Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

No, I just stated that it wasn't the prerogative of a "creator" to define the "purpose" of a sentient being. One of your presuppositionalist claims.

Something you assert, as if you are the one who gets to define who has what rights.

Not this nonsense again. I don't believe in your god, not one tiny bit. Don't bother claiming that I do, again.

Yet you spend so much of your precious time engaging in counterapologetics. I'm going to stick with what God says, because I know how desperately deceitful the heart of man is.

I hoped that you might be able to understand how being a "creator" isn't sufficient to defining what is true. Alas, I have failed to put it into a form that you could grasp.

By flattening the object of contention, you've done nothing but engaged with a strawman.

It must be bliss.

Certainly is, though it's quite strange to me that people who claim to know so much are so often demanding that I make a demonstration of something that I only know by faith. You would think they'd be happy to share their knowledge with the ignorant.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

So then why call some feelings moral? What is the distinction supposed to identify?

It identifies a specific type of feelings. It is interesting to talk about them sometimes.

The ability to ask a question does not imply the right.

The you need to explain what you mean with right in this case, why would the potter have any rights or not regarding the clay?

Well, sorry for the confusion. For me, it was simply a way of emphasis of a particular role.

It's a statement about analytic truth, because its a matter of definition which is not subject to argument.

Analytic truth, axiomatic truth?

I don't particularly care if you care about them. My interest in this disccussion isn't really to defend my particular way of dealing with morality, simply to highlight that so long as there isn't some objective standard to morality then the only rational response is nihilism. Everything else just reeks of desparation.

Do you have a explicit argument for that then? Some would argue that non-cognitivism is nihilistic, but that's also unproblematic.

So feeling good lighting a cat on fire makes it a moral action?

To some of those who do it surely. I would still try to talk them out of it, by trying to find some moral statement on which we agree together with perhaps some appeal to consistency. There is no guarantee that it works, but just because we have different feelings about an act doesn't mean that we can't talk about it.

That certainly could be the case, but I don't really consider it for the same reason I don't really spend much time thinking about a deceitful God messing with my memories, my sense perceptions, empirical information, or anything else really. If such hypotheticals were true, then I couldn't trust anything. So perhaps I should turn the hypothetical around on you?

So why did you present it as a conditional? What do you mean by turning the hypothetical around? But, sure do it.

 

[Fervent]

It identifies a specific type of feelings. It is interesting to talk about them sometimes.

What's supposed to be special about these feelings? Just saying they're special feelings doesn't identify what it is that makes them special feelings.

The you need to explain what you mean with right in this case, why would the potter have any rights or not regarding the clay?

I think the concept of a right should be well enough understood, and the question of "why" is nonsense without specifying who it is that determines who has what rights. So do you have a proposal for who gets to define what rights belong to whom?

Analytic truth, axiomatic truth?

Not quite, tautalogical(trivial) truth. It is a statement that is defined as true, whereas "axiomatic" is a claim about self-evidence.

Do you have a explicit argument for that then? Some would argue that non-cognitivism is nihilistic, but that's also unproblematic.

Ultimately, it boils down to the is-ought problem. Because if we cannot specify a link between observations and prescriptives it doesn't matter if there are moral truths, any evaluation on our part is not going to relate to them. So at the end of the day there's no reason to care about right or wrong, because none of us are competent evaluators.

To some of those who do it surely. I would still try to talk them out of it, by trying to find some moral statement on which we agree together with perhaps some appeal to consistency. There is no guarantee that it works, but just because we have different feelings about an act doesn't mean that we can't talk about it.

Sure, but what weight are your feelings supposed to have with me? We can talk about the fact that you feel that way, but ultimately that's about as interesting as the question of whether eating ice cream makes you feel good or bad. If its just about how things make us feel, with no intrinsic or extrinsic orientation to truth then it has no reason to hold weight with anyone but you.

So why did you present it as a conditional? What do you mean by turning the hypothetical around? But, sure do it.

I simply presented the statement that we can't separate what is true in fact with what we are justified in believing, though I may have put that poorly. As for turning the hypothetical around, I figured that would be inferrable through the context. Basically what I had in mind was something along the lines of questioning how you deal with the hypothetical of a Cartesian demon. How do you know you can trust whatever you think is the most trustworthy source of information if there might exist a malevolent deity that is perpetrating a deception on you?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

What's supposed to be special about these feelings? Just saying they're special feelings doesn't identify what it is that makes them special feelings.

It's not that they are special, they feel in a specific way.

I think the concept of a right should be well enough understood, and the question of "why" is nonsense without specifying who it is that determines who has what rights. So do you have a proposal for who gets to define what rights belong to whom?

In reality it seems to be society.

Not quite, tautalogical(trivial) truth. It is a statement that is defined as true, whereas "axiomatic" is a claim about self-evidence.

Ultimately, it boils down to the is-ought problem. Because if we cannot specify a link between observations and prescriptives it doesn't matter if there are moral truths, any evaluation on our part is not going to relate to them. So at the end of the day there's no reason to care about right or wrong, because none of us are competent evaluators.

I don't believe the are objective moral truths. But I do care about my moral feelings, others care about them too, we can and do talk about them.

Sure, but what weight are your feelings supposed to have with me? We can talk about the fact that you feel that way, but ultimately that's about as interesting as the question of whether eating ice cream makes you feel good or bad. If its just about how things make us feel, with no intrinsic or extrinsic orientation to truth then it has no reason to hold weight with anyone but you.

Perhaps nothing, but why should anyone care about telos. Since society codifies morals into law sometimes, many are interested in expressing their moral feelings. We can influence our feelings through discussions. It gives us insights that might change our perception of the acts.

I simply presented the statement that we can't separate what is true in fact with what we are justified in believing, though I may have put that poorly. As for turning the hypothetical around, I figured that would be inferrable through the context. Basically what I had in mind was something along the lines of questioning how you deal with the hypothetical of a Cartesian demon. How do you know you can trust whatever you think is the most trustworthy source of information if there might exist a malevolent deity that is perpetrating a deception on you?

I don't know, but I didn't put forward some conditionals about it either. So what was your conditionals supposed to tell me? If the "then" doesn't follow from the condition being true, can't you just put it forward as a brute fact?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Something you assert, as if you are the one who gets to define who has what rights.

Way to completely not understand a pretty simple point. I only assert that no "creator" has the right to determine *my* purpose. You can give up yours all you want. I don't care.

Yet you spend so much of your precious time engaging in counterapologetics. I'm going to stick with what God says, because I know how desperately deceitful the heart of man is.

Nope. Not counterapologetics. I am not arging against god. I'm just trying to have a discussion on thing that are important to people who believe in a god/creator and those who don't and you (like the other principle Christian participants on the thread) muddy up the conversation with the "everything is dependent on the creator/god" assertions. I have no problem comprehending that you think your god is responsible for it all, why is it so hard for you to realize that I do not.

By flattening the object of contention, you've done nothing but engaged with a strawman.

SMH.

Certainly is, though it's quite strange to me that people who claim to know so much are so often demanding that I make a demonstration of something that I only know by faith. You would think they'd be happy to share their knowledge with the ignorant.

 

[Bradskii]

Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances.

I'll just repost that from close to the start of the thread (thank you Oompa). It's the definition that is common wherever you might want to look. It states quite clearly that if an action is right or wrong regardless of context, culture, or circumstances then it cannot be a case of relative morality.

I'm absolutely certain that the following basic question will not be answered. But that's exactly why I want it here. The next time a thread starts on relative morality I'll be able to point to this post to indicate that asking such a basic question is a worthless exercise.


'Please give me an action that you can determine to be right or wrong that disregards context, culture or circumstances'.


Actions which are described in a way that already contains the circumstances are invalid, such as murder (killing an innocent person in a premeditated manner, as opposed to killing in self defence) and rape (sexual intercourse without consent, as opposed to sexual intercourse with consent). This has already been discussed.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

I'll just repost that from close to the start of the thread (thank you Oompa).