Is there an absolute morality?

[Bradskii]

Yes, and my intentions become objective once I do them.

All moral problems have objective facts associated with them. That's a given. We cannot determine a moral act without them. Your intentions are one of the objective facts. They don't become objective facts when you do them. Giving a gift to someone is an objective fact. It's yours and you give it to someone else. Why you do it - your intentions, is another objective fact.

If we need to find out if an act is moral or not, these are facts which we need to determine. So...

What was the act? Giving someone a CD.
1. Was it a gift? Yes. An objective fact.
2. What was your intention? To make her happy. Another objective fact.
3. To what end? Nothing other than making her happy. Another objective fact.

So we look at the act itself and relate it to the facts we have. We look at the act relative to those facts. And we determine it was morally good.

We can change any of items 1- 3 and we'd need to make another determination. So if 1 and 2 stay the same but 3 becomes 'I wanted her to be pleased with me so she'd feel obliged to accept an offer of dinner' then we relate it to the new facts and it becones less morally acceptable. Relative to those facts.

 

[Chriliman]

All moral problems have objective facts associated with them. That's a given. We cannot determine a moral act without them. Your intentions are one of the objective facts. They don't become objective facts when you do them. Giving a gift to someone is an objective fact. It's yours and you give it to someone else. Why you do it - your intentions, is another objective fact.

If we need to find out if an act is moral or not, these are facts which we need to determine. So...

What was the act? Giving someone a CD.
1. Was it a gift? Yes. An objective fact.
2. What was your intention? To make her happy. Another objective fact.
3. To what end? Nothing other than making her happy. Another objective fact.

So we look at the act itself and relate it to the facts we have. We look at the act relative to those facts. And we determine it was morally good.

We can change any of items 1- 3 and we'd need to make another determination. So if 1 and 2 stay the same but 3 becomes 'I wanted her to be pleased with me so she'd feel obliged to accept an offer of dinner' then we relate it to the new facts and it becones less morally acceptable. Relative to those facts.

Yes, and I don’t see how/why just because the objective facts may change means it’s not based on objectivity and is somehow only subjective or relative?

I could agree that it’s objectively relative.

Also interesting to note that if you never express your intentions then no one can know them(they can’t consider them objective). Though they do still exist in objective reality, within your mind.

 

[Alistair_Wonderland]

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

So few words, yet such a difficult question! Luckily, God actually addresses this in the Bible. Ecclesiastes 3 1-8 states how "for everything there is a season". This is, of course, within the context of more general acts; if you start to specify and say "is there a season for punching annoying friends named Juan who wear orange t-shirts and spill my White Claw", then you will probably run into a lot of things which are just forbidden straight up.

For example, there is never a time for rape, but there is a time and place for sex, and the Song of Solomon celebrates that time and place, while also condemning sex when done in an adulterous situation. Likewise, God says "Thou shalt not kill", then tells David "Hey, go slaughter that entire city". God isn't being self-contradictory here; this is proof that God is not just a construct of man's laws, since God realizes that morality is complicated, and that what is wrong at one time is acceptable in another.

It is my belief that sin is not the arbitrary word of some cosmic despot, but rather that which brings imbalance to the world, and our loving Creator warns us against it because He knows of the dangers of it, but He is also aware of the need for balance. Sometimes you need to accept and love others, but toxic positivity can actually have negative effects; ergo, things are out of balance. On the flip side, cynicism will taint one's life and also have negative effects.
Most things in life are like this. A certain level of balance must be found, and often morality is very situational. A lot of sin is more in the rebellious spirit; the act itself will be judged by God, but the rebellious spirit is what He finds most offensive.

So do your best to listen to God, and remember, if you make some mistakes along the way, that's all covered. It's impossible to always make the right choice, even if you're trying to, and God knows that. That's why He died for us. So do your best to be your best, and let God take care of the rest.

Edit: Oh. Missed the "atheist" thing below your pic. Okay, all the stuff about God aside, this is the basis of the Christian religion and why I believe it to have such a positive influence. I agree, too many Christians oversimplify morality. The basis of morality is, at it's core, what brings things into perfect balance, which we believe is the perfection God intended for the world.
In terms of a scale, thought, not all things weigh the same. In a world of perfect balance, we would have no need of violence, but sometimes to balance the scales from one extreme another is needed to prevent total collapse. It's a broken system, but Christianity recognizes that the world is broken and needs a fix.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, and I don’t see how/why just because the objective facts may change means it’s not based on objectivity and is somehow only subjective or relative?

I could agree that it’s objectively relative.

Also interesting to note that if you never express your intentions then no one can know them(they can’t consider them objective). Though they do still exist in objective reality, within your mind.

Well, if the facts change and the determination as to whether an act is morally acceptable or not changes with them, then the act is, by definition, relative to those facts. I'm at a loss as how that could be made any clearer.

And 'objectively relative'? That's grasping a non existant straw.

And if we ask what your intentions are and you cross your arms and say 'Not going to tell you' then the act is indeterminate as it comes to the morality of your actions.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, if the facts change and the determination as to whether an act is morally acceptable or not changes with them, then the act is, by definition, relative to those facts. I'm at a loss as how that could be made any clearer.

And 'objectively relative'? That's grasping a non existant straw.

And if we ask what your intentions are and you cross your arms and say 'Not going to tell you' then the act is indeterminate as it comes to the morality of your actions.

Ok, but just because your morality may be relative to facts doesn’t mean it can’t be based on facts(objective). I don’t see a way to make that more clear.

What I hear you saying is that if something changes with the facts then it can’t be objective, yet that’s exactly what being objective means, based on facts.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok, but just because your morality may be relative to facts doesn’t mean it can’t be based on facts(objective). I don’t see a way to make that more clear.

What I hear you saying is that if something changes with the facts then it can’t be objective, yet that’s exactly what being objective means, based on facts.

The facts of any given matter are objective. By definition. If the morality of an act depends upon, is based upon, the facts of the matter - and it obviously does, then that act is relative to those facts. Again, by definition.

If the facts change, then the determination of whether the act is morally acceptable or not will need to be re-addressed. Because the act is relative to the facts. Relative to the conditions under which it was performed.

 

[Chriliman]

The facts of any given matter are objective. By definition. If the morality of an act depends upon, is based upon, the facts of the matter - and it obviously does, then that act is relative to those facts. Again, by definition.

I agree, you might even call this an objective fact.

If the facts change, then the determination of whether the act is morally acceptable or not will need to be re-addressed. Because the act is relative to the facts. Relative to the conditions under which it was performed.

I agree, I just don't understand why you think reevaluating moral acceptance based on new facts, isn't being objective.

 

[Bradskii]

I agree, I just don't understand why you think reevaluating moral acceptance based on new facts, isn't being objective.

Facts are objective. They stand alone. They are not subject to other matters. My car is red. That my car is red is an objective fact.

Morality is subjective. I just shot someone. The morality of that act is not an objective fact. We cannot determine if it is morally acceptable or not without considering the circumstances. Without relating it to the facts of the matter.

 

[Chriliman]

Facts are objective. They stand alone. They are not subject to other matters. My car is red. That my car is red is an objective fact.

Morality is subjective. I just shot someone. The morality of that act is not an objective fact. We cannot determine if it is morally acceptable or not without considering the circumstances. Without relating it to the facts of the matter.

The complexity of a situation doesn’t dictate whether it’s possible to objectively determine moral acceptance. It just takes more time and consideration, it’s not as simple as seeing the fact of a red car.

So you think it’s impossible to objectively determine murder is wrong, simply because there’s a lot of facts to consider?

 

[Bradskii]

The complexity of a situation doesn’t dictate whether it’s possible to objectively determine moral acceptance. It just takes more time and consideration, it’s not as simple as seeing the fact of a red car.

So you think it’s impossible to objectively determine murder is wrong, simply because there’s a lot of facts to consider?

Murder is taking a life under certain conditions. Relative to those conditions. Those conditions are the facts of the matter. If the facts determine that it was done with intent, premeditated etc then it can be defined as murder. The taking of a life relative to the facts.

When I said I shot someone earlier, the conditions were unknown. The facts of the matter hadn't been presented. So it might have been murder or justifiable homicide. The facts will determine the morality. It will be relative to the circumstances. Relative to the facts.

All acts that can be described as moral or immoral need to have the conditions specified. It's not possible to determine the morality without them. Murder already has the conditions specified. Please feel free to give me an act that has no condions associated with it. If you find one, it will be an objective fact.

Let me know when you have one.

 

[Chriliman]

Murder is taking a life under certain conditions. Relative to those conditions. Those conditions are the facts of the matter. If the facts determine that it was done with intent, premeditated etc then it can be defined as murder. The taking of a life relative to the facts.

When I said I shot someone earlier, the conditions were unknown. The facts of the matter hadn't been presented. So it might have been murder or justifiable homicide. The facts will determine the morality. It will be relative to the circumstances. Relative to the facts.

All acts that can be described as moral or immoral need to have the conditions specified. It's not possible to determine the morality without them. Murder already has the conditions specified. Please feel free to give me an act that has no condions associated with it. If you find one, it will be an objective fact.

Let me know when you have one.

True, but how is that different from seeing the fact of a red car? Seeing the fact of a red car is based on the condition that a red car exists within your field of view.

It’s not different, just simpler or easier to determine because the conditions are more obvious.

 

[Bradskii]

True, but how is that different from seeing the fact of a red car? Seeing the fact of a red car is based on the condition that a red car exists within your field of view.

It’s not different, just simpler or easier to determine because the conditions are more obvious.

If there is a red car in my drive and it's my car, then 'my car is red' is a fact. As long as it remains mine and it stays red 'my car is red' is an objective fact.

'I shot my neighbour' is an objective fact (well, let's assume it is). I have a gun and I pointed it the person living next door and pulled the trigger. The bullet hit him in the head.

So there are two objective facts. Undeniable. Easily confirmed. Now the second is an act and we need to determine if it was morally acceptable. How are you going to do that?

 

[Chriliman]

If there is a red car in my drive and it's my car, then 'my car is red' is a fact. As long as it remains mine and it stays red 'my car is red' is an objective fact.

'I shot my neighbour' is an objective fact (well, let's assume it is). I have a gun and I pointed it the person living next door and pulled the trigger. The bullet hit him in the head.

So there are two objective facts. Undeniable. Easily confirmed. Now the second is an act and we need to determine if it was morally acceptable. How are you going to do that?

I would try to determine the next fact, which is whether the killing was justified or not—self defense or saving someone else, which means determining the killers(and the person who got shot) factual intentions or motives. Now before we go down this road of making up different scenarios to justify our positions, you seem to be saying it's impossible to determine those factual motives. Because if you thought it were possible then you'd agree it's possible to objectively determine whether the shooting was wrong or not.

So please just answer the question of whether you think it's possible or not? If you think it's impossible, then we can agree to disagree here. If you think it's possible, then great, we agree.

 

[LightLoveHope]

I would be much more convinced of this if there weren't such wildly differing moral viewpoints throughout different societies.



I have argued for a long time that morality is based on empathy.



This sounds rather contradictory. It sounds like you are saying that we all have the same morality hard wired into us (not even sure what evidence you have to support that claim), but that morality is still subjective.

The main point about morality is not the differences within cultures, but that it exists, innately. If one is going to be purely biological, no creature or group would be able to function unless the basic drivers were not baked into the behaviour of the creatures. We like to believe we have free will, we can choose. This is true except the major drivers of our lives are so deeply embedded in our psychology, cross them and things go badly. There is a reason why it takes 20 years to become an adult. You have to learn all the group expressions and ways of expressing oneself within the group.

From a survival perspective, the group who functions best, ie looks after its own and destroys its enemies survives and builds a large community. If you look at people as emotional creatures who build mind models of their world, morality is an analytical definition of behaviour patterns and group dynamics.
Simple morality like honouring ones parents, not murdering, not stealing, not lying, not making up stories about others, not desiring other peoples things so much it distorts ones own life, honouring ones commitments like marriage.

A group cannot be cohesive unless trust is honoured out of which the rest follows.
One reason we as a society are protective of children with regards to sex, is because it causes great emotional harm if not dealt with carefully. Once you realise this, it is not difficult for the group to build a morality around this. I would argue the codified morality is not the source but the emotional context to which it is addresses.

If anyone looks at the consequences of ignoring the emotional cost of ignoring morality, is just ignorant of themselves and their lives. The reason therapy has risen so greatly because our emotions define how we experience everything and if the cause us great pain, it is very hard to live with this.

With modern medicine we have been able to conquer sexual transmitted diseases, and restrict pregnancies, we have become sexual liberated, or rather we have become more distant and disturbed at how bonding and sex need to be related to real love, not just chemistry. So affairs and break ups are more common place, and fear of trust or faithfulness a real burden rather than a celebration of intimacy.

God bless you

 

[o_mlly]

... The morality of that act is not an objective fact. We cannot determine if it is morally acceptable or not without considering the circumstances.

Human acts that are immoral in their object or immoral in the actor's intention can never be judged moral by any set of circumstances.

So there are two objective facts. Undeniable. Easily confirmed. Now the second is an act and we need to determine if it was morally acceptable. How are you going to do that?

Only in ignorance of the salient facts can one claim that morality is relative. For example, consider a parallel issue with two undeniable objective facts: I'm driving my own car on the highway. I'm traveling at 70 mph. Am I driving legally?

 

[Bradskii]

I would try to determine the next fact, which is whether the killing was justified or not—self defense or saving someone else, which means determining the killers(and the person who got shot) factual intentions or motives. Now before we go down this road of making up different scenarios to justify our positions, you seem to be saying it's impossible to determine those factual motives. Because if you thought it were possible then you'd agree it's possible to objectively determine whether the shooting was wrong or not.

Good. We need to find out what the circumstances were. The objective facts of the matter. Because the morality of the act will depend on, is relative to, the circumstances. So in some circumsatnces it will be justified and in some cases it won't. If the circumstances change then the morality of the act might change as well.

This is the definition of relative morality. When an act is dependent upon the circumstances.

If you define an act (whether we are considering its moral aspect or not) as objective simply because we can define all the circumstances in the specific example, then nothing is relative. Everything becomes objective. We can actually remove the term 'relative' from the dictionary because it would cease to have meaning.

 

[Bradskii]

Human acts that are immoral in their object or immoral in the actor's intention can never be judged moral by any set of circumstances.

Does that act cause harm in your opinion?

Only in ignorance of the salient facts can one claim that morality is relative. For example, consider a parallel issue with two undeniable objective facts: I'm driving my own car on the highway. I'm traveling at 70 mph. Am I driving legally?

Not if you're typing that question at the same time. Which is an unknown. As are many other factors. So a determination can't be made. So how can morality be relative when we don't have enough information to even determine whether it's a moral or immoral act? Or even amoral. A moral (or immoral or amoral) act is an act defined by the circumstances. Unless you know of one that isn't. I asked Chriliman the same question, but no response as yet. You can give it a go if you like.

 

[Kylie]

Can you quote, word for word, what I said that shows why you think I’m confused? Because I’ve corrected you on this multiple times.

For example, in post 1518, when you said, "So a request can be objective without being correct."

We are talking about two different things here.

1. That something was said.
2. What it was that was said.

The two are not related. Yet you seem to be using the same word (request, in that particular case) to refer to both.

Essentially, Im saying if a moral position proves to be true/good/right then it’s objectively true/good/right. I’m not talking about opinions, I’m only talking about positions that can be proven true/good/right. Do you think such moral positions can exist?

I do not think there is any moral position that can be proved to be true in all cases.

You can't prove the moral position "It is wrong to take $20 from a person's wallet without permission" is going to be true in ALL cases. Sure, most people will agree that it's true in MOST cases, but if it's a case of someone taking the $20 so they can buy life saving medicine, and the wallet owner had previously said no, then I think the theft is quite justified.

(Of course, I also believe that something should be free if you'll die without it, so they idea of anyone saying, "No, you can't have this life saving medicine unless you give me $20" is just wrong from my point of view.)

I’ll take us back to an earlier example: If I know you love Star Trek and would love to have the series on dvd, how would it not be objectively good of me to purchase that for you as a gift? Again, knowing your feelings about Star Trek exist in objective reality(Note that I’m not saying your feelings about Star Trek are objectively correct, I’m just saying they exist, objectively).

Ah, but would that be objectively correct in ALL cases?

"Hello, Kylie, I'm sorry to hear that you are stuck in a burning car that's about to explode. However, I've got something that will make you feel better. The complete collection of Star Trek on DVD!"

 

[Kylie]

The main point about morality is not the differences within cultures, but that it exists, innately. If one is going to be purely biological, no creature or group would be able to function unless the basic drivers were not baked into the behaviour of the creatures.

Actually, behaviours can be genetically programmed in much the same way that physical traits are. Beavers build dams instinctively, for example, even if they've never been exposed to damn building before.

We like to believe we have free will, we can choose. This is true except the major drivers of our lives are so deeply embedded in our psychology, cross them and things go badly. There is a reason why it takes 20 years to become an adult. You have to learn all the group expressions and ways of expressing oneself within the group.

This supports the idea of morality being subjective. Different society with different rules and different values, and you'll get different morality. That's why some cultures think it's okay to chop your hand off if you are guilty of theft, but we would think that's wrong.

From a survival perspective, the group who functions best, ie looks after its own and destroys its enemies survives and builds a large community. If you look at people as emotional creatures who build mind models of their world, morality is an analytical definition of behaviour patterns and group dynamics.
Simple morality like honouring ones parents, not murdering, not stealing, not lying, not making up stories about others, not desiring other peoples things so much it distorts ones own life, honouring ones commitments like marriage.

Again, this speaks to subjective morality. Different behaviour patterns and group dynamics would lead to different moral views.

A group cannot be cohesive unless trust is honoured out of which the rest follows.
One reason we as a society are protective of children with regards to sex, is because it causes great emotional harm if not dealt with carefully. Once you realise this, it is not difficult for the group to build a morality around this. I would argue the codified morality is not the source but the emotional context to which it is addresses.

Again, subjective.

Sex with children in the group causes harm to individuals within the group, thus causing harm to the group. Since the rapist relies on the group to survive, harming the group harms the rapist, and thus the rapist is likely to die and the meme (I use the word here in the original sense, as an idea which can spread, analogous to a gene carrying physical information) that encourages child rape will die out. However, groups with the "don't rape children" meme will avoid the harm caused by child rape, and are so more likely to survive and spread the "don't rape children" meme.

But this only applies to cases where the act is going to cause some amount of harm to the person who carries it out. If the act is NOT going to harm the individual carrying it out, then there's nothing stopping it from spreading. For example, sea otters are known to rape baby seals, and even pet dogs. SOURCE. However, since such actions do not directly harm the otters, there is nothing driving such behaviour to become rarer. Similarly, a lioness will mate with a male lion after he has killed her cubs. I couldn't image going to bed with someone who had killed my child, but in a lion pride, that kind of action would only cause harm, since it would mean that there were no offspring at all, and the pride would die out (taking with it the "don't reproduce with the ones who killed your cubs" meme).

If anyone looks at the consequences of ignoring the emotional cost of ignoring morality, is just ignorant of themselves and their lives. The reason therapy has risen so greatly because our emotions define how we experience everything and if the cause us great pain, it is very hard to live with this.

And emotions are subjective, not objective.

With modern medicine we have been able to conquer sexual transmitted diseases, and restrict pregnancies, we have become sexual liberated, or rather we have become more distant and disturbed at how bonding and sex need to be related to real love, not just chemistry. So affairs and break ups are more common place, and fear of trust or faithfulness a real burden rather than a celebration of intimacy.

Not sure what you're saying here. Sex is fun, and people like sex. Generally speaking, at least. You don't need sex for love, and you don't need love for sex.

 

[Chriliman]

For example, in post 1518, when you said, "So a request can be objective without being correct."

We are talking about two different things here.

1. That something was said.
2. What it was that was said.

The two are not related. Yet you seem to be using the same word (request, in that particular case) to refer to both.

I mean someone can make a request without that request needing to be objectively correct, but it is an objective fact that they made a request. So for example: the request was "Please don't go into my house for any reason". Its an objective fact the request was made, but what the request is saying, isn't necessarily correct, its just a request. That's what I was trying to say by that, which I think agrees with what you're saying? Which is that what a statement is saying is separate from the fact that the statement was made.

I do not think there is any moral position that can be proved to be true in all cases.

You can't prove the moral position "It is wrong to take $20 from a person's wallet without permission"
is going to be true in ALL cases.

But I'd argue it is wrong in ALL cases where the person does not want you to take it from them. In my mind, that constitutes objectively wrong given the factual conditions.

Sure, most people will agree that it's true in MOST cases, but if it's a case of someone taking the $20 so they can buy life saving medicine, and the wallet owner had previously said no, then I think the theft is quite justified.

(Of course, I also believe that something should be free if you'll die without it, so they idea of anyone saying, "No, you can't have this life saving medicine unless you give me $20" is just wrong from my point of view.)

I agree, I just want to point out the factual conditions will dictate what's objectively correct. Which makes sense to me, objectivity is based on facts.

Ah, but would that be objectively correct in ALL cases?

"Hello, Kylie, I'm sorry to hear that you are stuck in a burning car that's about to explode. However, I've got something that will make you feel better. The complete collection of Star Trek on DVD!"

Lol