Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

So again, if you could show me where it is described as evil when someone is accidently killed, I'd appreciate it.

Would it be evil if the person was innocent and didn't want to be killed? Unfair harm was caused, regardless of intent?

Though, honestly, I'd probably just call it an unfortunate accident.

 

[Moral Orel]

Wait, before we go down the semantics rabbit hole again, how is what you will and won't do, based on unfair harm, not moral behavior?

Because morality is about what you should do.

This is more inline with what I'm trying to get at. This why we can say in ALL cases, if you know stealing a car causes unfair stress(bad) and you want to behave well(good), then you won't do it.

Can "good behavior" (how we should behave) be defined in a way that people would be incorrect to disagree with? Then it would be objective.

I care because when I rationalize it out, its clear to me that morality is objective, yet others thinks it's clear to them that it isn't, so trying to figure out how to get to an agreed truth of the matter is interesting to me.

Okay.

 

[Moral Orel]

Don't be flippant.

You said you were certain about "that". You said "that" was a "personal opinion". There's nothing flippant about trying to understand how you mix objective language with what you say is subjective.

Is "your personal opinion" an expression of a belief in a fact that you are unsure of?
If it is not an expression of a belief in a fact, what is it?
Is it an expression of a preference?

So yet again...

You have yet to answer my questions, though I try repeatedly to reformulate them to make it easier for you. We're not jumping topics until you clearly define what the heck you're on about.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would it be evil if the person was innocent and didn't want to be killed?

"innocent" in what context?

Unfair harm was caused, regardless of intent?

As opposed to... "fair" harm?

both terms involve some sort of subjective moral judgement already in place...

Though, honestly, I'd probably just call it an unfortunate accident.

Indeed -- moral judgements are attached to the intent, not the act itself.

If I accidentally knock a potted plant off my windowsill, and it clunks someone on the head on the sidewalk below, the act is not immoral. If I aim for someone.... That's a different story.

 

[Moral Orel]

As opposed to... "fair" harm?

both terms involve some sort of subjective moral judgement already in place...

If I design a board game wherein the rules are the same for all players, then I have designed a fair game because it is equitable and balanced. No mention of whether I "should" design games to be fair, so no mention of morality.

If I have a broken arm, my body has been damaged and we can say that I was harmed. No mention of whether I "should" have had my arm broken, so no mention of morality.

If it were true that we "should" treat people fairly, then we "should" cause harm to folks that cause harm. It would be fair to harm them.

 

[o_mlly]

Would it be evil if the person was innocent and didn't want to be killed? Unfair harm was caused, regardless of intent?

Though, honestly, I'd probably just call it an unfortunate accident.

I don't think we regret our good acts, only our evil acts, i.e., acts with bad outcomes. "Bad" and "evil" are both antonyms of "good". Even the complete absence of culpability does not remove one's responsibility.

 

[childeye 2]

I don't think we regret our good acts, only our evil acts, i.e., acts with bad outcomes. "Bad" and "evil" are both antonyms of "good". Even the complete absence of culpability does not remove one's responsibility.

I think that's a fair description of immorality. However, one needs to care about others to have internal regrets concerning how their actions affect others. So, in the positive sense I also see compassion as an absolute morality in its intention and goal.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If I design a board game wherein the rules are the same for all players, then I have designed a fair game because it is equitable and balanced. No mention of whether I "should" design games to be fair, so no mention of morality.

And yet, there is no obligation for you to design a game where the rules are the same for all players....and in fact, in some cases, no need to.

For example, in the game "Dead By Daylight," four players team up to escape a ruthless serial killer -- the killer operates under very different rules from the other players.

But I digress.

If I have a broken arm, my body has been damaged and we can say that I was harmed. No mention of whether I "should" have had my arm broken, so no mention of morality.

It's not about "should," it's about how and why your arm got broken that morality comes into play.

If it were true that we "should" treat people fairly, then we "should" cause harm to folks that cause harm. It would be fair to harm them.

Not sure where you're going with this... "fair" is a subjective term... as much as "should."

 

[Bradskii]

Tranquil spectators of your brothers’ wreck,
Unmoved by this repellent dance of death,
Who calmly seek the reason of such storms,
Let them but lash your own security;
Your tears will mingle freely with the flood.
When earth its horrid jaws half open shows,
My plaint is innocent, my cries are just.
Surrounded by such cruelties of fate,
By rage of evil and by snares of death,
Fronting the fierceness of the elements,
Sharing our ills, indulge me my lament.

Ah. Poetic license. Like 'The Cruel Sea' perhaps. And you want me to accept that as the basis for determining morality. I might pass. Thanks for telling us where you get your moral philosophy from though. I was hoping to get something vaguely scriptural at the least.

 

[Bradskii]

Would it be evil if the person was innocent and didn't want to be killed? Unfair harm was caused, regardless of intent?

Though, honestly, I'd probably just call it an unfortunate accident.

Me too.

 

[Chriliman]

"innocent" in what context?

Innocent in the sense that they didn't deserve to die.

As opposed to... "fair" harm?

both terms involve some sort of subjective moral judgement already in place...

I'm thinking fair harm happens when you're feeling guilty or being justly punished. Unfair harm is harm inflicted on the undeserving innocent, like Nancy in my earlier car theft scenario, where its unfair harm to take what she rightfully owns. Or the person who got killed by accident.

Indeed -- moral judgements are attached to the intent, not the act itself.

If I accidentally knock a potted plant off my windowsill, and it clunks someone on the head on the sidewalk below, the act is not immoral. If I aim for someone.... That's a different story.

Yet, you would still act as if you did something wrong and apologize for the accident. Wouldn't you?

 

[Chriliman]

Well, no act took place. Remember the conclusion was "I won't steal Nancy's car". So nothing happened, there was no act.

I disagree, not acting is an act in of itself.

Again, you're correct. "Relative" and "objective" are not at odds. I think there was some old nerd with wacky hair about 80 years ago that wrote something about that.

It's like this:

Objective vs Subjective.
Relative vs Absolute.

I don't see why the subjective can't be a result of the objective. Thoughts?

Again, correct. You may believe that all stealing is wrong (which would be a matter of absolutes) but the word "steal" only describes an act; it doesn't imply moral judgement. Even when I used to believe morality could be objective, I would still have said, "Stealing a loaf of bread to feed starving children is a moral thing to do".

I think if we define "stealing" well enough it could be made absolutely wrong if those defined circumstances are fully met. So something like this:

Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it(or pay it back), while knowing it will cause harm greater than the harm caused if you don't steal(my addition).

In some cases, like stealing the bread to feed your kids, it causes less harm to steal it than it would if you didn't steal it, plus you could always try to pay it back, which then isn't even stealing according to the specific definition above. Though, I realize this can open a can of worms of "Well, what about this scenario!"

 

[Chriliman]

Because morality is about what you should do.

That may be part of it, but the definition isn't restricted to that.

Can "good behavior" (how we should behave) be defined in a way that people would be incorrect to disagree with? Then it would be objective.

If you take it easy on the "shoulds" and accept that people will and do behave well, regardless if they should or not, then yes, I think so.

 

[Bradskii]

Yet, you would still act as if you did something wrong and apologize for the accident. Wouldn't you?

For sure. I'm sorry I was so clumsy. But if you trip and knock that plant holder off the balcony and it kills someone, then that has been defined as being evil.

 

[Chriliman]

For sure. I'm sorry I was so clumsy. But if you trip and knock that plant holder off the balcony and it kills someone, then that has been defined as being evil.

Maybe just kinda evil, lol

 

[Bradskii]

Maybe just kinda evil, lol

Murdering children would be evil. Knocking a pot plant over places me (or the act) in the same category? It makes the word meaningless.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Innocent in the sense that they didn't deserve to die.

Find the person who gets to decide who does or doesn't "deserve" to die, and you'll find the sourceof morality... and chances are, that source isn't going to be absolute...

I'm thinking fair harm happens when you're feeling guilty or being justly punished. Unfair harm is harm inflicted on the undeserving innocent, like Nancy in my earlier car theft scenario, where its unfair harm to take what she rightfully owns. Or the person who got killed by accident.

"justly," "unfair," "undeserving," and "rightfully" are all terms that require an outside, subjective point of view... how then can they be used to lay the foundation of an "absolute" morality?

Yet, you would still act as if you did something wrong and apologize for the accident. Wouldn't you?

But is my act immoral?

 

[Chriliman]

Murdering children would be evil. Knocking a pot plant over places me (or the act) in the same category? It makes the word meaningless.

I was kidding. I’d categorize it as an unfortunate accident.

 

[Bradskii]

I was kidding. I’d categorize it as an unfortunate accident.

I appreciate that. And agree.

 

[Chriliman]

Find the person who gets to decide who does or doesn't "deserve" to die, and you'll find the sourceof morality... and chances are, that source isn't going to be absolute...

Well, we’re talking about death by accident, not by judgment.

"justly," "unfair," "undeserving," and "rightfully" are all terms that require an outside, subjective point of view... how then can they be used to lay the foundation of an "absolute" morality?

All those terms can be used to describe objective acts or events that take place. When we do that are we not being objective?

No need to put them in quotes, btw, if you don’t mind.

But is my act immoral?

What happened because of your act was bad even though you didn’t intend to do it. But no, I wouldn’t say you acted immorally, maybe just clumsily, but maybe that is bad behavior though, not quite sure about that.