Morality without Absolute Morality

[zippy2006]

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".

When atheists on forums like CF talk about moral absolutism, they are trying to provide a foil to their own theory which they call "moral relativism." Both positions tend to be ill-defined, as we are seeing here (where, for example, @Bradskii is unable to differentiate a context from an act). Here is the more serious approach for the foil to moral relativism:

Metaethical moral relativist positions are typically contrasted with moral objectivism. Let us say that moral objectivism maintains that moral judgments are ordinarily true or false in an absolute or universal sense, that some of them are true, and that people sometimes are justified in accepting true moral judgments (and rejecting false ones) on the basis of evidence available to any reasonable and well-informed person. There are different ways of challenging moral objectivism...

-Moral Relativism | SEP

So on this view if a person maintains that it is true that rape is universally wrong and there are not cases, cultures, or considerations which can make rape permissible, and that people are justified in accepting this truth about rape, then that person is a moral objectivist. There is a truth about the wrongness of rape that can be reliably known by any reasonable and well-informed person.

The CF merry-go-round is predictable:

1. Oh, so you're a moral relativist?
2. And yet you are telling me that rape/slavery/Holocaust/etc. really are universally wrong?
3. (The person runs in circles for awhile and contradicts themselves)
4. Rinse and repeat.

@Bradskii has here pursued a strategy where he employs a very strange construal of "moral absolutism" such that it is impossible for any absolute moral rule to exist even in principle. This "saves" him from admitting that he is a "moral absolutist," but only at the cost of making "moral absolutism" an utterly impossible position for anyone to hold. Bradskii uses "moral absolutism" as a pejorative label, and the confusions he is engaged in could be paralleled to a scenario in which he is trying to wield the pejorative "racist":

• Bradskii: "You're a racist!"
• Zippy: "According to the definition of 'racism' that you have provided, you're a racist too."
• Bradskii: "No I'm not because [insert Bradskii's construal of his definition whereby it is logically impossible for anyone whosoever to be a racist, including himself]."
• Zippy: "On that account you have avoided being a racist, but your initial claim fails: I am no longer a racist and no one in the entire world is a racist, because it is utterly impossible to be a racist. You've only dodged the tu quoque by turning the object of your own accusation to mush."

...Else, perhaps @Bradskii will claim that he was only trying to convince me to abandon the silly position of "moral absolutism," and that by providing his construal of the definition whereby no one could ever, even in principle, be a "moral absolutist," he has succeeded. This is of course sophistry. It trades on the falsehood which says that I was under the impression, for example, that rape was "absolute" and therefore did not require the "context" of coercion/non-consent. But neither I nor anyone else was under such an impression. The "moral absolutist" simply does not believe that rape can occur outside the "context" of coercion/non-consent. They believe that the act of rape is wrong regardless of the context one is in, where the act of "rape" has the traditional definition and "context" signifies the particular situation in which that act takes place. @Bradskii's insinuation that the "moral absolutist" erroneously believed that rape could occur outside the "context" of coercion/non-consent, and that he corrected their error, is just a strawman. But I think we all knew this already. It is insane to say that because rape necessarily occurs in the "context" of coercion/non-consent, therefore anyone who thinks rape is wrong is a moral relativist.

• Bradskii: "If someone is a 'moral absolutist' with respect to rape, then they must believe that rape need not occur in the 'context' of coercion/non-consent."
• Zippy: "No, that's not even close. You don't even understand the definition you've agreed to."

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Exactly: Do you know anyone who thinks rape is good? Do you know any place where rape is good? Do you know any time when rape is/was good? If you do not know who, where or when rape is good then one can conclude that rape is wrong for any one, at any time and in any place. Such an act must be objectively, intrinsically, absolutely wrong. What other implications do you think bear on determining the act as good or wrong?

The nonsense argument that strips the definition of rape to the merely physical act of sexual intercourse denies the richness of language. Is a daiquiri an alcoholic drink? That contorted mind would say, No ... the drink is served in a glass of lime juice.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Ten pages in, and all I have read was frivolous bickering. Regarding morality, there are two options. Either it is absolute and was given by an absolute moral law giver (God), or is subjectively relative and varies with time and culture. Bandwagon fallacies does not prove anything. There are only two logical positions to have. One requires the acceptance of an absolute moral law giver that surpasses humanity, the other requires accepting that the standards of morality is a social construct humanity has adopted for the survival of the species. It is illogical and contradictory when someone tries to suggest the existence of moral absolutes while simultaneously denying the existence of God. This is all I will say on the topic.

 

[durangodawood]

Ten pages in, and all I have read was frivolous bickering. Regarding morality, there are two options. Either it is absolute and was given by an absolute moral law giver (God), or is subjectively relative and varies with time and culture.

There is a third option:

Morality is not revealed or commanded. Nor is it individually subjective. Instead derives from objectively knowable features of mental biology + objectively knowable conditions of living well on earth. This accounts for both the variability we've seen across cultures, plus some of the common moral rules we all seem to share.

Maybe thats what you mean by "subjective". But I wouldnt use that word, as subjective implies simple individual chocolate/vanilla type preference.

 

[NxNW]

The problem with the idea of absolute morality is that even if we agree it exists (which I don't), we're still left with trying to interpret it. If I ask a Catholic and a Mormon if God approves of us using birth control or drinking alcohol, I'll get two different answers.

At least with the Constitution, we've got SCOTUS to interpret it and a method for updating it.

 

[NxNW]

Exactly: Do you know anyone who thinks rape is good? Do you know any place where rape is good? Do you know any time when rape is/was good? If you do not know who, where or when rape is good then one can conclude that rape is wrong for any one, at any time and in any place. Such an act must be objectively, intrinsically, absolutely wrong.

If the definition includes sexual assault of all types, then I can think of a certain President who thinks it's OK if he does it. And sociopaths in general may not think the rules exist at all.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

There is a third option:

Morality is not revealed or commanded. Nor is it individually subjective. Instead derives from objectively knowable features of mental biology + objectively knowable conditions of living well on earth. This accounts for both the variability we've seen across cultures, plus some of the common moral rules we all seem to share.

Maybe thats what you mean by "subjective". But I wouldnt use that word, as subjective implies simple individual chocolate/vanilla type preference.

Are you arguing for absolute morality, or objective morality? Because that makes the discussion very different. I would also add that you are about to fall into a bandwagon fallacy. Which is why it cannot be a logical third option.

 

[durangodawood]

Are you arguing for absolute morality, or objective morality? Because that makes the discussion very different.

I find all the terms potentially misleading.

I call my position "objective" morality because I think its originates in objectively knowable facts about the human species and the world around us.

Other people say that morality commanded from God is "objective morality". I find that misleading tho as divine command or revelation is more a matter of faith than anything we can objectively show to each other.

If theres some better way to talk about it, Im all ears.

 

[partinobodycular]

If the definition includes sexual assault of all types, then I can think of a certain President who thinks it's OK if he does it. And sociopaths in general may not think the rules exist at all.

Not only that, but in the U.S. what constitutes rape varies depending upon where you are. It varies depending upon who you are. It varies depending upon when it takes place. It varies depending upon parental consent. It varies depending upon marital status. It varies depending upon the status of the perpetrator. It varies depending upon the level of resistance, And it varies depending upon the act itself.

What constitutes an immoral sexual act in one state may be perfectly acceptable in another state just ten feet away.

Doesn't sound very absolute to me.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I find all the terms potentially misleading.

I call my position "objective" morality because I think its originates in objectively knowable facts about the human species and the world around us.

Other people say that morality commanded from God is "objective morality". I find that misleading tho as divine command or revelation is more a matter of faith than anything we can objectively show to each other.

If theres some better way to talk about it, Im all ears.

I prefer using the terms objective morality and subjective morality. But regardless of what you prefer, the results are the same. Only the conversation becomes different. In the end, either morality is determined by a collective of individual subjective opinions, or their is a supreme moral law giver that has established those moral laws as both the standard of and who declares morality in such a way that any deviation would become factually and objectively wrong. Those are the only two logical options.

 

[zippy2006]

Ten pages in, and all I have read was frivolous bickering. Regarding morality, there are two options. Either it is absolute and was given by an absolute moral law giver (God), or is subjectively relative and varies with time and culture.

No, that's not true at all. Divine command theory and cultural relativism are two moral theories among many more. They are not the only options, and they are not widely held. It's hard to understand why anyone would suggest that these are the only options.

Others would include natural law, deontology, consequentialism, emotivism, moral objectivism, moral realism, moral anti-realism, moral fictionalism, moral non-cognitivism, error theory, etc.

 

[durangodawood]

I prefer using the terms objective morality and subjective morality. But regardless of what you prefer, the results are the same. Only the conversation becomes different. In the end, either morality is determined by a collective of individual subjective opinions....

I disagree with that characterization. The real world conditions we inherit, both of human nature and of the world we live in, are not subjective. Our moral sense has to conform to those to persist. Thats not a matter for opinion. Deviations (like what we saw with state-Marxism for example) will result in decline and ruin.

......or their is a supreme moral law giver that has established those moral laws as both the standard of and who declares morality in such a way that any deviation would become factually and objectively wrong. Those are the only two logical options.

How does deviation from divinely revealed moral law become "objectively" wrong? Can you briefly outline how this proposed idea works?

 

[partinobodycular]

There is a third option:

Morality is not revealed or commanded. Nor is it individually subjective. Instead derives from objectively knowable features of mental biology + objectively knowable conditions of living well on earth.

Or in other words, things have the right to be alive, and to live that life in recognition of the fact that everything else has the right to do the same.

Call it the inalienable right of all things to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To me, if there's an objective basis to right and wrong, that's it.

 

[durangodawood]

Or in other words, things have the right to be alive, and to live that life in recognition of the fact that everything else has the right to do the same.

Call it the inalienable right of all things to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

To me, if there's an objective basis to right and wrong, that's it.

I could not put it that way as it would set even a lot of plant agriculture off limits.

But I am personally sympathetic to some recognition of the "personhood" of other beings tho, even if its not the same quality as human personhood. I think this is a correct way to view the world, tho for me its more intuitional that demonstrable - for now.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I disagree with that characterization. The real world conditions we inherit, both of human nature and of the world we live in, are not subjective. Our moral sense has to conform to those to persist. Thats not a matter for opinion. Deviations (like what we saw with state-Marxism for example) will result in decline and ruin.


How does deviation from divinely revealed moral law become "objectively" wrong? Can you briefly outline how this proposed idea works?

 

[durangodawood]

Id prefer to hear your words so if I disagree we can be clear about exactly where the contention is.

You can do it, Mr Loompa!

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Id prefer to hear your words so if I disagree we can be clear about exactly where the contention is.

You can do it, Mr Loompa!

I agree with the video, and to say something is objectively morally wrong because "everyone agrees it is wrong" is textbook bandwagon fallacy regardless to what their moral senses has conformed.

 

[o_mlly]

If the definition includes sexual assault of all types, then I can think of a certain President who thinks it's OK if he does it.

Good grief. Another one who claims the existence of God is unknowable but has no difficulty in knowing the mind of another!

And sociopaths in general may not think the rules exist at all.

In general, are atheist/agnostics all sociopaths? I didn't know that. But after checking out the posters' religious affiliation who have difficulty with an objective morality, you may have stumbled onto the truth.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Good grief. Another one who claims the existence of God is unknowable but has no difficulty in knowing the mind of another!

Way to not understand what those labels mean. "God is unknowable" is more of an "agnostic" position" than an atheist one. We tend (though you'll need to ask @NxNW directly) to be "I don't believe in any god" or "no gods (can) exist".

In general, are atheist/agnostics all sociopaths? I didn't know that. But after checking out the posters' religious affiliation who have difficulty with an objective morality, you may have stumbled onto the truth.

The problem, is that unless you are claiming morality is some intrinsic property of the Universe that your god must also adhere to, a morality based on the (claimed) demand of a god is *SUBJECTIVE* as it is subject to the mind of that god (unless you'd like to claim yours is mindless). Christian, Biblical, Abrahamic, Judeo-Christian (or whatever label you'd like to use) morality is by definition subjective as it depends on the mind of God.

(The actual subject of the thread is "absolute" morality -- morality imposed by fiat by a moral authority, which is a subjective form of morality.)

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Exactly: Do you know anyone who thinks rape is good? Do you know any place where rape is good? Do you know any time when rape is/was good? If you do not know who, where or when rape is good then one can conclude that rape is wrong for any one, at any time and in any place. Such an act must be objectively, intrinsically, absolutely wrong. What other implications do you think bear on determining the act as good or wrong?

The nonsense argument that strips the definition of rape to the merely physical act of sexual intercourse denies the richness of language. Is a daiquiri an alcoholic drink? That contorted mind would say, No ... the drink is served in a glass of lime juice.

With all due respect, your argument is a bandwagon fallacy. May I suggest instead to focus on why rape is wrong, instead of claiming "nobody thinks rape is good."