Morality without Absolute Morality

[durangodawood]

...You are using the word rape as you'd use the word murder. Murder is killing someone unlawfully with premeditation. That is the context. Rape is having sexual intercourse with someone without consent. Again, that is the context. There is no act possible without there being some context.....

I think rape is a good test case. Is it always or "intrinsically" wrong?

It doesnt matter if there are various other test cases where "it depends", or where there are competing moral values in play.

Absolute morality (yes I dont like the the term) can be real even if it only applies to a finite set of described behaviors, while the rest require context to sort out.

 

[partinobodycular]

Keeping in mind that I'm an uneducated moron when it comes to philosophical questions, it's my understanding that in absolute morality it's not the morality of the act itself that's context dependent, it's the culpability.

In some sense I hold to this perspective, but it should be noted, that for me, the one true absolute is that every living being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm guilty insomuch as I rob someone of these rights, but I'm culpable only insomuch as the lesser evil meant that I had no choice.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So:

Follow your heart, and blame your upbringing?

There is no need to blame anything. This is just an explanation of where everyone's personal morality comes from ... both from inside and from many external influences.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Did you write that?

No.

Absolute morality - (Ethics) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable

Absolute morality refers to the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the context or cultural norms. This concept asserts that there are universal moral principles that apply to all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or circumstances...

fiveable.me

 

[zippy2006]

Absolute morality (yes I dont like the the term) can be real even if it only applies to a finite set of described behaviors, while the rest require context to sort out.

That's right, and it is present within the very definition that @Bradskii ascribed to:

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions...

"Certain actions." Not, "All actions."

So the three examples that Bradskii gave within his own post also show him to be a "moral absolutist."

Again, it's not my definition.

When you agree with a definition it becomes your definition.

 

[durangodawood]

No.

Absolute morality - (Ethics) - Vocab, Definition, Explanations | Fiveable

Absolute morality refers to the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of the context or cultural norms. This concept asserts that there are universal moral principles that apply to all individuals, regardless of their beliefs or circumstances...

fiveable.me

Ah ok.

As long as we're talking about ethics, its considered "right" to present writing thats not your own as such.

Perhaps this is one of those non-absolute morals?

 

[durangodawood]

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.

If wrongness is intrinsic to an act, where does it "live" in the act? Where in the act do we find it?

 

[o_mlly]

I think rape is a good test case. Is it always or "intrinsically" wrong?

? Can you give a concrete example of a "good" rape?

 

[durangodawood]

? Can you give a concrete example of a "good" rape?

Any rape I can imagine is something I would consider wrong. So, no.

You?

 

[zippy2006]

I think rape is a good test case. Is it always or "intrinsically" wrong?

It doesnt matter if there are various other test cases where "it depends", or where there are competing moral values in play.

Yes, but note the argument @Bradskii is trying to give in that quote:

1. "Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context..."
2. Rape is sex in the context of non-consent
3. Therefore, rape depends on context
4. Therefore, a prohibition on rape is not an example of an absolute moral rule

 

[o_mlly]

Any rape I can imagine is something I would consider wrong. So, no.

You?

If all acts of rape are wrong then rape is intrinsically wrong, absolutely wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

If all acts of rape are wrong then rape is intrinsically wrong, absolutely wrong.

Thats easy to say. And I agree it is wrong as a matter of my own judgement.

But it gets interesting when we try to be precise about what wrong means and where our sense of it comes from. Words like intrinsic and absolute have certain implications that Im not sure are correct. Depends on exactly what you mean.

 

[Bradskii]

I think rape is a good test case. Is it always or "intrinsically" wrong?

It doesnt matter if there are various other test cases where "it depends", or where there are competing moral values in play.

Absolute morality (yes I dont like the the term) can be real even if it only applies to a finite set of described behaviors, while the rest require context to sort out.

I think that this is the problem. If you describe an act in enough detail, if you give the complete context then someone could say 'Well, you have enough details now. Surely you can give a definite answer yes or no'. That's what murder is. Killing someone in a very specific set of circumstances. It often takes a bunch of lawyers, a judge, a jury and a lot of witnesses and evidence to determine whether the person killed has been murdered. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Likewise with rape. It's the same scenario required to determine if sexual intercourse can be described as rape. Sometimes it can and sometimes it can't.

Now take lying. I think everyone agrees that lying is context dependent. But if you give enough details about a specific lie then you could be asked if you agree that it's either definitely right or definitely wrong. Give an answer and someone could then say that you're an absolutist.

That makes no sense.

 

[Bradskii]

That's right, and it is present within the very definition that @Bradskii ascribed to:

I think you need to stop this. I agree that the description is the usual definition of the term. I don't ascribe to it as I don't believe it is coherent.

So the three examples that Bradskii gave within his own post also show him to be a "moral absolutist."

Then any concept of a relative morality ceases to exist. Ask a question about any act and if you get a definite yes or no then you're an absolutist? Yes, you can lie about how your wife looks in her new dress therefore lying is not relative. That's patently a nonsensical conclusion.

When you agree with a definition it becomes your definition.

Yet again, I agree it's the definition that everyone understands (well, except you - you said you couldn't find a reputable example, which I don't find to be reasonable). But I don't agree with it as a definition.

 

[zippy2006]

@Bradskii - So you use a label, "absolute morality," in order to try to label and disparage a certain moral view. Yet it turns out that on your definition of absolute morality you yourself are a moral absolutist. So in defining your shibboleth you end up shooting yourself in the foot. Most people like yourself who are trying to declare victory without doing anything prefer to leave the term undefined to avoid this sort of foot-shooting.

How frightening it must have been to find out that, according to your own definition of moral absolutism, you yourself are one of the dreaded moral absolutists!

 

[Bradskii]

@Bradskii - So you use a label, "absolute morality," in order to try to label and disparage a certain moral view.

Well...yes. It's kinda hard to reject what people describe as absolute morality without referring to...what they mean by absolute morality.

Yet it turns out that on your definition of absolute morality you yourself are a moral absolutist.

No, that's what you have claimed. I have given examples of making a decision on a moral matter which was entirely relative to the context. It really can't be described as anything other than an example of a relative morality. But you have called it an example of absolute morality. Which is plainly ridiculous. Do I have to describe what the difference is to you?

Lying is always wrong: That's absolute morality.
Lying is right or wrong depending on the context: That's relative morality.

I gave examples of the second, where lying was determined to be right or wrong relative to the context. And you have said that they are examples of the first.

Most people like yourself who are trying to declare victory without doing anything prefer to leave the term undefined to avoid this sort of foot-shooting.

It's been defined umpteen times.

How frightening it must have been to find out that, according to your own definition of moral absolutism, you yourself are one of the dreaded moral absolutists!

I should put a little sigh emoticon in at this point.

 

[zippy2006]

No, that's what you have claimed.

Everyone here knows that you think rape is always wrong, and that this fits the definition of moral absolutism that you have accepted. Everyone here therefore knows that you are a "moral absolutist" by your own definition. You probably even know this yourself if you are honest.

Lying is always wrong: That's absolute morality.

According to the sophistic reasoning you have given with regard to rape, someone could simply say, "I believe that lying is always wrong, but lying is speech in the context of deception, and is therefore contextual. Therefore I am not a moral absolutist."

I should put a little sigh emoticon in at this point.

Your eloquence is matched only by your intelligence.

 

[Bradskii]

According to the sophistic reasoning you have given with regard to rape, someone could simply say, "I believe that lying is always wrong, but lying is speech in the context of deception, and is therefore contextual.

Lying is not always wrong. Relative to some contexts it is acceptable and relative to others it is not.

Therefore I am not a moral absolutist."

Correct.

Your eloquence is matched only by your intelligence.

Why, shucks.

 

[durangodawood]

I think that this is the problem. If you describe an act in enough detail, if you give the complete context then someone could say 'Well, you have enough details now. Surely you can give a definite answer yes or no'. That's what murder is. Killing someone in a very specific set of circumstances. It often takes a bunch of lawyers, a judge, a jury and a lot of witnesses and evidence to determine whether the person killed has been murdered. Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not. Likewise with rape. It's the same scenario required to determine if sexual intercourse can be described as rape. Sometimes it can and sometimes it can't.

Now take lying. I think everyone agrees that lying is context dependent. But if you give enough details about a specific lie then you could be asked if you agree that it's either definitely right or definitely wrong. Give an answer and someone could then say that you're an absolutist.

That makes no sense.

But some people do hold that even the most clearly egregious rape or murder is wrong just as a matter of social consensus. its not "intrinsically" wrong (whatever that really means). That judgement of "wrong" is not backstopped by anything we'd call "absolute".

Other people think moral rules are established by a perfect lawgiver, so they call morality fundamentally "absolute" in principle, even if various complexities make judgement difficult sometimes. (There may be other explanations for absolute morals that dont require the divine, but thats the most common, i think).

Thats my understanding of the argument at hand.

 

[Bradskii]

But some people do hold that even the most clearly egregious rape or murder is wrong just as a matter of social consensus. its not "intrinsically" wrong (whatever that really means). That judgement of "wrong" is not backstopped by anything we'd call "absolute".

To expand on that 'social consensus'...it goes back to an inbuilt ability to empathise and a rather obvious sense of self preservation. So I won't kill an innocent person with premeditation because I don't want someone to do the same to me. I won't sexually assault someone without consent because I don't want to be sexually assaulted.

Now I don't work all this out every time something happens and I try to consider how allowing it might endanger me at some point. It's a gut feeling. I sense that X is wrong because I'm the descendent of a whole line of people who thought it was wrong. And we've outlived almost all of the people who thought it was OK. It's the way I'm built. It's in my dna. I have no more choice in the matter than I do as to whether I love my wife and my kids or not.

Allow me a quick diversion. It's almost universally accepted that incest is wrong. And by the luck of the evolutionary dice throw, some people thought it was OK and some people didn't. The latter have outlived the former. Their descendants are the ones that are here right now. And you don't have to know that incest causes genetic disorders to think that hey, there's something wrong with it.

But, that's the way biology works. Have sex with a close relative and you lineage is in danger. However, if biology worked differently and having sex with someone not related to you was a danger then incest would appear to be quite normal. Having sex outside the family would seem to be somewhat...icky.

Change the circumstances, change the context and you have to reconsider the act.

Other people think moral rules are established by a perfect lawgiver, so they call morality fundamentally "absolute" in principle, even if various complexities make judgement difficult sometimes.

And I think that as you said upstream, if it's a divine command then there has to be a reason for it being so. And if there's a good reason, then 'it is written' is as meaningless as saying you shouldn't murder someone because 'it is written'.

If someone tells me 'God says X is wrong' then I'll ask why He says that. If it's a good reason then I'll agree. If it isn't then I won't.