Moral absolutism as compared to the advancement of technology

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think the Moral Law is like the Natural Law and what Aristotal called the "Good". They are all saying the same thing that there is some moral law or truth we intuitively know of telling us what is morally right and wrong. Thats why we see the same basic moral laws that protect and respect humans around Human Rights or National conventions and treaties as we all know this truth through our experience.

Human Rights were born out of the horrors of war which killed many innocent humans. I think the fact that just about every major authority, religion, social sciences even biology converges in upholding and protecting the same basic human rights shows there must be some truth to there being absolute morals we appeal to.

No, this is only shows that you dont understand the history behind human rights and that you also dont understand moral philosophy.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,408
15,555
Colorado
✟427,871.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
I think the Moral Law is like the Natural Law and what Aristotal called the "Good". They are all saying the same thing that there is some moral law or truth we intuitively know of telling us what is morally right and wrong. Thats why we see the same basic moral laws that protect and respect humans around Human Rights or National conventions and treaties as we all know this truth through our experience.

Human Rights were born out of the horrors of war which killed many innocent humans. I think the fact that just about every major authority, religion, social sciences even biology converges in upholding and protecting the same basic human rights shows there must be some truth to there being absolute morals we appeal to.
For sure I believe in objective reasons why we hold (some of) the morals we do. These include biological and social conditioning to promote values of survival and basic life-satisfaction.

Do those reasons justify calling our morals "laws"? I dont think so. To me law implies an imposition from without rather than a natural emergence of behavior.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
For sure I believe in objective reasons why we hold (some of) the morals we do. These include biological and social conditioning to promote values of survival and basic life-satisfaction.

Do those reasons justify calling our morals "laws"? I dont think so. To me law implies an imposition from without rather than a natural emergence of behavior.
But if morals are something that we make through social conditioning then any cultural morals even ones we would think immoral that have emerged through social conditioning have to be regarded as OK as they are a natural emergence of morals.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, this is only shows that you dont understand the history behind human rights and that you also dont understand moral philosophy.
Well according to HR history

it took the catalyst of World War II to propel human rights onto the global stage and into the global conscience.
A Short History of Human Rights
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes WW2 was a big part.
Yes so the Human Rights established by the UN after WW2 were the same natural rights we have acknowledge throughout history. They were just ratified into laws and Rights that everyone should follow.

So its like the chicken or the egg. What came first. Were these natural Rights/laws something we see as like laws of nature (a fact) that we have all known all along or are they just the product of something we completely created from subjective thinking.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes so the Human Rights established by the UN after WW2 were the same natural rights we have acknowledge throughout history. They were just ratified into laws and Rights that everyone should follow.

No, they where codified to try to avoid the horrors of WWII in the future. They had not been acknowledged before, that was the problem. Seriously, at least try to study the subject.

So its like the chicken or the egg. What came first. Were these natural Rights/laws something we see as like laws of nature (a fact) that we have all known all along or are they just the product of something we completely created from subjective thinking.

no, "we dont all known natural rights all along", just look at history.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, they where codified to try to avoid the horrors of WWII in the future. They had not been acknowledged before, that was the problem. Seriously, at least try to study the subject.
Yeah sorry I meant to say codified into law but then ratified by nations.

I disagree that Human Rights had not been acknowledged before they were created. These same prinicples were acknowledged throughout history. Basically human rights are based on principles of equality and fairness and treating people with dignity and value. These same prinicples have been around throughout history in one way or another. For example the US Declaration of Independence had similar principles around 230 years before the UN HR and even to acient civilizations.

Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness.
They are not a recent invention - ideas about rights and responsibilities have been an important part of all societies throughout history. Since the end of World War II, there has been a united effort by the nations of the world to decide what rights belong to all people and how they can best be promoted and protected.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/introduction-human-rights

no, "we dont all known natural rights all along", just look at history.
Then how do you explain what the article states

Throughout history, concepts of ethical behaviour, justice and human dignity have been important in the development of human societies. These ideas can be traced back to the ancient civilisations. Concepts of ethics, justice and dignity were also important in societies which have not left written records, but consist of oral histories such as those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia and other indigenous societies elsewhere.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/introduction-human-rights

So thats going back a fair distance. Aboriginal culture is the oldest culture going back 60,000 + years. It can't get much further back than that.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah sorry I meant to say codified into law but then ratified by nations.

I disagree that Human Rights had not been acknowledged before they were created. These same prinicples were acknowledged throughout history. Basically human rights are based on principles of equality and fairness and treating people with dignity and value. These same prinicples have been around throughout history in one way or another. For example the US Declaration of Independence had similar principles around 230 years before the UN HR and even to acient civilizations.

Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness.
They are not a recent invention - ideas about rights and responsibilities have been an important part of all societies throughout history. Since the end of World War II, there has been a united effort by the nations of the world to decide what rights belong to all people and how they can best be promoted and protected.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/introduction-human-rights
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/introduction-human-rights

You can disagree however much you want, but its incorrect. Study the subject and you will see that there where not remedy for what we now call human rights violations before the codification. (This should be self-evident).

Then how do you explain what the article states

Throughout history, concepts of ethical behaviour, justice and human dignity have been important in the development of human societies. These ideas can be traced back to the ancient civilisations. Concepts of ethics, justice and dignity were also important in societies which have not left written records, but consist of oral histories such as those of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in Australia and other indigenous societies elsewhere.
https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/education/introduction-human-rights

So thats going back a fair distance. Aboriginal culture is the oldest culture going back 60,000 + years. It can't get much further back than that.

Yes, all moral agents have a moral stance, just as I have always said.

And morals have changed (a lot) through time and space strongly suggestiong its not objective.

And you still havent got around to the problem of authority.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You can disagree however much you want, but its incorrect. Study the subject and you will see that there where not remedy for what we now call human rights violations before the codification. (This should be self-evident).
I wasn't really talking about just codification. The codification means that the principles were already around and they were further developed and finally put into law to hold some authority. But my point was that these principles were for the most part being human respect and equality were already around for a long time as the article says, since ancient times.

For example in 539 B.C Cyrus the Great brought in the idea of equal rights, racial equality and the freedom to choose religion. The Cyrus Cylinder which records this is widely recognised as the first Human Rights Charter.
The Background of Human Rights

Yes, all moral agents have a moral stance, just as I have always said.

And morals have changed (a lot) through time and space strongly suggestiong its not objective.
If we applied this to science we could say that throughout history science facts or determinations have changed therefore there are no scientific facts. The logic doesn't follow.

But if we were to say that morality has progressed for the better over time then this would have to mean there was some objective that allowed us to measure what was better and what was worse independent of realtive/subjective views.

And you still havent got around to the problem of authority.
The authority comes from these Rights and laws. They are reasoned as being an inalienable right and cannot be denied. They stand regardless of the relative/subjective views of individuals and cultures.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I wasn't really talking about just codification. The codification means that the principles were already around and they were further developed and finally put into law to hold some authority. But my point was that these principles were for the most part being human respect and equality were already around for a long time as the article says, since ancient times.

For example in 539 B.C Cyrus the Great brought in the idea of equal rights, racial equality and the freedom to choose religion. The Cyrus Cylinder which records this is widely recognised as the first Human Rights Charter.
The Background of Human Rights

If we applied this to science we could say that throughout history science facts or determinations have changed therefore there are no scientific facts. The logic doesn't follow.

But if we were to say that morality has progressed for the better over time then this would have to mean there was some objective that allowed us to measure what was better and what was worse independent of realtive/subjective views.

The authority comes from these Rights and laws. They are reasoned as being an inalienable right and cannot be denied. They stand regardless of the relative/subjective views of individuals and cultures.

Yes, morals have existed as long as there are moral agents. You have not supported your assertions, just strengthened my position.

And no, meta-physics dont work as science (or math).

And if humanity (or an individual, or a legal system) rejects this authority on a subject, then what happens?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, morals have existed as long as there are moral agents. You have not supported your assertions, just strengthened my position.
But your position is irrelevant to what my point was. My point was that the principles for HR has been around for a long time well before UN HR. Then you said
They had not been acknowledged before, that was the problem

I posted support showing that the principles of equality and respect for which HR is based on had been acknowledged before. The fact that they became codified doesn't mean these principles had not been around for a long time.

And no, meta-physics dont work as science (or math).
I wasn't talking about metaphysics. I was talking about logic. Applying the same logic you used for how "morals have changed therefore morals cannot be objective". Applied to science it would mean scientific facts/determinations have changed therefore scientific facts/determinations cannot be objective.

And if humanity (or an individual, or a legal system) rejects this authority on a subject, then what happens?
Then they are in breach of Human Rights and suffer the consequences. But there is nothing to force any nation to conform as we have seen in the world.

Morality is a rational enterprise so if the head of a nation refuse to be moral or are incapable of being rational then that is their position. We can only have a solid and united basis to declare that these nations are wrong and are doing something immoral.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
But your position is irrelevant to what my point was. My point was that the principles for HR has been around for a long time well before UN HR. Then you said
They had not been acknowledged before, that was the problem

I posted support showing that the principles of equality and respect for which HR is based on had been acknowledged before. The fact that they became codified doesn't mean these principles had not been around for a long time.

I wasn't talking about metaphysics. I was talking about logic. Applying the same logic you used for how "morals have changed therefore morals cannot be objective". Applied to science it would mean scientific facts/determinations have changed therefore scientific facts/determinations cannot be objective.

Then they are in breach of Human Rights and suffer the consequences. But there is nothing to force any nation to conform as we have seen in the world.

Morality is a rational enterprise so if the head of a nation refuse to be moral or are incapable of being rational then that is their position. We can only have a solid and united basis to declare that these nations are wrong and are doing something immoral.
They hadnt. And your arguments are in error.

And metaphysics are not like logic, you have repeatedly tried to make formal ligical statements about morals and failed miserably.

And you gave just made my point, your moral system has no independendant authority and is therefore both not objective and also worthless.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
They hadnt. And your arguments are in error.
What do you mean they hadn't. They hadn't what. Are you saying there have been no ancient peoples that have acknowledged human equality.

And metaphysics are not like logic, you have repeatedly tried to make formal ligical statements about morals and failed miserably.
Its got nothing to do with metaphysics. I am not saying science works like morality. You made a claim when you said morals have changed through history so they cannot be objective. It is well know that this is a logical fallacy as mere moral change does not lead to there being no objective morals.

I am talking about the logic of your claim/statement.

1) Morals have changed through history
2) Changed morals means morals are subjective
c) Therefore morals are not objective

This same logic can be applied to science

1) Science facts have changed through history
2) Changed scientific facts means science is subjective
c) Therefore scientific facts are not objective

And you gave just made my point, your moral system has no independendant authority and is therefore both not objective and also worthless.
How does an independent authority make morals objective. The UN is an independent authority yet that doesn't stop nations breaching HR. Under your logic HR and laws are worthless. In fact all law is worthless as there is no indepndent authority that forces people to abide by them.

None of this prevents there being moral truths. Otherwise anyone can say that the authority is arbitrary. There needs to be some independent measure based on rationality based on what is best for humans that values "Life" to give morals a status that cannot be denied by subjective thinking. That is what makes it independently fact and not any authority.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
What do you mean they hadn't. They hadn't what. Are you saying there have been no ancient peoples that have acknowledged human equality.

Its got nothing to do with metaphysics. I am not saying science works like morality. You made a claim when you said morals have changed through history so they cannot be objective. It is well know that this is a logical fallacy as mere moral change does not lead to there being no objective morals.

I am talking about the logic of your claim/statement.

1) Morals have changed through history
2) Changed morals means morals are subjective
c) Therefore morals are not objective

This same logic can be applied to science

1) Science facts have changed through history
2) Changed scientific facts means science is subjective
c) Therefore scientific facts are not objective

How does an independent authority make morals objective. The UN is an independent authority yet that doesn't stop nations breaching HR. Under your logic HR and laws are worthless. In fact all law is worthless as there is no indepndent authority that forces people to abide by them.

None of this prevents there being moral truths. Otherwise anyone can say that the authority is arbitrary. There needs to be some independent measure based on rationality based on what is best for humans that values "Life" to give morals a status that cannot be denied by subjective thinking. That is what makes it independently fact and not any authority.
No, science is nothing like morals.

Do you understand that morals and values are metaphysics?

You dont understand the authority problem. Study it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No, science is nothing like morals.

Do you understand that morals and values are metaphysics?
Yes but I am not talking about how science or morality work. This is about how logic works. I am not saying we prove morals the same way we prove scientific facts. I am saying if objective morals are real/true then these truths or facts can be seens like Math or science facts. But I am not saying they work like science facts in that they are physical objectives but rather abstract objectives.

So therefore I am applying your logic that "moral truths changing means no moral truths" to science in that "science facts have changed so therefore theres no scientific facts.

You don't understand the authority problem. Study it.
I have and it doesn't necessitate a Divine authority. We can reason that moral principles are truths or laws that stand indenpdent of human views which gives them authority for all morally conscious and rational beings.

As free agents we can ignore that authority like we do the authority of the legal law or any Divine entity but that doesn't mean it they have no authority. If God is true and was the moral Authority as free agents we can defy Him so there is no magic force than forces us to obey moral laws.

Generally we give morals their authority through norms, laws and Rights. So we are more or less subjecting ourselves to the Authority of the moral truth prinicples that underpin norms, Rights and the laws.

Moral Authority
Moral authority is authority premised on principles, or fundamental truths, which are independent of written, or positive, laws. As such, moral authority necessitates the existence of and adherence to truth. Because truth does not change, the principles of moral authority are immutable or unchangeable, although as applied to individual circumstances the dictates of moral authority for action may vary due to the exigencies of human life. These principles, which can be of metaphysical or religious nature, are considered normative for behavior, whether they are or are not also embodied in written laws,[1] and even if the community is ignoring or violating them.[2] Therefore, the authoritativeness or force of moral authority is applied to the conscience of each individual, who is free to act according to or against its dictates.

Moral authority has thus also been defined as the "fundamental assumptions that guide our perceptions of the world".[3]
Moral authority - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes but I am not talking about how science or morality work. This is about how logic works. I am not saying we prove morals the same way we prove scientific facts. I am saying if objective morals are real/true then these truths or facts can be seens like Math or science facts. But I am not saying they work like science facts in that they are physical objectives but rather abstract objectives.

So therefore I am applying your logic that "moral truths changing means no moral truths" to science in that "science facts have changed so therefore theres no scientific facts.

I have and it doesn't necessitate a Divine authority. We can reason that moral principles are truths or laws that stand indenpdent of human views which gives them authority for all morally conscious and rational beings.

As free agents we can ignore that authority like we do the authority of the legal law or any Divine entity but that doesn't mean it they have no authority. If God is true and was the moral Authority as free agents we can defy Him so there is no magic force than forces us to obey moral laws.

Generally we give morals their authority through norms, laws and Rights. So we are more or less subjecting ourselves to the Authority of the moral truth prinicples that underpin norms, Rights and the laws.

Moral Authority
Moral authority is authority premised on principles, or fundamental truths, which are independent of written, or positive, laws. As such, moral authority necessitates the existence of and adherence to truth. Because truth does not change, the principles of moral authority are immutable or unchangeable, although as applied to individual circumstances the dictates of moral authority for action may vary due to the exigencies of human life. These principles, which can be of metaphysical or religious nature, are considered normative for behavior, whether they are or are not also embodied in written laws,[1] and even if the community is ignoring or violating them.[2] Therefore, the authoritativeness or force of moral authority is applied to the conscience of each individual, who is free to act according to or against its dictates.

Moral authority has thus also been defined as the "fundamental assumptions that guide our perceptions of the world".[3]
Moral authority - Wikipedia

You have repeatedly failed to use logic on morality, therefore not supported that it works at all on morality. If it did, you could write formal true statements.

Yes, authority is a must or the proposed objective morality is useless. This only works with god(s).
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
948
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,761.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You have repeatedly failed to use logic on morality, therefore not supported that it works at all on morality. If it did, you could write formal true statements.
I have given formal arguements like this one before and no one has been able to refute it.

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (1)
(1) If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
(2) Epistemic facts exist.
(3) So moral facts exist.
(4) If moral facts exist, then moral realism is true.
(5) So moral realism is true.

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (2)
1) epistemic realism is true;
2) if epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true;
c) hence moral realism is true.

Yes, authority is a must or the proposed objective morality is useless. This only works with god(s).
But authority alone doesn't prove objective morality. People are moral agents and they can choose to defy authoirty. The law has authority over us and we can still choose to defy it.

But if people were not moral and rational agents then we would not know and understand the reasons and authority of these moral truths and the obligations that follow and this would mean nothing to us.

That is why when we come to know and understand a moral law just like we do with the legal laws it has authority over us by the fact that our conscience comes into conflict when we try to break that law. Our conscience either condemns or defends us.

BUt we can deny/defy these moral laws just like we defy legal laws and after a while we can rationalize untruths and convince ourselves we are doing nothing wrong. But we cannot avoid the fact that the truth comes out in some way or another and will convict us in the end.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I have given formal arguements like this one before and no one has been able to refute it.

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (1)
(1) If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist.
(2) Epistemic facts exist.
(3) So moral facts exist.
(4) If moral facts exist, then moral realism is true.
(5) So moral realism is true.

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (2)
1) epistemic realism is true;
2) if epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true;
c) hence moral realism is true.

But authority alone doesn't prove objective morality. People are moral agents and they can choose to defy authoirty. The law has authority over us and we can still choose to defy it.

But if people were not moral and rational agents then we would not know and understand the reasons and authority of these moral truths and the obligations that follow and this would mean nothing to us.

That is why when we come to know and understand a moral law just like we do with the legal laws it has authority over us by the fact that our conscience comes into conflict when we try to break that law. Our conscience either condemns or defends us.

BUt we can deny/defy these moral laws just like we defy legal laws and after a while we can rationalize untruths and convince ourselves we are doing nothing wrong. But we cannot avoid the fact that the truth comes out in some way or another and will convict us in the end.
Ahahaha, no. You really dont know formal logic. They are not valid, in fact they are cringeworthy.

And you still dont understand the authority problem.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

zippy2006

Dragonsworn
Nov 9, 2013
6,772
3,371
✟241,835.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Ahahaha, no. You really dont know formal logic. They are not valid....

Of course they are. If they are not then tell us what invalid inferences are being employed?

You pose as someone who knows logic and philosophy, but a cursory reading of your posts demonstrates that you have no idea what you are talking about. You just make counter-assertions that you never support, and then pat yourself on the back. The fact that you don't think those arguments are valid shows that you don't understand even the most elementary logical inferences.


Here are his arguments with the formal inferences identified:

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (1)
(1) If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts do not exist. {premise}
(2) Epistemic facts exist. {premise}
(3) So moral facts exist. {modus tollens; 1 & 2}
(4) If moral facts exist, then moral realism is true. {premise}
(5) So moral realism is true. {modus ponens, 3 & 4}

Epistemic Argument for Moral Realism (2)
1) epistemic realism is true; {premise}
2) if epistemic realism is true, then moral realism is true; {premise}
c) hence moral realism is true. {modus ponens, 1 & 2}
 
Upvote 0