Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

Whether you believe it or not has no effect on whether it is true or not. You're free to believe false things if you wish.

I know that. I'm trying to determine if what he said is actually true or actually false, if it's false and he values reason based on truth, then he'll stop believing it.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Is what you just said an objective fact? If you don't think it is then why is your reasoning based on it?

No, it's just a philosophical argument that I happen to agree with. The is/ought problem was first argued by Hume, around 300 years ago. I've read a number of responses to it, all of which I have found to be unconvincing. Perhaps you disagree though, and think there is a way around it.

If you do think it's an objective fact then it's self-defeating because that implies I should accept what you're saying as true or fact. I said the same to Moral Orel before, but to little effect, but maybe I'm missing something.

You are indeed missing something. You got it exactly backwards.

If the is/ought problem is a fact, that would mean it does not follow that you should accept it...unless you also value being reasonable and predicating your worldview on facts, which is necessarily a subjective consideration.

 

[Bradskii]

Well you've decided harm is what makes an act "wrong". What reason do you have for that decision?

Harm is the term we use to describe a negative experience. One that we'd prefer not to have. One that we'd actively try to avoid. So purposely commiting an act that results in harm is comitting an act that results in an experience that someone would prefer not to have.

If it's an experience that you want to have or are indifferent to, then there's no harm.

 

[Moral Orel]

I know that. I'm trying to determine if what he said is actually true or actually false, if it's false and he values reason based on truth, then he'll stop believing it.

What he said is mostly true. You can't get an "ought" from an "is". You need to understand what that means, though. Take a look at this sample argument:

P1 A is B
P2 B is C
C A is C

This is a valid argument. A and C are both contained in the premises, so it's possible to derive a conclusion about their relation. Now consider this argument:

P1 A is X
P2 B is X
C C is X

This is an invalid argument. There is no C in the premises, so the conclusion does not derive from the premises because you essentially introduced it out of thin air.

Back to your claim that we know what is wrong looking merely at the facts of the circumstances, you are making an invalid argument like the second form I presented. That the act is "wrong" is your claim, your conclusion. Nowhere is there a premise that connects "wrongness" to your conclusion.

Nowhere in this demonstration have I either explicitly or implicitly stated that you "ought" to believe this. That is where your argument falters. These things are true with no regard to what you believe.

 

[Moral Orel]

Harm is the term we use to describe a negative experience. One that we'd prefer not to have. One that we'd actively try to avoid. So purposely commiting an act that results in harm is comitting an act that results in an experience that someone would prefer not to have.

So then it does boil down to preferences as I've said. You've agreed with me quite explicitly.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps, "We'll know it when we see it" really means "I'll know it when I see it". If so then morality is both relative and subjective.

Of course. You are the only person who can determine if you think something is moral or not. You look at all aspects of the matter and, in your opinion, you consider it to be immoral or not. Who else is going to decide for you?

You can be told that something is immoral. You can be persuaded that something is immoral. You can agree that something is immoral. But there's only one person who is responsible for making the decision.

 

[Bradskii]

So then it does boil down to preferences as I've said. You've agreed with me quite explicitly.

I don't think I've disagreed with you in that respect. As @Eight Foot Manchild said, it's down to value. We prefer that which we value. I value my health. I prefer to maintain it. I value my car. I'd l'd prefer if no-one stole it. If someone did, I'd class that as being wrong. Harm has been done. Therefore it was immoral to steal it.

 

[Bradskii]

Our personal feelings and those of others are also facts to consider in any given circumstance, so why look any further than the facts of the circumstance and base our reasoning on those objective facts?

So when it comes to stealing we can say it’s always wrong to take someone else’s property for the sole reason of personal(selfish) gain with no intention of returning it and knowing they wouldn’t want you to steal it. There’s a lot of conditions there, but it’s important to have those to make the point that it’s objectively wrong given those specific conditions.

This confirms what I've been saying. Something in itself cannot be absolutely wrong. We need to know the conditions. As you have just illustrated. And we are talking about absolute morality. Did you mean 'it's objectively wrong' or 'it's absolutely wrong' in that last sentence?

 

[Chriliman]

What he said is mostly true. You can't get an "ought" from an "is". You need to understand what that means, though. Take a look at this sample argument:

P1 A is B
P2 B is C
C A is C

This is a valid argument. A and C are both contained in the premises, so it's possible to derive a conclusion about their relation. Now consider this argument:

P1 A is X
P2 B is X
C C is X

This is an invalid argument. There is no C in the premises, so the conclusion does not derive from the premises because you essentially introduced it out of thin air.

Back to your claim that we know what is wrong looking merely at the facts of the circumstances, you are making an invalid argument like the second form I presented. That the act is "wrong" is your claim, your conclusion. Nowhere is there a premise that connects "wrongness" to your conclusion.

Nowhere in this demonstration have I either explicitly or implicitly stated that you "ought" to believe this. That is where your argument falters. These things are true with no regard to what you believe.

But if I want to believe true things and I should do what I want, then I should believe you, no?

 

[Moral Orel]

But if I want to believe true things and I should do what I want, then I should believe you, no?

That you "should" do something has not entered this. I have stated a fact that is true. Period.

 

[Chriliman]

This confirms what I've been saying. Something in itself cannot be absolutely wrong. We need to know the conditions. As you have just illustrated. And we are talking about absolute morality. Did you mean 'it's objectively wrong' or 'it's absolutely wrong' in that last sentence?

Im saying we need to know the conditions to determine if it’s objectively wrong. Not sure how you see objective being different from absolute. Can you elaborate on that?

 

[Chriliman]

That you "should" do something has not entered this. I have stated a fact that is true. Period.

You didn’t enter it, but I did based on logic and facts. I do think you made a good point, good job.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think I've disagreed with you in that respect. As @Eight Foot Manchild said, it's down to value. We prefer that which we value. I value my health. I prefer to maintain it. I value my car. I'd l'd prefer if no-one stole it. If someone did, I'd class that as being wrong. Harm has been done. Therefore it was immoral to steal it.

When you state "I value" and "I prefer" you are evaluating your feelings about a thing, not some property of the thing itself. Harm is not a property of an act, it is an experience you have as a result of you interacting with some thing. It is your experience of a thing that you judge, not the thing itself.

 

[Bradskii]

Im saying we need to know the conditions to determine if it’s objectively wrong. Not sure how you see objective being different from absolute. Can you elaborate on that?

I'm surprised that you're asking this far into the discussion.

Facts are objective. It doesn't matter what you think about my car, the fact that it is red has nothing at all to do with how you feel about it. As opposed to subjective. 'Vanilla is better than chocolate' is a subjective statement. It's your subjective opinion (and don't confuse that the fact that you prefer vanilla is an objective fact but the statement itself is relative).

An absolute statement has no qualifiers. No conditions. So 'I love my wife' is an absolute statement. It's not conditional. Which it would be if I said 'I love my wife if...' or 'I love my wife when...'. They'd be relative statements. My feelings would be relative to something she does.

Morality has no absolute statements. As we have seen, an absolute statement such as 'stealing is wrong' doesn't stand alone. It needs some objective facts to allow us to determine if it's morally right or not. Semantics aside, stealing my car just because you wanted it (we've qualified the act) would be wrong. Stealing my gun to prevent me shooting someone (we've again qualified the act) would be ok.

And to be able to define something as being wrong, harm must either be done or be intended.

 

[Bradskii]

When you state "I value" and "I prefer" you are evaluating your feelings about a thing, not some property of the thing itself. Harm is not a property of an act, it is an experience you have as a result of you interacting with some thing. It is your experience of a thing that you judge, not the thing itself.

No argument there. We use terms like harm so that we can agree on certain matters. You and I would agree that having your car stolen is causing harm to you. What is rightfully yours, that for which you have worked to pay for, has been taken. It's most definitely a feeling that you have when it's stolen (anger, frustration, a sense of loss etc) and I can empathise with that so we can agree it's 'wrong'.

So yes, harm is not the property of an act. It's sometimes the result of an act. And it has to be shown to exist for the act to be classed as immoral. And the same act may be considered harmful or harmless in different circumstances. Swearing in front of my friends would cause no harm. Swearing in front of my grandmother would. It's all relative...

 

[Moral Orel]

No argument there. We use terms like harm so that we can agree on certain matters. You and I would agree that having your car stolen is causing harm to you. What is rightfully yours, that for which you have worked to pay for, has been taken. It's most definitely a feeling that you have when it's stolen (anger, frustration, a sense of loss etc) and I can empathise with that so we can agree it's 'wrong'.

So yes, harm is not the property of an act. It's sometimes the result of an act. And it has to be shown to exist for the act to be classed as immoral. And the same act may be considered harmful or harmless in different circumstances. Swearing in front of my friends would cause no harm. Swearing in front of my grandmother would. It's all relative...

Not relative, subjective.

Harm is not a property of the act, and so neither is "wrongness". It's a misnomer to say "that act is wrong" the same way it's a misnomer to say "chocolate ice cream is good".

It's like if I were to say, "Ice cream is good when it contains chocolate". We can objectively determine that cocoa dust is present in the ice cream, but that doesn't mean we've made an objectively true statement. We've merely added a veneer of objectivity. When the reality is simply that I prefer the flavor of chocolate and that is why I say chocolate makes ice cream good, I haven't really done anything other than state my preference for chocolate.

So if you were to say, "An act is only wrong if it causes harm" we might objectively determine that harm occurred, but that doesn't mean you've made an objectively true statement. The reality is simply that you prefer harm to be minimized, and that is why you say that wrongness comes from harm. You haven't really done anything other than state your preference for minimal harm.

Your determination that harm be the deciding factor in morality is in itself a preference. Most people share that preference, true. But that doesn't make it anything other than a preference.

 

[Bradskii]

Your determination that harm be the deciding factor in morality is in itself a preference. Most people share that preference, true. But that doesn't make it anything other than a preference.

Feel free to offer an alternative.

 

[Chriliman]

I'm surprised that you're asking this far into the discussion.

Facts are objective. It doesn't matter what you think about my car, the fact that it is red has nothing at all to do with how you feel about it. As opposed to subjective. 'Vanilla is better than chocolate' is a subjective statement. It's your subjective opinion (and don't confuse that the fact that you prefer vanilla is an objective fact but the statement itself is relative).

But I would argue there is an objective basis for why you like vanilla better than chocolate. It's based on your bodies biological makeup, which is objective.

An absolute statement has no qualifiers. No conditions. So 'I love my wife' is an absolute statement. It's not conditional. Which it would be if I said 'I love my wife if...' or 'I love my wife when...'. They'd be relative statements. My feelings would be relative to something she does.

But isn't that statement based on the condition that you have a wife that you love?

Morality has no absolute statements. As we have seen, an absolute statement such as 'stealing is wrong' doesn't stand alone. It needs some objective facts to allow us to determine if it's morally right or not.

But we need the same thing for your wife. We need an objective fact that your wife exists in order to determine that it's true that you love her.

Semantics aside, stealing my car just because you wanted it (we've qualified the act) would be wrong. Stealing my gun to prevent me shooting someone (we've again qualified the act) would be ok.

It is important how you define stealing in this case. The way it's typically defined would mean it's not necessary to steal the gun, and therefore still wrong, like we discussed.

And to be able to define something as being wrong, harm must either be done or be intended.

Yes, and more specifically, harm thats not wanted for any reason. For example: my trainer harms me by pushing me to the limits, but I want that in order to get stronger.(I don’t actually have a trainer)

 

[Bradskii]

But I would argue there is an objective basis for why you like vanilla better than chocolate. It's based on your bodies biological makeup, which is objective.

If you're trying to suggest that the statement 'vanilla is better than chocolate' is an objective one, then we are done. Thanks for your input.

 

[Moral Orel]

Feel free to offer an alternative.

Why? I prefer my ice cream to have chocolate. Feel free to offer an alternative.

What's the point in swapping preferences? Maybe we feel the same about things, maybe we don't. Is one of us "right" to feel a certain way and one of us "wrong" to feel a certain way? No.