Morality without Absolute Morality

Bradskii said:

It will exemplify your position exactly. It will highlight what you say in that morality isn't relative. So name someone. Anyone at all. It's your choice. I mean, there must be somebody. Otherwise you're arguing for something that doesn't actually exist.

Click to expand...

Not at all, since the whole of my argument consists of pointing out that reason cannot establish morality. It could be because it doesn't exist, or it could be that it must come from outside of human intellects. But it remains that there must be something that makes a situation right or wrong regardless of whether or not we agree with it if we are to speak sensibly of morality. Otherwise our opinions on rape are of no more value than our favorite flavor of ice cream.

Bradskii said:

It wasn't an argument or an appeal. That's obvious. It was a reply to your request for an example of an act that can be genuinely moral without an objective or absolute element. The act is defined by the circumstances given. It's morality is determined by those circumstances.

Click to expand...

A need for context doesn't render it non-objective or lacking absolute elements. The question is, would it remain wrong if no one thought it was wrong? If everyone agreed tomorrow that there was nothing immoral about murdering Jews, would that then mean the holocaust was moral?

Bradskii said:

If I give you something which you asked for, how can you complain?

Click to expand...

You haven't provided any such thing. You've simply raised an issue that there are mitigating conditions, but the question is...does the act remain wrong if people don't believe it to be wrong? Or is it mere opinion comparable to flavor preferences?

Fervent said:

It means having some bearing in reality, reflective of a state of affairs beyond the whims of an individual.

Click to expand...

Isn't that what most mean when they use objectively in this context? How would you define objectively in this context in such a way that it doesn't entail this?

Fervent said:

It's only a given if there is no relationship between morals and reality.

Click to expand...

Say that there objective wrong or right something we can measure or we all have perfect knowledge about morality from revelation, why wouldn't it be trivially true any way. If they get away with it, they get away with it.

Fervent said:

Not at all, since the whole of my argument consists of pointing out that reason cannot establish morality.

Click to expand...

Objective morality doesn't just include reason. Or exclude it. I have no idea how you can determine something without reasoning about it. But you say that it's all objective. So give us an example of someone you think has moral character and we'll investigate your claim.

You won't answer the simplest of questions on moral questions (you won't answer the new one I just asked). You say your positions are based on 'revelation' but we have no idea how that relates to real world moral problems because you won't tell us. So if relative morality doesn't exist then give us just one example of a person who exemplifies your claim. Just one.

Stopped_lurking said:

Isn't that what most mean when they use objectively in this context? How would you define objectively in this context in such a way that it doesn't entail this?

Click to expand...

It very well may, but it's not an issue since what is at issue is what we mean when we say "moral" which as far as I can tell objectivity is analytic to the word.

Stopped_lurking said:

Say that there objective wrong or right something we can measure or we all have perfect knowledge about morality from revelation, why wouldn't it be trivially true any way. If they get away with it, they get away with it.

Click to expand...

If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences, there is a basis for appeal and argumentation. When I say the only thing that matters is what you can get away with, I mean that there is no way to legitimize preventative measures. Everything just boils down to who has the will and the ability.

Fervent said:

A need for context doesn't render it non-objective or lacking absolute elements.

Click to expand...

This really takes the cake. Needing context is practically the very definition of relative morality. Who did it? Why? When? Where? Was it legal? Was it gratuitous? Was it justified? Was it under duress? Whether the act is morally acceptable of not will be relative to those conditions. How can you possibly get into a thread with about over (checks pkst count) 750 posts and now start to redefine the very meaning of what is being discussed?

Fervent said:

The question is, would it remain wrong if no one thought it was wrong? If everyone agreed tomorrow that there was nothing immoral about murdering Jews, would that then mean the holocaust was moral?

Click to expand...

It would mean that everyone would think that. Yes. Of course! What else could it possibly mean? And you're including yourself in 'everyone' so even you would think so.

Fervent said:

You haven't provided any such thing.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did. You could make a judgement at each statement about whether it was moral or not. But you can't make a definite decision until all the facts are known. Your decision as regards the morality of the act will be relative to those facts.

Fervent said:

You've simply raised an issue that there are mitigating conditions, but the question is...does the act remain wrong if people don't believe it to be wrong?

Click to expand...

That is up to you! And you can decide it's wrong from an emotional point of view, a rational one, you can say that your conscience tells you it's wrong, that Jesus told you, that it's revelation...who cares? It's up to you. The people who said it was ok might have said it was acceptable from an emotional point of view, a rational one, they can say that their conscience told them it was OK, that Jesus told them, that it was revelation.

That's the problem. It's all 'yes, it is' and 'no, it isn't'. It's just a shouting match. Even when it comes to revelation. Especially when it comes to revelation. So unless you have a good argument for a position (and you refuse to even contemplate giving one) then I'll listen to the person with the best argument. You don't even get invited to the discussion. And I mean that seriously. If there was a moral problem and someone said 'Let's get a few heads together to work this through' then you wouldn't be on the list.

Fervent said:

Two sides to the same coin.

It must be shown how something can be genuinely moral without an objective or absolute element.

Click to expand...

This is still complete inversion of the OP question. @doubtingmerle asked if absolutism is necessary, you ask if it can be omitted.

Fervent said:

If it purely depends on whether or not someone believes it to be wrong or right, and not some inherent feature, then the only thing that matters is what you can get away with.

Click to expand...

It is sad that you don't understand @doubtingmerle 's original question, because "what you can get away with" was not the point or relevant.

Fervent said:

If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences...

Click to expand...

It's not. Stop using loaded terms like this. It'll be ice cream and chocolate v vanilla v the holocaust next. Good grief, man. Please stop it.

Morality is not about simple preferences. It's what we determine to be the right thing. Each of us. Individually. So I might prefer to smack the guy in the mouth but for various reasons I have determined that it would be morally unjustified. I might prefer to keep the money I have just found but for various reasons I have determined that it would be morally unjustified. Whether I do or not, in either case, will be a reflection of my moral character. I knew it was morally wrong, but I still preferred to do it.

And I want to expressly emphasise that it's down to each of us individually. So even if you think that Jesus has whispered 'No, don't do it,' it's still you that says to yourself 'Yes, I agree. I shouldn't'.

Fervent said:

It very well may, but it's not an issue since what is at issue is what we mean when we say "moral" which as far as I can tell objectivity is analytic to the word.

Click to expand...

The closest definition of analytic I found that might be relevant, is that an analytic proposition is a proposition that is true because of the words it contains. So what I draw from that is that you believe that objectivity is a necessary part of morality by the word itself?

Fervent said:

If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences, there is a basis for appeal and argumentation. When I say the only thing that matters is what you can get away with, I mean that there is no way to legitimize preventative measures. Everything just boils down to who has the will and the ability.

Click to expand...

Even with only personal preferences there will be attempts to appeal and argument, sometimes they will sway the one being talked to sometimes not. Sometimes society will step in and take a side and enforce a solution. Even with an absolute lawgiver with power to enforce its laws the only thing we have is still something imposing its will. It is only a difference in degrees not in kind.