have to do with intrinsic value?

 

[stevevw]

Diamonds are rare, but that doesn't mean they're intrinsically valuable. So what does rarity have to do with intrinsic value?

Thats right rarity on its own doesn't make something instrinsically valuable. A specific shaped rock or kindy painting from a 5 year old may be rare but that alone doesn't make them intrinsically valuable or special for that matter.

 

[Moral Orel]

Thats right rarity on its own doesn't make something instrinsically valuable. A specific shaped rock or kindy painting from a 5 year old may be rare but that alone doesn't make them intrinsically valuable or special for that matter.

Then what does rarity have to do with intrinsic value?

 

[stevevw]

Then what does rarity have to do with intrinsic value?

Nothing much really.

The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic.

Instrumental value is the value that something has as a means to a desired or valued end. So diamonds being basically a rock get their value from the market created around it which includes "desires" created for them.

 

[Moral Orel]

Nothing much really.

Then why was that most of what you talked about in your post explaining why life is intrinsically valuable if it has "nothing much" to do with it?

 

[stevevw]

Then why was that most of what you talked about in your post explaining why life is intrinsically valuable if it has "nothing much" to do with it?

You asked me why is life is so special which is a different thing.

 

[Moral Orel]

You asked me why is life is so special which is a different thing.

No, I didn't.

Why is this special regard deserved? In other words, why should we hold life to a special esteem?

And your answer was (mostly) that life is rare.

 

[stevevw]

No, I didn't.

You asked in post 1271
"why should we hold life to a special esteem?"

And your answer was (mostly) that life is rare.

I think you will find it was a number of reasons which converge on making life special and valuable. Such as evolutionary, biologically, culturally, socially and religiously. But also how we live like life is special and valuable when it is lost and we don't encourage miserable people to kill themselves and we dread the thought of non-existence.

All world governing organisations and nations respect and protect life through Rights and laws. A planet of human life is more special than a planet of diamonds which are basically rocks or even AI machines that mimic life. We think our lives are highly meaningful parts of the universe and a universe without consciousnes would be meaningless.

We know nature is special like water as it sustains life. So certainly the life it sustains is more special. We are searching for signs of life in the universe that has the hallmarks of our planet so its a special thing and if found would be one of the greatest discoveries ever. Life cannot come from non-life.

 

[Moral Orel]

You asked in post 1271
"why should we hold life to a special esteem?"

I know what I said, that's why I reposted the questions. Do you not even read my responses to you? Look at what I bolded in post 1290 and tell me why you're telling me now what I said.

But also how we live like life is special and valuable when it is lost and we don't encourage miserable people to kill themselves and we dread the thought of non-existence.

All world governing organisations and nations respect and protect life through Rights and laws.

Okay, one by one.

We should hold it in a special esteem and it deserves a special regard
because
we do hold it in a special esteem and offer it a special regard?

No. "Do" =/= "should". That most of us do value life is not in any way a reason that we all should value life.

 

[Kylie]

I think the reasons why life has this special intrinsic value comes from a number of sources and they all seem on converge that "LIfe" is special and valuable.

Life is valuable because life is valuable.

 

[stevevw]

Life is valuable because life is valuable.

Yes so I qualified that with the list of reasons.

 

[stevevw]

I know what I said, that's why I reposted the questions. Do you not even read my responses to you? Look at what I bolded in post 1290 and tell me why you're telling me now what I said.

Okay, one by one.

We should hold it in a special esteem and it deserves a special regard
because
we do hold it in a special esteem and offer it a special regard?

No. "Do" =/= "should". That most of us do value life is not in any way a reason that we all should value life.

Its not a a case of just a majority agreement and we live like life is valuable for good reasons. I gave the reasons why we should hold life in special regard. But your also forgetting we are moral beings so with that comes our moral repsonsibility.

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

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

To answer your actual question - I don't know.

To further discuss morality (for the fun of it), I'd say morality seems to require a component of consciousness/mind which is developed above a certain level.
Seems there is a certain standard we hold of beings we think have a higher level of "mind" or "consciousness".
We consider ourselves different from the animals in mind and consciousness - we think we are higher. We think we are less subject to instinct (we have more "freewill"), can asign meaning to things, have deeper and broader experiences (think asthetic experience for example). We can speculate about ourselves and others, and speculate about their experiences - or about God and life after death. We assume the animals cannot do that stuff. Seems we might consider an animal innocent and a person guilty - if both did identical things??
If a person steals a valuable and hides it for later, we assume a consciousness that recognises a concept of ownership. We assume sentience (the ability to experience), but further to that we also assume the ability to asign some sort of meaning to the experience.
If a wolf steals a valuable (food) and hides it for later, we don't really refer to the wolf as acting morally. The wolf (we assume) doesn't asign meaning to the event or speculate on the experience of the other wolves. It has no moral intent. It also has no concept of rightful ownership as far as we can tell. We wouldn't take the wolf to task and expect it to understand the concept of ownership and that stealing was wrong, or why it's wrong.

Maybe I'm saying - there is an
1) Absolute morality
2) There is a spectrum of which a creature may be capable of acting morally/immorally. It is applied relative to the ability of the creatures mind/consciousness.

???

 

[Bradskii]

There is a spectrum of which a creature may be capable of acting morally/immorally. It is applied relative to the ability of the creatures mind/consciousness.

As we were once pre human then do you consider morality to have evolved as we did?

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

As we were once pre human then do you consider morality to have evolved as we did?

well - if there is a perfect "good" - somewhere in the universe, you'd say the good thing exists independently of us and where we are in our evolution.

Our evolution would be developing awareness of the existence of the "good" thing. Before we are aware of it, we can't be actors on a moral level (even though a "good" exists). We would have been non participants.

????

A cat kills for fun.

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?

 

[Moral Orel]

Life is valuable because life is valuable.

Yes so I qualified that with the list of reasons.

Its not a a case of just a majority agreement and we live like life is valuable for good reasons.

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

 

[Confused-by-christianity]

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

you think life is valuable because it is rare?

(Note: I didn't really read much of the discussion - I've just skimmed everything. Am I accurate about your thought?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update: Nevermind - I have subsequently skimmed some of the page a little better than before.