Is there an absolute morality?

[Chriliman]

You have not seen that. You've seen what happened, and you need to reason why it shouldn't have gone that way because you can't observe the should.

I still think the should can be observed once you do what the should is suggesting you do. If the outcome is true/good, then it’s true/good that you listened to the should, lol, sounds funny but I hope you get what I mean.

 

[Chriliman]

No... whether she does or doesn't keep her word is an objective fact.

Whether she should or shouldn't is situational.




"Should" isn't an objective fact -- it's a subjective moral judgement based on the situation.

In this specific case, she should keep her word (I certainly think so), but in other situations, keeping her word is something she shouldn't do.

Ultimately, I think there’s an objectively right answer in any situation, so I’d be curious to know what situation you can think of where a person shouldn’t keep there word? My guess is that in that situation there’s probably an objectively right answer based on the facts of the situation.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ultimately, I think there’s an objectively right answer in any situation, so I’d be curious to know what situation you can think of where a person shouldn’t keep there word? My guess is that in that situation there’s probably an objectively right answer based on the facts of the situation.

But the issue in this isn't objectivity, but absolute morality... and if it's situational, it's not absolute.

And are you saying you honestly can't think of a situation where a promise shouldn't be broken?

 

[Moral Orel]

Wouldn't be much of a thread without that.

You made an objection that had nothing to do with morality. I offered a correction that had nothing to do with morality. And somewhere along the way you assumed for no discernible reason that I was trying to convince you "fair=good" and "harm=bad".

We're talking about the subjective nature of some words. We aren't talking about the subjective nature of morality.

Then without the situation, there is no moral argument.

Except there is a situation, and yet there is no moral argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

I still think the should can be observed once you do what the should is suggesting you do. If the outcome is true/good, then it’s true/good that you listened to the should, lol, sounds funny but I hope you get what I mean.

An "outcome" is never "true". A statement can be true.

An outcome is "good" when it is the outcome that should happen. If the outcome is "good" because it's the outcome I personally prefer, then morality is subjective.

 

[Chriliman]

An "outcome" is never "true". A statement can be true.

An outcome is "good" when it is the outcome that should happen. If the outcome is "good" because it's the outcome I personally prefer, then morality is subjective.

Really? I consider an outcome a fact, therefore true and they can clearly be good, like saving children from a burning building. But we can agree to disagree.

 

[o_mlly]

Your latest problem is that you are conflating moral evil, an act intentionally designed to cause harm (which this thread is about) with natural evil - which is a problem for theism. And not applicable here.

I think the problem is all yours. Are not these the first 5 words that you posted to begin your own thread?

Are acts wrong in themselves?

Is a human act that has but one end in view to kill an innocent person wrong in itself?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Really? I consider an outcome a fact, therefore true and they can clearly be good, like saving children from a burning building. But we can agree to disagree.

"Good" or "bad" are not outcomes; they are moral judgements about outcomes.

 

[Chriliman]

"Good" or "bad" are not outcomes; they are moral judgements about outcomes.

True, and those moral judgements are based on the objective facts of the outcome, which is why anyone with a sound mind would say saving children from a burning building is a good outcome. That’s as absolute as we can get in this particular case, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[TLK Valentine]

True, and those moral judgements are based on the objective facts of the outcome, which is why anyone with a sound mind would say saving children from a burning building is a good outcome. That’s as absolute as we can get in this particular case, wouldn’t you agree?

There is no such thing as "as absolute..." or "absolute in a particular case."

In terms of absolutes, something is true in every conceivable case, or it is not. If there is so much as a single exception, it's not absolute.

 

[Chriliman]

There is no such thing as "as absolute..." or "absolute in a particular case."

In terms of absolutes, something is true in every conceivable case, or it is not. If there is so much as a single exception, it's not absolute.

Wait, so to you, absolute means everything is true in all cases? It would have to be everything since you said there’s no exceptions(every conceivable case). As soon as you say “well, not everything” then you’ve made an exception. Is that how you understand absolutes?

 

[Moral Orel]

Really? I consider an outcome a fact, therefore true and they can clearly be good, like saving children from a burning building. But we can agree to disagree.

It's a weird way to talk, but if you want to say that "an outcome is true" if it actually happened as described, okay. If you want to say "an outcome is good" that requires a reason. Nothing is "clearly good". Nothing is good for no reason.

 

[Chriliman]

It's a weird way to talk, but if you want to say that "an outcome is true" if it actually happened as described, okay. If you want to say "an outcome is good" that requires a reason. Nothing is "clearly good". Nothing is good for no reason.

So you’re saying you can’t have goodness without reason, but you can have truth without reason? Hmm…

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wait, so to you, absolute means everything is true in all cases? It would have to be everything since you said there’s no exceptions(every conceivable case). As soon as you say “well, not everything” then you’ve made an exception. Is that how you understand absolutes?

AFAIK, that's how most people understand the term of "absolute." If it's absolutely true, then it's true Every. Single. Time.

How do you understand absolutes?

 

[Chriliman]

AFAIK, that's how most people understand the term of "absolute." If it's absolutely true, then it's true Every. Single. Time.

How do you understand absolutes?

But are we saying a certain thing is absolutely true in all cases or that everything is absolutely true in all cases? There’s a difference and the difference has important implications.

To be clear, my understanding was that absolute means a certain thing is absolutely true in all cases, not everything. And if that’s your understanding as well then my argument for it being absolutely true that sound minds think it’s good to save kids from a burning building stands correct, because that’s a certain thing or situation.

So again are we saying a certain thing is absolutely true in all cases or that everything is absolutely true in all cases?

 

[TLK Valentine]

But are we saying a certain thing is absolutely true in all cases or that everything is absolutely true in all cases? There’s a difference and the difference has important implications.

To be clear, my understanding was that absolute means a certain thing is absolutely true in all cases, not everything. And if that’s your understanding as well then my argument for it being absolutely true that sound minds think it’s good to save kids from a burning building stands correct, because that’s a certain thing or situation.

So again are we saying a certain thing is absolutely true in all cases or that everything is absolutely true in all cases?

It depends on what you're saying is "absolutely true." So I would say a certain thing. In the specific scenario you describe, I would certainly agree to save the children from the burning building.

Saving innocent lives is a good thing... unless you're King Saul.

1 Samuel 15:3 -- Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys

Saul loses his kingdom because he chooses to spare some livestock... So... saving lives is a good thing -- unless you've got orders from the Almighty to kill them all.

One exception, and the "absolute" is a bust.

 

[Chriliman]

It depends on what you're saying is "absolutely true." So I would say a certain thing. In the specific scenario you describe, I would certainly agree to save the children from the burning building.

Saving innocent lives is a good thing... unless you're King Saul.

1 Samuel 15:3 -- Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys

Saul loses his kingdom because he chooses to spare some livestock... So... saving lives is a good thing -- unless you've got orders from the Almighty to kill them all.

One exception, and the "absolute" is a bust.

The OT Gods barbaric behavior not withstanding, it sounds like we might agree it’s absolutely true sound minds think it’s good to save children from burning buildings.

 

[TLK Valentine]

The OT Gods barbaric behavior not withstanding, it sounds like we might agree it’s absolutely true sound minds think it’s good to save children from burning buildings.

Absolutely -- unless God has a "let 'em burn" order in place...
And God being God, you never know... mysterious ways, and all that.
Personally, I'd risk it either way.

 

[Bradskii]

Is human act that has but one end in view to kill an innocent person wrong in itself?

A point discussed at length on any thread that discusses the trolley problem. And which is a world away from this statement:

A human act that kills an innocent person is always an evil act.

The first includes intent. The second doesn't. You're reasonably careful about your wording so I'm reluctant to class that as a typo.

There's an argument to be made that under certain conditions the first could be described as 'doing the wrong thing for the right reasons'. The second is nonsensical.

 

[ISteveB]

Are acts wrong in themselves?

Yes.

Or does it depend on the context?

Ok. Please provide me with a context where murdering someone is a good thing.
Murder being the willful and malicious taking of a human life.

The bible makes a distinction between killing and murdering.

Or, please provide a context where rape is a good thing.

Or, please provide a context where stealing is a good thing.