Morality without Absolute Morality

[zippy2006]

The problem with the idea of absolute morality...

Why don't you begin by telling us what you mean when you use the term "absolute morality."

 

[o_mlly]

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".

If a negative can be proven then you'd have point. But it cannot, so you don't.

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.

My God is not in the universe. So try again, please.

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

Clearly, absolute morality is not imposed, only proposed. So try again, please.

 

[o_mlly]

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."

I think you misunderstand the bandwagon fallacy. The post did not claim that many agree, rather that all agree.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

You are misusing "bandwagon fallacy". Thats a logical fallacy sometimes deployed in discussion.

But an empirically derived description of people using consensus to determine what they think is correct is not a bandwagon fallacy. It is in fact a correct description if it matches how people are behaving. And people sometime do behave that way.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I think you misunderstand the bandwagon fallacy. The post did not claim that many agree, rather that all agree.

Even if the claim was that all agree, it would be factually incorrect on top of a bandwagon fallacy. Specifically, regarding rape, there are cultures who believe that marital rape and some statutory rape are not only acceptable, but morally good. Therefore, I think a more productive avenue for discussion is to shift to an ethical discussion as to why rape is wrong. If you keep asking the "why" questions, you will ultimately find that atheists cannot justify the reason and find that their godless world is one of pitiless indifference where they must find reasons to maintain their happy nihilism.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

You are misusing "bandwagon fallacy". Thats a logical fallacy sometimes deployed in discussion.

But an empirically derived description of people using consensus to determine what they think is correct is not a bandwagon fallacy. It is in fact a correct description if it matches how people are behaving. And people sometime do behave that way.

Can you provide an example of one of an empirically derived consensus?

Bandwagon Fallacy: Definition and Examples

If all your friends read the same book, would you read it too? Hey, if your answer is “yes,” we get…

www.grammarly.com

You are arguing that if there is a consensus based on empirical observations, that consensus must be objectively true. Note, there was a time where the consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe. Now, we can look back and say the consensus was wrong. My point is that if your argument depends on a consensus, especially on morality which cannot be empirically measured, it is a bandwagon fallacy.

 

[com7fy8]

You can have two different moral positions held by two Christians, both of whom are convinced that God is informing their decisions. Which one is correct?

Both could be wrong, or right . . . depending.

Then the term absolute morality ceases to have meaning.

But I mean wrong or right, according to absolute moral standards.

 

[durangodawood]

Can you provide an example of one of an empirically derived consensus?

I didnt say that.

I said an empirically derived description of people employing consensus. Thats what Im providing: the description of people doing this.*

*Except its not like total 100% consensus. Its just what works such that most people feel they can enjoy a decent life and the society flourishes. The people who disagree (and think for example that there's nothing wrong with rape) just have to suck it up and conform, or face the consequences.

 

[Bradskii]

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...

That's patently not true and I'm really not sure why you keep repeating it. Both terms are defined, and have been defined in this thread, quite specifically. Except by you. You have been arguing for a position that you haven't defined.

Bradskii is unable to differentiate a context from an act.

There are no acts which are devoid of context.

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.

Your problem here, and you've been making the same mistake throughout, is asking if something which by its very definition is wrong, is wrong. It's a tautology. The same with murder. It's nonsensical to ask 'Is murder always wrong?' because it's an act of killing someone, which - by the context, is always wrong. If you asked me and I wanted to be specific about what you meant I might say 'Do you mean that, for example, I kill someone at random' in all probability you'd say 'Well, yes. That's an example of murder. Is it wrong?'. And if I say 'If I kill someone who is trying to shoot me' then you'd say 'No, that's not murder, it's self defence'. OK, I say. Then it's context dependent.

But if I do the same with rape then we get hands thrown in the air. 'Oh no. You can't give examples of the context in this case! You might give me an example of sexual intercourse when it's not rape!' Well...yes. I need to be clear about the context. Are you talking about someone who drugs a woman, drags her into the bushes and has sex with her without consent? Or a couple who have rough sex where she enjoys being dominated? I want to be very clear about the circumstances.

Murder is killing someone in specific circumstances and is always wrong because of that. And rape is sexual intercourse in certain circumstances and is likewise always wrong because of that. Note the similarity? Both occur in certain circumstances. Both are already defined relative to those circumstances.

@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.

Indeed it is a position that is impossible to hold to. But yet again, it's not my definition. This is really becoming nonsensical when you won't even acknowledge the standard definition of the very thing that's being discussed.

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]."

I have no idea how that connects to anything that's been said. And one more time, it's not me that's providing the definitions. The next time I say that it will be all caps. And by the way, we're all racist to some degree. Evolution again...but you don't want to go there.

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.

Change 'rape' to 'sexual intercourse' and all that makes some sense. Otherwise...it doesn't Because rape is defined by the context.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Agreed. Except I'd swap out 'humanity has adopted' for 'which has evolved'.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

I think that's part of the second option. Morality is based on objective facts. Or at least what we understand to be facts at the time.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

To expand on that, and I'm risking being too simplistic saying this because there are many examples which counter it, but morality is what works. But no-one sat around the camp fire working out what moral rules it was that we should follow. It was entirely natural. Those that followed instincts that worked for the betterment of that particular group were 'fitter' than those that didn't. So they became the norm.

The instincts that worked were defined as 'good'. Those that didn't were defined as 'bad'.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I said an empirically derived description of people employing consensus.

Okay sure. Give a specific example of that.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Indeed. But surely you can think of a reason to not steal, for example:

Do you want your goods to be stolen? Obviously not.
If you steal someone else's goods then others might well reciprocate.
So...OK. Let's agree that if I don't steal yours then you won't steal mine. Agreed?

That's being entirely legalistic about it. But it can happen in this way as well:

I worked hard for what I've got. If someone stole it I'd be unhappy.
If someone else had their goods stolen, they'd be unhappy. I know what that feels like.
I don't want them feeling unhappy so I won't steal their goods.

That's an instinctive response (you can call it God given if you like). Some people are like that, some are not. But those who are like that form a more stable society. Those who are not are shunned, expelled, locked up...taken out of the group.

 

[Bradskii]

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

Well, he did say it out loud. One doesn't need to read minds in cases like that.

 

[Bradskii]

But I mean wrong or right, according to absolute moral standards.

But you haven't got a 'wrong or right'. You've effectively got a 'wrong and right'. Each Christian has a different answer. How do we know who has the correct one?

 

[Bradskii]

... atheists cannot justify the reason and find that their godless world is one of pitiless indifference where they must find reasons to maintain their happy nihilism.

Well, I was with you right up until there.

 

[Bradskii]

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

You're making the same mistake as others. To reword that:

If all acts of sexual intercourse that are committed without consent and are therefore by definition wrong are wrong then they are objectively wrong.

You've just said that if something is defined by the context as being wrong then it's wrong irrespective of the context.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If a negative can be proven then you'd have point. But it cannot, so you don't.

I'm not proving anything about any god. I just have never seen any evidence for one.

My God is not in the universe. So try again, please.

This claim is nonsensical. It is nowhere doing nothing for no time?

Clearly, absolute morality is not imposed, only proposed. So try again, please.

I was making a defintion. Do you think so-called absolute morality is by definition only a proposal? Or do you claim it exists?

 

[NxNW]

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

We have his audio recording saying exactly that.

In general, are atheist/agnostics all sociopaths?

I doubt it.