Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

So reason is the objective standard you appeal to.

Yes.

Otherwise why bother with it? Just choose whatever you prefer.

We all do. As opposed to what we want.

 

[Bradskii]

So all you can say against Nazi Germany and South Africa would be something along the lines of "I have my own opinion about whatever you're doing, but - like, that's just my opinion, man."

And do nothing? You keep making the same mistake. Just because they think it's OK and I don't doesn't mean we both carry on as normal. In some cases we have to fight for what we think is right. If my neighbour is beating his wife then I don't shrug my shoulders and say 'Hey mate. That's wrong. But like, it's only my opinion.' I jump the fence and hit him with whatever's available to stop him.

Hey, look. Might is right in that scenario and you think it's OK!

 

[Colo Millz]

And do nothing? You keep making the same mistake. Just because they think it's OK and I don't doesn't mean we both carry on as normal. In some cases we have to fight for what we think is right. If my neighbour is beating his wife then I don't shrug my shoulders and say 'Hey mate. That's wrong. But like, it's only my opinion.' I jump the fence and hit him with whatever's available to stop him.

Hey, look. Might is right in that scenario and you think it's OK!

Based on nothing but your collection of wants.

 

[Colo Millz]

Yes.

We all do. As opposed to what we want.

If we appeal to reason, then morality has an objective reference point (it’s about what fits human nature, flourishing, or consistency of principle). Without that, it collapses into subjective preference - “I choose what I like.”

 

[Bradskii]

Based on nothing but your collection of wants.

Partly. I don't want to see a guy beating a woman. But I can give you reasons if you like. Which informs what I want. Or rather what I prefer. Although in this case they are one and the same.

Have you thought about the time the kid is forced to stay in her room and when it becomes immoral to keep her there?

 

[Colo Millz]

I can give you reasons if you like.

Which, if they are not based on objective standards, are merely your wants.

 

[Bradskii]

If we appeal to reason, then morality has an objective reference point (it’s about what fits human nature, flourishing, or consistency of principle). Without that, it collapses into subjective preference - “I choose what I like.”

Reasons are not determined in a vacuum. As I said, they are informed by your upbringing, your age, your gender, your politics, your religion, your nationality etc etc etc. To that end they are relative to the individual.

 

[Bradskii]

Which, if they are not based on objective standards, are merely your wants.

They are based on objective facts. How I interpret them will be informed by many factors as I just noted above.

 

[Colo Millz]

Reasons are not determined in a vacuum. As I said, they are informed by your upbringing, your age, your gender, your politics, your religion, your nationality etc etc etc. To that end they are relative to the individual.

In other words, your wants.

Otherwise moral argumentation would go something along the lines of - I ought to act thus because I am 18 years of age, I am a male, I am left wing, I am a Buddhist, I am Thai.

But that's not how moral argumentation goes.

It is not what you are doing here, for example.

 

[Bradskii]

In other words, your wants.

Otherwise moral argumentation would go something along the lines of - I ought to act thus because I am 18 years of age, I am a male, I am left wing, I am a Buddhist, I am Thai.

But that's not how moral argumentation goes.

Are you suggesting that your upbringing for example has nothing to do with how you determine morality?

 

[Colo Millz]

Are you suggesting that your upbringing for example has nothing to do with how you determine morality?

Of course upbringing affects what moral systems you’re exposed to - but it doesn’t make those systems true or false.

Furthermore despite radically different upbringings, there are moral constants (prohibitions of murder, theft, betrayal of trust) across cultures. Moral truths are grasped by human reason or conscience independently of upbringing.

 

[Bradskii]

Of course upbringing affects what moral systems you’re exposed to - but it doesn’t make those systems true or false.

That wasn't the point that was being discussed. It was what are the factors that determine your reasons for holding to a specific moral position (whether it is true or false). So upbringing (in Thailand or the US?) and age (18 or 80?) and religion (Bhuddism or Christianity?) will all have an influence. You denied that earlier. But they are obviously factors. Including very many more.

Furthermore despite radically different upbringings, there are moral constants (prohibitions of murder, theft, betrayal of trust) across cultures. Moral truths are grasped by human reason or conscience independently of upbringing.

I think what you have shown is that there are commonalities across societies. I have no problem in agreeing with that. Just bear in mind that just because everyone agrees on a moral problem position does not make it absolute. We don't decide on what absolute morality is by having a vote.

 

[Colo Millz]

That wasn't the point that was being discussed. It was what are the factors that determine your reasons for holding to a specific moral position (whether it is true or false). So upbringing (in Thailand or the US?) and age (18 or 80?) and religion (Bhuddism or Christianity?) will all have an influence. You denied that earlier. But they are obviously factors. Including very many more.

I think what you have shown is that there are commonalities across societies. I have no problem in agreeing with that. Just bear in mind that just because everyone agrees on a moral problem position does not make it absolute. We don't decide on what absolute morality is by having a vote.

No, what is being discussed is whether there are objective moral standards or whether they are subjective.

You are claiming that those standards consist entirely of things like upbringing.

I am stating that upbringing will influence a perspective but does not influence whether a particular morality is true or false.

To the second point, if all societies everywhere, whether here on orbiting the star Sirius, have the same moral standard (e.g. murder is wrong), that standard is a universal.

 

[zippy2006]

Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y".

No, that's not morality at all. It's just hypothetical reason. So you've taken something that is not morality and contrasted it with something you haven't defined ("absolute morality").

 

[Bradskii]

No, what is being discussed is whether there are objective moral standards or whether they are subjective.

That's what the general discussion is about. But my post was in reply to yours which said that upbringing etc had nothing to do with how we determine morality. I think that's been put to bed.

You are claiming that those standards consist entirely of things like upbringing.

Correct. Your standards are a reflection of who you are. Your upbringing and all those other factors we've been listing determine that. And look, this is pretty obvious. If you'd been born to Mr. and Mrs Chan in 17th century China, or the Omars in modern day Iran or the Nguyens in Vietnam in the 60's then your personal outlook will be a reflection of your parents, your times, your religion, your culture etc etc.

I am stating that upbringing will influence a perspective but does not influence whether a particular morality is true or false.

As I'm not arguing that it sounds like we're in agreement.

To the second point, if all societies everywhere, whether here on orbiting the star Sirius, have the same moral standard (e.g. murder is wrong), that standard is a universal.

I'll have to point out again that murder, by the very definition of the word, is determined to be wrong. Someone can be killed in one society and if it's not illegal then it's not murder. If someone is killed in a society where it is illegal, then it's murder. The morality of the act is exactly the same. All that changes is the legal situation.

And again I need to point out that a universal agreement on a moral matter does not, in itself, make it absolute. If everyone in existence agreed that X was wrong, you can't say it is therefore an absolute position. Because if one single person changed their mind then it would become relative. And that's nonsensical.

 

[stevevw]

I think part of the problem is the idea of 'absolute' moral truth or fact. I thought aabsolute morality is more like Kants Deontology where wrong is wrong no matter what. You can never lie because its absolutely wrong.

Whereas 'Objective' morality or moral truths are context driven. That in every moral context there will be a moral truth that we can reason and come to that is the right way to behave compared to other ways of behaving.

I think because there is context in morality that this is interpreted as there is no moral truths at all. Which is sort of illogical in that reasoning allows us to find some better ways of behaving, some more obvious than others. Which implies its not just a subjective or relative determination purely based on preferences or unreasoned beliefs.

In that sense sometimes lying is ok within the context. Such as lying to the Germans to protect the Jews hiding in your attic. In fact hiding the Jews in the firstplace makes the lying is besides the point because you have already committed to doing the right thing by instinct or intuition in hiding the Jews.

But the greater moral of saving human life because by nature we know in that we are human that life is worth protecting. So this is the greater moral truth in that context and its not a matter of subjective and arbitrary thinking as much as people make out.

Theres no need for scientific tests to prove our human inclinations that we know that we know that human life is worth something. All the rest is argueing of our understanding of the context in which this moral truth and other moral truths are applied.

The idea that theres all these different cultures with different sets of moral truths is a false narrative to say that there are not moral truths. When we actually take a closer look there are universal moral truths we all share. They are just understood differently in their context.

WE can use the same reasoning to determine which cultures don't confirm to these natural and God given truth we know and experience as humans. The idea that everything that is real and fact in this world can only be determined by empiricle facts is itself part of the false narrative that morality has no real or truthful determinations.

The bible says God put His laws on our hearts and conscience. It makes sense that we know what is right and wrong by nature and are born with this just as much as we are born with a rational mind and the instinct to mate lol.