Morality without Absolute Morality

[doubtingmerle]

People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y". For instance, if you want peaceful coexistence, then you must not allow unjustified killing. If you want property rights, then you must not allow unjustified taking of things from others. If you want justice, then you must not allow false witness. And if you want a happy life, then you will want peaceful coexistence, property rights, and justice. Based on such reasoning, people around the world have developed moralities that make this world a better place.

However, many people argue that we need an absolute morality, as though it somehow offers something better than what we can achieve through reason. See, for instance, Charlie Kirk's argument for this point:

&t=230s

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y". For instance, if you want peaceful coexistence, then you must not allow unjustified killing. If you want property rights, then you must not allow unjustified taking of things from others. If you want justice, then you must not allow false witness. And if you want a happy life, then you will want peaceful coexistence, property rights, and justice. Based on such reasoning, people around the world have developed moralities that make this world a better place.

However, many people argue that we need an absolute morality, as though it somehow offers something better than what we can achieve through reason. See, for instance, Charlie Kirk's argument for this point:

&t=230s

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

From what I see in history and the daily news, "fundamental reason alone"----whatever that is precisely----is having quite a difficult time figuring out which minute by minute decisions are the morally right ones in all cases.

And this is not surprising being that there really is no inherent Meta-ethic every human 'just knows' by reason alone and which remains impervious to both circumstantial pressures and psychological debilitation. We should probably all just stop pretending that there is one.

 

[Larniavc]

People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y". For instance, if you want peaceful coexistence, then you must not allow unjustified killing. If you want property rights, then you must not allow unjustified taking of things from others. If you want justice, then you must not allow false witness. And if you want a happy life, then you will want peaceful coexistence, property rights, and justice. Based on such reasoning, people around the world have developed moralities that make this world a better place.

However, many people argue that we need an absolute morality, as though it somehow offers something better than what we can achieve through reason. See, for instance, Charlie Kirk's argument for this point:

&t=230s

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

I don’t think there can be an absolute morality. Real life isn’t that neat and tidy.

 

[Bradskii]

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

Whose absolute morality?

 

[Richard T]

People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y". For instance, if you want peaceful coexistence, then you must not allow unjustified killing. If you want property rights, then you must not allow unjustified taking of things from others. If you want justice, then you must not allow false witness. And if you want a happy life, then you will want peaceful coexistence, property rights, and justice. Based on such reasoning, people around the world have developed moralities that make this world a better place.

However, many people argue that we need an absolute morality, as though it somehow offers something better than what we can achieve through reason. See, for instance, Charlie Kirk's argument for this point:

&t=230s

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

Hard to have morality in property rights when there are still to these day undecided Indian lands in the USA. Nearly every piece of land in the world has been stolen or conquered many times over.

Absolute morality too is tested. How? Sometimes by ultiltarianism. Would a person kill one to save a hundred?
Aboslute morality has disagreements even by Christians. Some are decidely pacifists and turn the other cheek, even if facing death. Others are locked and loaded for God and willing to fight. (I favor the later, but not Rambo style, like blowing criminals away when there are alternatives.)

Furthermore, what about early Americans that rebelled against the crown? The bible suggests no rebellion against authority, yet many Christians believed the U.S. had a manifest destiny from God? So which is absolute?

The bible too has some hints at problems. Rahab the harlot for instance, lied and was seemingly rewarded. Or why God chose a decieving spirit to fool Ahab? One might even argue that Jesus took the place of the murderer Barabbas. While that blood would be on the Jews who wanted his release, Jesus could have made a defense but such a defense was against the will of God. What if Barabbas killed someone again? So just as Kirk would say that some deaths will result from 2nd amendment rights, that yes there too are deaths that result from following due process. That some illegals get second chances in immigration and choose to kill. But rights of all illegals for bail or due process should be suspended because they are not citizens? Then due process or even the 2nd amendment are not God given, if only used on citizens?

I am not suggesting God has ever done anything improper, he cannot do an injustice. It just is that human understanding of absolute morality is not perfect. Additionally, Christians often pick what verses are crucial while ignoring others. For instance, let every fact be established by two or three witnesses in the bible. Yet, we are now willing to imprison people on circumstantial evidence alone. Some would conclude that such evidence is a witness, others would be obliged to hold to the meaning of people.

I did not listen too much of this long youtube though i am glad to save it for later. But I will say that being led of God, walking in the spirit and following love, for a particular situation is as close to absolute morality as one can get. This too assumes too the word of God is the guardrail of absolute truth whenever possible.

 

[doubtingmerle]

From what I see in history and the daily news, "fundamental reason alone"----whatever that is precisely----is having quite a difficult time figuring out which minute by minute decisions are the morally right ones in all cases.

Yes, moral decisions can indeed be challenging. Real-life decisions often resemble trolley problems.

However, when people try to override this by claiming an absolute morality, they ignore the nuance of life and inevitably end up with an "absolute" with which other religions disagree.

So many religions. Can all be right?

Charlie Kirk's solution to the moral dilemma of polytheism is to declare that we follow one God, who makes the rules, and that these rules become absolute, thereby ending the debate. But no, it doesn't end the discussion. It merely allows some people to claim their morality is superior to everybody else's, even when it is not.

I don't believe in absolute morality, but if it exists, then I don't think most of the current ICE raids fall under that category.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Whose absolute morality?

That brings us to the heart of the problem. Kirk claimed that polytheism would not work, as each god would dictate different rules, and no mortal could determine which was right.

Therefore, he concluded, we need to pick just one God, say his rules are absolute, and go with that.

However, stating that a rule is absolute does not make it absolute.

Sadly, if one declares the Old Testament law to be absolute, then one can end up with an absolute command to kill gay people or unbelievers (e. g., Deut.13)

 

[doubtingmerle]

Hard to have morality in property rights when there are still to these day undecided Indian lands in the USA. Nearly every piece of land in the world has been stolen or conquered many times over.

Right. I own land that I purchased from someone who had bought it from someone else, who in turn had bought it from someone else, and so on, reportedly tracing back to William Penn, who acquired it from the King of England. OK, but who gave the King of England the right to the land? If he didn't really own the land, is my deed void?

And it goes on like this for each landholder. Ultimately, it comes down to someone who claimed ownership of this land with dubious justification.

It is what it is. Society cannot go on without basic land ownership and property rights. We have little choice but to say, in most cases, we will allow ownership to continue along the lines that have been established. Perhaps, if that line was established unfairly, there could be some compensation for those who were unjustly deprived. But, after many generations, who would decide who was deprived unfairly, and what the proper compensation was? It is all quite complex. Absolute morality will not resolve this. Democracy, the rule of law, and impartial courts are the best we have to fix this.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, moral decisions can indeed be challenging. Real-life decisions often resemble trolley problems.

However, when people try to override this by claiming an absolute morality, they ignore the nuance of life and inevitably end up with an "absolute" with which other religions disagree.

So many religions. Can all be right?

Charlie Kirk's solution to the moral dilemma of polytheism is to declare that we follow one God, who makes the rules, and that these rules become absolute, thereby ending the debate. But no, it doesn't end the discussion. It merely allows some people to claim their morality is superior to everybody else's, even when it is not.

I don't believe in absolute morality, but if it exists, then I don't think most of the current ICE raids fall under that category.

I think you're confusing too many ethical and metaphysical issues here, and you're doing so without much epistemological warrant other than that you seem to be presenting successive points in your post that dangle loosely together within what sounds to me like a left leaning sense of Nietzschean "ressentiment" (.........yes, that's with two ss'), further enshrouded within an allusion to the "Outsider Test for Faith" argument.

I know a bit about the field of Ethics and the various deliberations that can be made from within it. We all know that Absolute moral principles are nearly impossible to identify and pin down with convincing arguments if abstracted from non-empirical thought.

However, while I might disagree with some of the biblical interpretations that Mr. Kirk has made---what few of them I've actually heard---even I as a Non-Nationalist Christian can agree with him that the concept of the Jewish God is needed as an Archimedean point by which to work out our Ethical frames.

As a Critical Philosopher, I'd go a little further and precisely insist that the entire world needs to turn to Jesus Christ in order to get itself more functionally aligned. Will the World do this any time soon? I hold out no confidence that it will, sad to say, and its constant harping upon Pragmatic, Communistic and Anarchic lines of social improvement ('Revolutionary' is the still fashionable term) isn't going to ameliorate our troubles either, today or tomorrow.

What we all seem to be having vast trouble realizing is that the complicated nature of the 'trolley problems' we often face represent entanglements which we ourselves as a society have brought about, much of which likely could have been avoided or resolved if we had a Northern Star to guide us. .... but we instead refuse that Northern Star when it is pointed out.

 

[Paulos23]

I think you're confusing too many ethical and metaphysical issues here, and you're doing so without much epistemological warrant other than that you seem to be presenting successive points in your post that dangle loosely together within what sounds to me like a left leaning sense of Nietzschean "ressentiment" (.........yes, that's with two ss'), further enshrouded within an allusion to the "Outsider Test for Faith" argument.

I know a bit about the field of Ethics and the various deliberations that can be made from within it. We all know that Absolute moral principles are nearly impossible to identify and pin down with convincing arguments if abstracted from non-empirical thought.

However, while I might disagree with some of the biblical interpretations that Mr. Kirk has made---what few of them I've actually heard---even I as a Non-Nationalist Christian can agree with him that the concept of the Jewish God is needed as an Archimedean point by which to work out our Ethical frames.

As a Critical Philosopher, I'd go a little further and precisely insist that the entire world needs to turn to Jesus Christ in order to get itself more functionally aligned. Will the World do this any time soon? I hold out no confidence that it will, sad to say, and its constant harping upon Pragmatic, Communistic and Anarchic lines of social improvement ('Revolutionary' is the still fashionable term) isn't going to ameliorate our troubles either, today or tomorrow.

What we all seem to be having vast trouble realizing is that the complicated nature of the 'trolley problems' we often face represent entanglements which we ourselves as a society have brought about, much of which likely could have been avoided or resolved if we had a Northern Star to guide us. .... but we instead refuse that Northern Star when it is pointed out.

Some of my thoughts on this:

A. Life is never simple and situations change. What is mortal in a time of plenty can be immortal when famine or plague hits. The trolly problem will always pop up in any moral code that is not flexible as civilizations and situations change. What is looting when there is no disaster can be just getting enough food to eat during a disaster.

It doesn't matter where the moral code came from, as soon as it hurts people they will discard it, even if it is in the moment.

B. You can have different faiths and still agree on the basic morals. Even if you have different starting points, you can end up at the same end point. So I don't see why everyone has to accept Jesus, it is not needed in my experience.