Morality without Absolute Morality

[Hans Blaster]

My dismissal of other views is not from some inability, I am well aware that other views exist. But there's no point in countenancing them, especially not when they're being wielded as rhetorical cudgels by atheists.

Your inability to understand other postions is well demonstrated.

My conviction that my religion is correct is not a presumption, it's the sum total of my experience, deductive inferences, and abductive inferences.

You're the one who stepped up to me with all your hot air.

 

[Fervent]

Your inability to understand other postions is well demonstrated.

Refusal to countenance is not inability.

edited to add: the fact that you're trying to make this about me rather than engaging with my arguments is quite telling

 

[Bradskii]

We need no such test, what we need is some viable candidate that excludes any form of absolute or objective moral benchmarks while maintaining genuine moral character. So far, none has been presented.

I present...everyone. Because everyone makes personal choices about moral matters. Now you can present the alternative. Someone with genuine moral character, excluding any divine figures, that we can investigate.

 

[Fervent]

I present...everyone. Because everyone makes personal choices about moral matters. Now you can present the alternative. Someone with genuine moral character, excluding any divine figures, that we can investigate.

"Everyone" is not a viable candidate moral framework.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The discussion isn't about morality, it's about whether or not it is possible to have morality without an absolute morality. So your questions in the middle of our exchange are nothing but distractions to the fact that your bootstrapping is futile.

That's not the question in the OP. It is the opposite -- whether an absolute morality is even needed. Or to quote that post directly:

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

Now in presenting the "absolute morality is needed" side, it might be said that he doesn't do it justice as the argument made on its behalf is the sophistry of Charlie Kirk.

 

[Bradskii]

"Everyone" is not a viable candidate moral framework.

Then out of literally everyone, pick someone that you consider to have moral character that we can investigate and tell us who that person is.

 

[Fervent]

That's not the question in the OP. It is the opposite -- whether an absolute morality is even needed. Or to quote that post directly:

Two sides to the same coin.

Now in presenting the "absolute morality is needed" side, it might be said that he doesn't do it justice as the argument made on its behalf is the sophistry of Charlie Kirk.

It must be shown how something can be genuinely moral without an objective or absolute element. If it purely depends on whether or not someone believes it to be wrong or right, and not some inherent feature, then the only thing that matters is what you can get away with.

 

[Fervent]

Then out of literally everyone, pick someone that you consider to have moral character that we can investigate and tell us who that person is.

I can't bootstrap it any better than you. I can only accept the word of an external authority, and that as an act of surrender.

 

[partinobodycular]

I can repeat what I said that you offered no rebuttal to, but if you're not going to engage and just refuse to respond I'll save my energy.

To use your favorite word... sophistry

 

[Bradskii]

I can't bootstrap it any better than you. I can only accept the word of an external authority, and that as an act of surrender.

That had nothing to do with my request. You said:

...what we need is some viable candidate that excludes any form of absolute or objective moral benchmarks while maintaining genuine moral character. So far, none has been presented.

Anyone I choose you will reject as not being a person 'maintaining genuine moral character'. So you pick one that does and we'll investigate. There must be one as you said none had been produced 'so far'. You have the whole planet to choose from. It shouldn't take you long.

 

[Fervent]

To use your favorite word... sophistry

Hardly a rebuttal.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Two sides to the same coin.

It must be shown how something can be genuinely moral without an objective or absolute element. If it purely depends on whether or not someone believes it to be wrong or right, and not some inherent feature, then the only thing that matters is what you can get away with.

Genuinely moral? What does the qualifier genuinely mean here? If it means having an absolute or objective element, then you have defined away the question.

When it comes to what IS, "...the only thing that matters is what you can get away with." is a given regardless of any moral framework. Why would that change people's moral views?

 

[partinobodycular]

That's not the question in the OP. It is the opposite -- whether an absolute morality is even needed.

I'll take a crack at it. Seeing as how society seems to be operating under some semblance of moralistic order already, it seems fairly obvious that an 'absolute' morality isn't required.

 

[Fervent]

That had nothing to do with my request. You said:

It has everything to do with your request.

Anyone I choose you will reject as not being a person 'maintaining genuine moral character'. So you pick one that does and we'll investigate. There must be one as you said none had been produced 'so far'. You have the whole planet to choose from. It shouldn't take you long.

My selecting someone won't address the is-ought gap any more than your attempts to rely on emotions and other subjective states.

 

[Fervent]

I'll take a crack at it. Seeing as how society seems to be operating under some semblance of moralistic order already, it seems fairly obvious that an 'absolute' morality isn't required.

Oh? How did you determine the order of the day is moralistic? What was the benchmark or determining feature?

 

[Fervent]

Genuinely moral? What does the qualifier genuinely mean here? If it means having an absolute or objective element, then you have defined away the question.

It means having some bearing in reality, reflective of a state of affairs beyond the whims of an individual.

When it comes to what IS, "...the only thing that matters is what you can get away with." is a given regardless of any moral framework. Why would that change people's moral views?

It's only a given if there is no relationship between morals and reality.

 

[Bradskii]

It must be shown how something can be genuinely moral without an objective or absolute element.

Killing. Oh, sorry - it could be a premedidated killing of someone innocent or killing in self defence. I know...you need more information.
Killing a young woman. Intentionally, you ask? You need to know that? Well, OK.
Killing a young woman intentionally. What? In what circumstances? Gee...
Killing a young woman intentionally in the process of a robbery. Yes, she was comitting the robbery!
Killing a young woman intentionally in the process of a robbery during which she was stealing something.

And it was a loaf of bread because her kid was starving. A cop shot her in the head when she ran away. He said it was because she was Asian and they should all be shot. Yeah, I know. You have no idea if it's morally good or bad. If I asked you you'd refuse to answer. I'll just let it sit there as an example of something genuinely immoral without an objective or absolute element. Whether it was morally correct or not was entirely dependent on a whole list of pertinent conditions. It was morally correct or not relevant to those conditions.

 

[Fervent]

Killing. Oh, sorry - it could be a premedidated killing of someone innocent or killing in self defence. I know...you need more information.
Killing a young woman. Intentionally, you ask? You need to know that? Well, OK.
Killing a young woman intentionally. What? In what circumstances? Gee...
Killing a young woman intentionally in the process of a robbery. Yes, she was comitting the robbery!
Killing a young woman intentionally in the process of a robbery during which she was stealing something.

And it was a loaf of bread because her kid was starving. A cop shot her in the head when she ran away. He said it was because she was Asian and they should all be shot. Yeah, I know. You have no idea if it's morally good or bad. If I asked you you'd refuse to answer. I'll just let it sit there as an example of something genuinely immoral without an objective or absolute element. Whether it was morally correct or not was entirely dependent on a whole list of pertinent conditions. It was morally correct or not relevant to those conditions.

Your rants aren't arguments. Particularly when they are blatant emotional appeals with no substantive content.

 

[Bradskii]

My selecting someone won't address the is-ought gap any more than your attempts to rely on emotions and other subjective states.

It will exemplify your position exactly. It will highlight what you say in that morality isn't relative. So name someone. Anyone at all. It's your choice. I mean, there must be somebody. Otherwise you're arguing for something that doesn't actually exist.

 

[Bradskii]

Your rants aren't arguments. Particularly when they are blatant emotional appeals with no substantive content.

It wasn't an argument or an appeal. That's obvious. It was a reply to your request for an example of an act that can be genuinely moral without an objective or absolute element. The act is defined by the circumstances given. It's morality is determined by those circumstances.

If I give you something which you asked for, how can you complain?

And as I said: 'You have no idea if it's morally good or bad. If I asked you you'd refuse to answer'. So I'm asking. Do you think it was morally good or bad?