Is there an absolute morality?

[Kylie]

1. What is, asks our respect. That is my version of "Is > Ought".

2. Testimony is evidence, therefore the subjective contributes to the objective.

3. Much good is done by pondering the phenomenology of differentiated experience. Much good is done by degrees of inference by everyone.

4. This has not got to do with "God" for those who don't have a use for "Him"; nor with bossiness for anyone.



Why not? Are your observations so worthless?

I have no idea what you are trying to say. It is very unclear. When you say, "our respect" in the first sentence, what are you talking about? The respect others give to us? The respect we show others? The respect we show to ourselves? And the question "what is?" is vague and undefined. I do not see it having any use to this discussion in such a vague format. The rest of your post is similarly obscure.

 

[Kylie]

But you have used TV shows as an anology for morality many times.

Yes I did. And YOU are the one resorting to the "Yeah, but it's different" excuse, so don't blame this on me.

What about laws against stealing, rape, murder, descrimination, sexual harassment, equality, ect. Heck theres even laws against speaking certain words that are deemed morally wrong. You can get sacked for just expressing a personal view. I mean you don't see laws stopping people from expressing their personal views about TV shows or preference for brussel sprouts lol.

Okay, show me a law that says, "This country MUST have a law against murder."

Why he's only expressing his personal subjective view, its not wrong. I may not feel comfortable with that but his view is just one of many views out there that has equal rights to be expressed as there is no moral truths under a subjective/relative system.

You know, I honestly don't believe you.

If your next door neighbour said to you, "I don't think it's wrong for a person to break into their neighbour's house and brutally murder them while they slept," I don't think you are going to be sleeping very well. You'll react to every single noise you hear.

On what basis can you say they are wrong if you have no basis to determine what is wrong and everything is about feelings or opinions. Feelings and opinions cannot be wrong. They are just a different feeling or opinion to you.

Are you just ignoring what I say now? I've answered this question countless times.

If we look at any world body or national laws we find that as a society, nation and world we have a small set of specific moral truths that we have made Rights and laws. This means that only one set of moral view is allowed and any deviation from this is not acceptable. These Rights and Laws have been made inalienable so they cannot be subject to subjective/relative views.

Irrelevant. This is yet another thing I have explained countless times. The fact that most people share a similar set of moral viewpoints does not mean those moral views are objective.

I am not saying that this is evidence alone for objective morals. But its more consistent with objective morality. If you want to use conditioning as evidence for relative morality then the evdience I am claiming is no different.

What would be consistent with objective morality would be if every country had the same opinion about whether a state-mandated religion was right or wrong, or if every country had the same conclusion about the age at which young people are able to legally have sex.

This does NOT happen, yet if morality was indeed objective, we would expect it to.

I have already acknowledged this. What I wanted to know is how that relates to the objective event of rape happening.

How many times do I need to tell you this?

I AM NOT SAYING RAPE DOESN'T HAPPEN. I AM NOT SAYING RAPE DOESN'T CAUSE HARM.

I have already told you about misrepresenting my position regarding this, and now you are doing it again.

I am saying that the way it affects the victim is subjective, not objective. You can't say, "Well, the rapist used a condom, so the rape was 23% less traumatic than if he had not used a condom."

Then if its subjective then why doesn't world bodies like the UN not allow an subjective/relative views that devalue life. If it was determined by subjective/relative views then Human Rights are forcing their personal subjective views onto the world. Its like they have declared that everyone should like Star Wars and brussel sprouts and all other preferences are ruled out.

That doesn't sound like a subjective/relative system but rather either the UN and most nations are being dictators or that they believe that Human Rights and other laws protecting and respecting "Life" are universial law and justified to be true.

Because you'r ridiculous notion that accepting that morality is subjective means we should accept and welcome moral viewpoints that we disagree with is just plain wrong.

I have the subjective viewpoint that manure does not taste good.

But if someone brings a plate of it to my barbecue, I'm still going to toss it out.

Well perhaps thats because your expectation of what evidence should be is all wrong. Your looking for the knock down evdience of science like in a test tube. Well that ain't gonna happen when it comes to morality. The evdience is in how we live morality out in real life. There is no other way.

So its good you agree that not mugging people is a better way to behave than mugging them. We have already worked out one subjective view of behaviour that we can disregard as wrong. So if someone says I think mugging is the best way for humans to behave we can say they are objectively wrong.

We could probably come up with a bit of a list for how we can behave in better ways morally using this method.

And yet you apparently have the arrogant opinion that it must be me who is wrong, because it couldn't possibly be you.

 

[Kylie]

Why is the subjective not objective?

Because the two are mutually contradictory.

It's like saying a circular square, or a married bachelor. If something is one, then by definition it can not be the other.

If you don't understand this concept regarding subjective and objective, I would suggest that maybe you are not familiar enough with the topic to join the discussion.

 

[Kylie]

Animals' biodiversity and instincts demonstrate it in a far simpler way.

"Absolute" is a metaphor for "approximation to absolute".

I've skipped 1,200 posts but I will say any ideology that devalues me in the name of a power bigger than me frightens me.

How do you understand the power equation?

I don't see how this is at all relevant to the discussion.

 

[Kylie]

This is where individual degrees of inference (something animals can't do) are meant to help.

Actually, it is widely accepted that animals can infer. APA PsycNet

 

[Chriliman]

Okay, let's look at this.

Person A says to me, "Kylie, please don't enter my house without my express permission."

Does that mean it is objectively wrong to enter a house without permission? No. Because Person B might say, "Kylie, if you believe that it is in your best interests, or my best interests, or anyone else's best interests to enter my house without permission, you go right ahead."

So the idea of entering someone's house without there permission is SUBJECTIVELY wrong from the viewpoint of Person A.

But if we say it is OBJECTIVELY wrong, then it must also apply to Person B, and yet they have clearly stated that it doesn't.

Thus, entering a person's house without their permission is subjectively wrong. It is not objectively wrong.

So why can’t it be objectively wrong to enter the house of the person who’s asking you not to, while simultaneously be objectively ok to enter the house of the person who says it’s ok? It would all be happening in objective reality, so I don’t see why both scenarios can’t be considered objective when they depend on different facts(different people making opposite requests).

Maybe a better way to understand it is to say the objectively good course of action depends on the subject and their request(while acknowledging the subject’s request exists in objective reality as a fact).

 

[Kylie]

So why can’t it be objectively wrong to enter the house of the person who’s asking you not to, while simultaneously be objectively ok to enter the house of the person who says it’s ok? It would all be happening in objective reality, so I don’t see why both scenarios can’t be considered objective when they depend on different facts(different people making opposite requests).

Maybe a better way to understand it is to say the objectively good course of action depends on the subject and their request(while acknowledging the subject’s request exists in objective reality as a fact).

Two things.

It is an objective fact that the person made a request. That does not mean their request is objectively correct, since other people may make completely different requests. Once again, there is the assumption that something subjective existing objectively somehow transforms the subjective thing into an objective thing.

And you really think if I walk past, see the guy in the window choking and falling to the floor, I'm going to say, "I wish I could help, but he told me not to enter his house without permission."

 

[Moral Orel]

So in that situation the right/good moral fact or action would be to not violate the innocent person?

Your claim would be that the right thing to do is to not violate the innocent person. Or you could say you ought/should not violate the innocent person. But that's your claim. You haven't demonstrated that your claim is true in any way yet.

 

[Moral Orel]

Then we need a category called "subjective facts" because these introspective finding dont satisfy the basic requirements of objectivity.

No such thing necessary. Saying "objective fact" is merely redundant for emphasis. The same way we say "it's really actually true".

You know what you like or dislike. Things you know are facts. All facts are true and therefore objective. There are objective facts about subjective things, you know.

This not as unreasonable as it sounds, as facts are fundamentally propositions, and not necessarily truths.

Nope. If it's a fact, then it's true.

Fact Definition

 

[Amittai]

Q ... The respect we show others? The respect we show to ourselves? And the question "what is?" ... UQ

- to both of those, and to everything
- the pronominal phrase means "that which is"

These are among the beginning points of my degrees of inference, which incidentally help everybody argue all viewpoints soundly (by taking a step back).

Actually, it is widely accepted that animals can infer. APA PsycNet

Yes, to a far simpler degree than our degrees. For them it has a big proportion of instinct / reflex. Their reactions in limited situations may appear like a simple form of inference. The degrees of inference we do, depend on indefinite background knowledge. Tentative inferences can sometimes be firm enough to act upon provisionally.

My remark on biodiversity meant that differing temperaments afford the whole human species a "belt and braces" approach to overall survival by suggesting a wider range of thinking strategies.

Q "Absolute" is a metaphor for "approximation to absolute". UQ

The OP and thread title include the concept "absolute", upon which I am commenting. We attain approximations through the collective sum of our partial observations, such as they are.

I mentioned power because I presume the topic gets provoked by rival gangs attempting to hijack political apparatus for what is made to look like hobby horses by an unworthy standard of argument. Laws of the land, for example, have come into the thread earlier.

Q durangodawood said: ↑
Then we need a category called "subjective facts" because these introspective finding dont satisfy the basic requirements of objectivity.
UQ

Edmund Husserl's findings (as adjusted by Walter Hopp) not only resolved Descartes' dualism problem but offer us a way to get round the button pushing system (memes and counter memes). But these were ignored by the influential Heidegger and Hartshorne, who also distorted and disregarded the insights of Bergson into time, the logic of Charles Peirce and the remarks of A N Whitehead on confluences of events.

The triumphal Manifest Destiny-oriented William James was hugely influential at that time in carrying the day for those who hypocritically and unsoundly claimed their absolutes.

The real effect of this issue is that objective and subjective are not zero sum (and some people had indeed intuited this). Hence the huge value in helping everybody argue all viewpoints on solider grounds.

In regard to the person going past the window I think we should all use our own faculty of prudence and discretion, such as it might be at the time. If we would be less fixated on heaping blame we would get more comfortable with genuine grey areas.

 

[Amittai]

God murdered children when he order a few genocides and dashed skulks and great floods etc.

Attributing to Him some intent was a figure of speech, a "just so" story. As I see it, God's challenge to christians in letting the Bible be given us like it is, is to teach good interpretations (which are going to largely be indirect). Calvinists adopted the policy of weaponising Holy Scripture against the public. McLuhan warned of the hazard of further seizing cameras and microphones in any "cause" like the televangelists have done.

 

[Amittai]

But according to moral realism Maths works like morality.

And especially not the other way round, yes: look at expressions like "right" angle", "does it square" etc.

(All language is metaphorical incidentally.)

The quote from IEP that SteveVW gives is full of words like "sometimes" and "might be" which gets us on firm enough ground to be getting on with.

 

[LightLoveHope]

So in that situation the right/good moral fact or action would be to not violate the innocent person?

In christian culture we have the concept of innocence and guilt. It is easy to talk about an innocent person has some moral problem put on them by another, so justice would mean action.

I then came across the idea in Islam where innocence is lost by the group irrespective of the individual, so you can do anything against them and be morally right.

Or this phrase, it is wrong to kill someone unless they are guilty of corruption. Now the first phrase seems fine, a nice moral sentiment on the sanctity of life, but the second part, corruption is undefined and in the hands of the actor. So it validates any killing if the killer feels the individual is guilty of corruption. You may as well say any psychopath can get upset and kill anyone they like.

Now whole cultures have taken this on as their moral code. If morality was so obvious and universal, objective, how is it whole societies can be destroyed in this simple way.

It comes down to emotional loyalty. God puts our loyalty to Him at the top, and His commands stand above any other. So if the Lord says kill a king of the Philistines do it. Saul failed this simple principle. In Islam the idea is the law must be followed above everything else irrespective of feelings towards the party against whom the action is taken.

What struck home to me was a film following some missionaries who were living with a cannibal tribe in Papua New Guinea. There highest ethic was betrayal so they really liked Judas. The gospel message hit home, when to gain peace, the tribes leader, had to give their son to the other tribe, so as long as they were alive there was peace. Their love for their child struck home love conquers betrayal and revenge.

God bless you

 

[Amittai]

That there is a rock in my yard may be objective does not entail that "I like the rock in my yard" is objective.

Bearing in mind argument from analogy is invalid, if we go to what these are the analogy is for, we can with Gary Klein * realise that intuition is meant to give us a starting point or ball park to reason from. I like the line attributed to Harris in this matter. It doesn't look like an "absolute" in a superficial sense, but it has got the all-important perspective.

* The power of intuition, 2004.

 

[Amittai]

The problem is that if all knowledge of things like science was lost, then we'd be able to find it again.

No more easily than the Moroccan MoJ in the situation cited. Most science was repeatedly thrown out and we are with difficulty recovering some; merely to point out that that specific example doesn't help this part of your contrast at this point in your argument.

 

[Amittai]

Because the two are mutually contradictory.

They aren't zero sum. Which "topic" are you referring to?

Q ... any ideology that devalues me in the name of a power bigger than me frightens me ...

I don't see how this is at all relevant to the discussion. UQ

The moral wars are waged by people bigger than us to cow us. We can't defeat them by caving in.

 

[Tom 1]

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

I think all moral systems are ultimately based on a scale of affect on emotion, including things like physical pain/suffering also, from what feels the absolute best to what feels the absolute worst. Something like casual sex can feel great at the time, but is transitory, and may lead to other emotional and practical complications etc., whereas the ups and downs of a committed relationship can ultimately lead to much a more satisfying (although changeable) emotional state. The kind of situation that leads to a reduction of stress and physical suffering - a settled society of some kind - requires social contracts we think of as being moral. While no example is entirely clear cut or fully explanatory, I’m pretty sure that’s what it ultimately comes down to.

 

[Chriliman]

Two things.

It is an objective fact that the person made a request. That does not mean their request is objectively correct, since other people may make completely different requests. Once again, there is the assumption that something subjective existing objectively somehow transforms the subjective thing into an objective thing.

And you really think if I walk past, see the guy in the window choking and falling to the floor, I'm going to say, "I wish I could help, but he told me not to enter his house without permission."

I would disagree and say just because somethings objective doesn’t mean it has to be correct. The fact that someone tells a lie doesn’t mean the lie is correct. So a request can be objective without being correct.

 

[durangodawood]

....Nope. If it's a fact, then it's true.

Fact Definition

When you look deeper, the dictionary definition doesn't suffice. This often happens

Look things we called facts that were later proven untrue. You begin to see that "fact" is a unit of human knowledge, subject to revision.

 

[Chriliman]

Your claim would be that the right thing to do is to not violate the innocent person. Or you could say you ought/should not violate the innocent person. But that's your claim. You haven't demonstrated that your claim is true in any way yet.

But the claim(or imperative) is based on the facts of the situation and therefore anyone who may want to ignore the facts and do what they want anyway, should expect resistance. Key points are "based on the facts" and "ignore the facts" for why the imperative is correct/right/good and why ignoring the facts is incorrect/wrong/bad.