Morality without Absolute Morality

[Fervent]

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.

Not at all, since the whole of my argument consists of pointing out that reason cannot establish morality. It could be because it doesn't exist, or it could be that it must come from outside of human intellects. But it remains that there must be something that makes a situation right or wrong regardless of whether or not we agree with it if we are to speak sensibly of morality. Otherwise our opinions on rape are of no more value than our favorite flavor of ice cream.

 

[Fervent]

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.

A need for context doesn't render it non-objective or lacking absolute elements. The question is, would it remain wrong if no one thought it was wrong? If everyone agreed tomorrow that there was nothing immoral about murdering Jews, would that then mean the holocaust was moral?

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

You haven't provided any such thing. You've simply raised an issue that there are mitigating conditions, but the question is...does the act remain wrong if people don't believe it to be wrong? Or is it mere opinion comparable to flavor preferences?

 

[Stopped_lurking]

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

Isn't that what most mean when they use objectively in this context? How would you define objectively in this context in such a way that it doesn't entail this?

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

Say that there objective wrong or right something we can measure or we all have perfect knowledge about morality from revelation, why wouldn't it be trivially true any way. If they get away with it, they get away with it.

 

[Bradskii]

Not at all, since the whole of my argument consists of pointing out that reason cannot establish morality.

Objective morality doesn't just include reason. Or exclude it. I have no idea how you can determine something without reasoning about it. But you say that it's all objective. So give us an example of someone you think has moral character and we'll investigate your claim.

You won't answer the simplest of questions on moral questions (you won't answer the new one I just asked). You say your positions are based on 'revelation' but we have no idea how that relates to real world moral problems because you won't tell us. So if relative morality doesn't exist then give us just one example of a person who exemplifies your claim. Just one.

 

[Fervent]

Isn't that what most mean when they use objectively in this context? How would you define objectively in this context in such a way that it doesn't entail this?

It very well may, but it's not an issue since what is at issue is what we mean when we say "moral" which as far as I can tell objectivity is analytic to the word.

Say that there objective wrong or right something we can measure or we all have perfect knowledge about morality from revelation, why wouldn't it be trivially true any way. If they get away with it, they get away with it.

If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences, there is a basis for appeal and argumentation. When I say the only thing that matters is what you can get away with, I mean that there is no way to legitimize preventative measures. Everything just boils down to who has the will and the ability.

 

[Bradskii]

A need for context doesn't render it non-objective or lacking absolute elements.

This really takes the cake. Needing context is practically the very definition of relative morality. Who did it? Why? When? Where? Was it legal? Was it gratuitous? Was it justified? Was it under duress? Whether the act is morally acceptable of not will be relative to those conditions. How can you possibly get into a thread with about over (checks pkst count) 750 posts and now start to redefine the very meaning of what is being discussed?

The question is, would it remain wrong if no one thought it was wrong? If everyone agreed tomorrow that there was nothing immoral about murdering Jews, would that then mean the holocaust was moral?

It would mean that everyone would think that. Yes. Of course! What else could it possibly mean? And you're including yourself in 'everyone' so even you would think so.

You haven't provided any such thing.

Yes, I did. You could make a judgement at each statement about whether it was moral or not. But you can't make a definite decision until all the facts are known. Your decision as regards the morality of the act will be relative to those facts.

You've simply raised an issue that there are mitigating conditions, but the question is...does the act remain wrong if people don't believe it to be wrong?

That is up to you! And you can decide it's wrong from an emotional point of view, a rational one, you can say that your conscience tells you it's wrong, that Jesus told you, that it's revelation...who cares? It's up to you. The people who said it was ok might have said it was acceptable from an emotional point of view, a rational one, they can say that their conscience told them it was OK, that Jesus told them, that it was revelation.

That's the problem. It's all 'yes, it is' and 'no, it isn't'. It's just a shouting match. Even when it comes to revelation. Especially when it comes to revelation. So unless you have a good argument for a position (and you refuse to even contemplate giving one) then I'll listen to the person with the best argument. You don't even get invited to the discussion. And I mean that seriously. If there was a moral problem and someone said 'Let's get a few heads together to work this through' then you wouldn't be on the list.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Two sides to the same coin.

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

This is still complete inversion of the OP question. @doubtingmerle asked if absolutism is necessary, you ask if it can be omitted.

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.

It is sad that you don't understand @doubtingmerle 's original question, because "what you can get away with" was not the point or relevant.

 

[Bradskii]

If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences...

It's not. Stop using loaded terms like this. It'll be ice cream and chocolate v vanilla v the holocaust next. Good grief, man. Please stop it.

Morality is not about simple preferences. It's what we determine to be the right thing. Each of us. Individually. So I might prefer to smack the guy in the mouth but for various reasons I have determined that it would be morally unjustified. I might prefer to keep the money I have just found but for various reasons I have determined that it would be morally unjustified. Whether I do or not, in either case, will be a reflection of my moral character. I knew it was morally wrong, but I still preferred to do it.

And I want to expressly emphasise that it's down to each of us individually. So even if you think that Jesus has whispered 'No, don't do it,' it's still you that says to yourself 'Yes, I agree. I shouldn't'.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

It very well may, but it's not an issue since what is at issue is what we mean when we say "moral" which as far as I can tell objectivity is analytic to the word.

The closest definition of analytic I found that might be relevant, is that an analytic proposition is a proposition that is true because of the words it contains. So what I draw from that is that you believe that objectivity is a necessary part of morality by the word itself?

If we can establish that morality is not just personal preferences, there is a basis for appeal and argumentation. When I say the only thing that matters is what you can get away with, I mean that there is no way to legitimize preventative measures. Everything just boils down to who has the will and the ability.

Even with only personal preferences there will be attempts to appeal and argument, sometimes they will sway the one being talked to sometimes not. Sometimes society will step in and take a side and enforce a solution. Even with an absolute lawgiver with power to enforce its laws the only thing we have is still something imposing its will. It is only a difference in degrees not in kind.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah well, it's revelation, that changes everything.

Yes. On that issue, the faithful agrees with the secular: "Deus Caritas Est" (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI. And, "Love, love changes everything: how you live and how you die" (A.L. Weber).

What you call revelation and what @Bradskii calls reasoning may be born from the same source.

Not likely. The right relationship of revelation to reason gives the former primacy.

Another of the great insights of Saint Thomas was his perception of the role of the Holy Spirit in the process by which knowledge matures into wisdom. From the first pages of his Summa Theologiae, Aquinas was keen to show the primacy of the wisdom which is the gift of the Holy Spirit and which opens the way to a knowledge of divine realities. His theology allows us to understand what is distinctive of wisdom in its close link with faith and knowledge of the divine. This wisdom comes to know by way of connaturality; it presupposes faith and eventually formulates its right judgement on the basis of the truth of faith itself: “The wisdom named among the gifts of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the wisdom found among the intellectual virtues. This second wisdom is acquired through study, but the first 'comes from on high', as Saint James puts it. This also distinguishes it from faith, since faith accepts divine truth as it is. But the gift of wisdom enables judgement according to divine truth”.​

("Fides et Ratio" p. 44, St. John Paul II).​

What does truly mean here? Because the feelings are true and they define wrong or right for me.

Truth is singular and independent of the the thinking or feeling human mind. An individualistic ethic, especially one based on feelings, by definition, is not likely to be instructive to the many.

These considerations apply equally to moral theology. It is no less urgent that philosophy be recovered at the point where the understanding of faith is linked to the moral life of believers. ... [M]any of the problems of the contemporary world stem from a crisis of truth. I noted that “once the idea of a universal truth about the good, knowable by human reason, is lost, inevitably the notion of conscience also changes. Conscience is no longer considered in its prime reality as an act of a person's intelligence ... Instead, there is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly. Such an outlook is quite congenial to an individualist ethic, wherein each individual is faced with his own truth different from the truth of others” (Ibid p. 98).​

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Truth is singular and independent of the the thinking or feeling human mind. An individualistic ethic, especially one based on feelings, by definition, is not likely to be instructive to the many.

So perhaps its not instructive to the many. I guess they have their own take anyway.

 

[o_mlly]

Even with only personal preferences there will be attempts to appeal and argument ... So perhaps its not instructive to the many. I guess they have their own take anyway.

There's the rub. Appeal to what? The non-believer's in this thread do not accept any appeal to any authority other than their personal transient emotions or their fallible reasoning. Their rebuttals can be summarized as, "I don't think, or worse, feel so".

 

[Stopped_lurking]

There's the rub. Appeal to what? The non-believer's in this thread do not accept any appeal to any authority other than their personal transient emotions or their fallible reasoning. Their rebuttals can be summarized as, "I don't think, or worse, feel so".

To the one with another moral view of course? You interact with them to see if there is an possibility that there is some state of affairs that would change my feelings or their feelings. Feelings can change depending on the facts at hand.

 

[Fervent]

Objective morality doesn't just include reason. Or exclude it. I have no idea how you can determine something without reasoning about it. But you say that it's all objective. So give us an example of someone you think has moral character and we'll investigate your claim.

Your attempts to put me on the hot seat are pure distraction. It's not on me to provide the solution, it's enough for me to raise the problem.

You won't answer the simplest of questions on moral questions (you won't answer the new one I just asked). You say your positions are based on 'revelation' but we have no idea how that relates to real world moral problems because you won't tell us. So if relative morality doesn't exist then give us just one example of a person who exemplifies your claim. Just one.

No, i won't answer questions that distract from the topic at hand. Relative morality is an oxymoron.

 

[o_mlly]

You interact with them to see if there is an possibility that there is some state of affairs that would change my feelings or their feelings. Feelings can change depending on the facts at hand.

Do you freely will your feelings? Or do your feelings bubble-up, un-willed based on your present affections (or disaffections) in the moment? If the latter then those feelings cannot be determined moral or immoral until the act that those feelings move you to take is objectively determined as morally good or bad.

 

[Stopped_lurking]

Do you freely will your feelings?

No

Or do your feelings bubble-up, un-willed based on your present affections (or disaffections) in the moment?

Pretty much yes, even though the process have never shifted as quick as from one moment to the next, with out a shift in my understanding at the same time.

If the latter then those feelings cannot be determined moral or immoral until the act that those feelings move you to take is objectively determined as morally good or bad.

That is according to your view on what determines if something to moral or not, I don't share it. To me it is the form of feeling itself. Compare it to aesthetics, when I see something beautiful I don't compare it to some platonic ideal in order to say that looks nice. I feel that directly.

 

[o_mlly]

Pretty much yes, even though the process have never shifted as quick as from one moment to the next, with out a shift in my understanding at the same time.

If you reflect in order to understand (an operation of intellect and reason, not emotion) then your emotion is merely instrumental and not the end of your determination of your moral code.

Compare it to aesthetics, when I see something beautiful I don't compare it to some platonic ideal in order to say that looks nice. I feel that directly.

? What then do you use to discern a thing to be beautiful or not. Do you hold that there is a difference between enjoyable and admirable beauty?

The former is practical in that beholding enjoyable beauty provides pleasure, and is merely a matter of taste. The latter, admirable beauty, provides a disinterested -- Kant calls "disinterested" the desire of a very special sort -- a desire only to know. Admirable beauty is a value that is appropriate to the same sphere in which we find moral truths to be beautiful.