The source of moral obligation

[quatona]

I didn't address the reductio ad absurdum to you but to variant.

If you put up your arguments to scrutinity here, you should be happy to be shown its faults - no matter by whom.

So I still await his reply.

Sure, do that.

Nor am I convinced that what you are doing is anything more than giving lip service to moral relativism.

My point stands - if you feel you can´t address it other than by attempts at uncharitable mind reading, that´s not my problem.

I am skeptical.

You could simply address the point.

 

[quatona]

You hit the nail right on the head once again. We as humans have this, as C.S. Lewis once put it, a "queer" sense of good and bad and of right and wrong. But to what do we owe it to?

To a "queer" God?
Now, if LLLewis finds his sense of morality "queer", that says something about him.
My sense of morality deals with real world issues and therefore I don´t consider it "queer".
This was a clue for Lewis that our moral experience points us to a reality above and beyond the here and now.

 

[variant]

And the Nazis imagined and reasoned and perceived that their extermination of certain homo sapiens was good and right and that to dissent would be bad and wrong.

Right and I think the Natzi's are wrong.

According to you, since they arrived at this conclusion, they had a moral obligation to exterminate the Jews.

My view is that they imagined they did, used reasoning to reach that conclusion or precieved the consequences of those actions Good.

Moral obligations are human inventions, they are only as good as the humans employing them.

This is my reductio ad absurdum against your view.

Some people being bad at morality in others view, doesn't make morality being a human invention an absurd conclusion, it's in fact, exactly what we would expect.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Right and I think the Natzi's are wrong.



My view is that they imagined they did, used reasoning to reach that conclusion or precieved the consequences of those actions Good.

Moral obligations are human inventions, they are only as good as the humans employing them.



Some people being bad at morality in others view, doesn't make morality being a human invention an absurd conclusion, it's in fact, exactly what we would expect.

Exterminating six million people because they are of a particular ethnicity in your worldview can be both good and bad right and wrong.

This is the reductio ad absurdum of your view.

In your worldview, saying rape is wrong is like saying chocolate is nasty.

Tell me, why think that moral statements are no different than statements of person-relative taste?

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs are Acceptable

The most serious objection to moral relativism is that relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. The objection is that if we say beliefs and actions are right or wrong only relative to a specific moral standpoint, it then becomes possible to justify almost anything. We are forced to abandon the idea that some actions are just plain wrong. Nor can we justify the idea that some forms of life are obviously and uncontroversially better than others, even though almost everyone believes this. According to the relativists, say the critics, the beliefs of slave-owners and Nazis should be deemed true and their practices right relative to their conceptual-moral frameworks; and it is not possible for anyone to prove that their views are false or morally misguided, or that there are better points of view. To many, this is a reductio ad absurdum of moral relativism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Exterminating six million people because they are of a particular ethnicity in your worldview can be both good and bad right and wrong.

This is the reductio ad absurdum of your view.

In your worldview, saying rape is wrong is like saying chocolate is nasty.

Tell me, why think that moral statements are no different than statements of person-relative taste?

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs are Acceptable

The most serious objection to moral relativism is that relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. The objection is that if we say beliefs and actions are right or wrong only relative to a specific moral standpoint, it then becomes possible to justify almost anything. We are forced to abandon the idea that some actions are just plain wrong. Nor can we justify the idea that some forms of life are obviously and uncontroversially better than others, even though almost everyone believes this. According to the relativists, say the critics, the beliefs of slave-owners and Nazis should be deemed true and their practices right relative to their conceptual-moral frameworks; and it is not possible for anyone to prove that their views are false or morally misguided, or that there are better points of view. To many, this is a reductio ad absurdum of moral relativism.

Given your own moral relativism when it comes to genocide, I would advise against pointing fingers, Jeremy.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Given your own moral relativism when it comes to genocide, I would advise against pointing fingers, Jeremy.

Pardon?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Pardon?

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have gotten you confused with your very, very close associate, Elioenai26. Almost like twins you are.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Oh, I'm sorry, I must have gotten you confused with your very, very close associate, Elioenai26. Almost like twins you are.

you mentioned my moral relativism. what were you referring to?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken-1122
This is where I dont get it. Arent you making a statemnet that I was wrong and therefore saying you know better or you know something about what is correct and incorrect whether you are proving it or not.

Yes!

But there can be different ways people see the moral but the moral still stays the same. So the moral doesn't become a new moral version for that person just because they have seen it in a different way. It remains the original moral with an adjustment.

Okay; you seem to be under the impression that there is one morality, one truth that exist. If that’s the case, where is it? Demonstrate this morality exists. Don’t say you believe it is in God; demonstrate it is through God or where ever it is you believe it exists.

When people use the example of subjective morality they say things like, but look at the past they use allowed killing. But they didn't allow killing like it was OK to kill for everyone or in any circumstance. They just allowed it for that one occasion and that one situation. All the other situations in their life killing was still wrong so they still had the same basic moral belief that killing was wrong.

Objective means “written in stone”. If killing is objectively wrong; you can’t make exceptions to that rule.

If a line is drawn in the sand; and you are allowed to cross that line for a specific reason, later down the road whoever allowed you to cross the line for a specific reason the first time will allow you to cross the line again for another specific reason; then you will be allowed to cross that line again and again each time for specific reasons, and each time you cross the line; the line will fade a little and when you’ve crossed the line enough times eventually the line will have faded away; now there is no line. When you get to the point that you no longer have a line drawn in the sand; anything goes.

If you use the maths example of 1 + 1= 2. If the moral was always 1+1= 2 in the basic true form of the moral as it was intended. The society or person has allowed an adjustment to the moral in that one situation so the total is still (2). The situation hasn't changed that number to 3 and made a new number for that person like a new moral. They still believe that killing is wrong or the answer is 2. Its just they have been allowed make an adjustment to the strict ruling of that moral being 1+1 and made it say 1+ .5 + .5 on that one occasion. But the moral still adds up to 2. It is still wrong to kill and no new moral has been allowed for that person or society or culture.

If we assume morality is objective, whoever allowed an adjustment to the moral in that one situation was wrong. Anybody who attempts to make an exception to 1+1 so that it equals 3 is wrong. When something is written in stone, you can’t change it. If morality is objective; it can't be interpreted to be changed.

Ken

 

[variant]

Exterminating six million people because they are of a particular ethnicity in your worldview can be both good and bad right and wrong.

No my world view is that it is wrong. I accept the fact that there exist people with diametrically opposed world views.

When we appeal to each others sense of morality, or impress upon another a "moral obligation" we must to appeal to shared values and experiences, and reason with one another to convince one another, or, if we have irreconcilably opposed values we have to come into conflict.

I'm simply not under the impression that the moral obligations I might wish people to accept are universal, objective, or sustained by an invisible person.

Morality is an idea, a human invention, It will only ever be as good as we are.

The condemnation of the Natzi's is greatly widespread today because people took it upon themselves to make it that way.

Morality is enforced BY US.

This is the reductio ad absurdum of your view.

It isn't my view at all.

Thinking morality is a human idea doesn't mean I think all things are permissible or correct, that is simply your straw-man argument.

In your worldview, saying rape is wrong is like saying chocolate is nasty.


Tell me, why think that moral statements are no different than statements of person-relative taste?

Because peoples "tastes" are trivial and harmless differences between people where as people who rape people seriously harm them.

We think rape is wrong because we empathize with how it feels to be raped, we can reason out how terrible it is to do something like that to peope, and we don't like the perceived consequences of living in a society where it was acceptable.

The moral obligation that I would feel to stop a rape because I think it is wrong is no less real than one ordained by some invisible being, I simply think it's source is the humans who came up with the concept of rape, who thought about it, who taught me, my own empathy in the situation, and my own judgment.

From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Relativism Implies that Obvious Moral Wrongs are Acceptable

The most serious objection to moral relativism is that relativism implies that obvious moral wrongs are acceptable. The objection is that if we say beliefs and actions are right or wrong only relative to a specific moral standpoint, it then becomes possible to justify almost anything. We are forced to abandon the idea that some actions are just plain wrong. Nor can we justify the idea that some forms of life are obviously and uncontroversially better than others, even though almost everyone believes this. According to the relativists, say the critics, the beliefs of slave-owners and Nazis should be deemed true and their practices right relative to their conceptual-moral frameworks; and it is not possible for anyone to prove that their views are false or morally misguided, or that there are better points of view. To many, this is a reductio ad absurdum of moral relativism.

I'm not a relativist, I simply believe morality is a subjective idea, that it originates within humanity itself.

I would have no problem beating you to death with my bare hands if you tried to exterminate millions of people, thus the objection that I find obvious moral wrongs 'acceptable' is a bit odd.

I don't find obvious moral wrongs acceptable at all, nor do I accept what I see to be obviously wrong.

I am not forced in any way shape or form to accept the legitimacy of every subjects morality simply because I think morality is subjective, that is just silly.

The view that morality is a human idea does not in any way shape or form imply that all human ideas are equal.

 

[variant]

Objective means “written in stone”. If killing is objectively wrong; you can’t make exceptions to that rule.

If a line is drawn in the sand; and you are allowed to cross that line for a specific reason, later down the road whoever allowed you to cross the line for a specific reason the first time will allow you to cross the line again for another specific reason; then you will be allowed to cross that line again and again each time for specific reasons, and each time you cross the line; the line will fade a little and when you’ve crossed the line enough times eventually the line will have faded away; now there is no line. When you get to the point that you no longer have a line drawn in the sand; anything goes.

I'm not sure you couldn't have a morality that is both objective and seriously bureaucratic/qualified or even algorithmic.

It would just be very difficult to formulate all the situations and exceptions you would have to set in stone ahead of time and difficult for anyone to actually implement in their lives.

Perhaps the morality of conscious AI's will be enlightening when they come into being.

 

[quatona]

.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not sure you couldn't have a morality that is both objective and seriously bureaucratic/qualified or even algorithmic.

It would just be very difficult to formulate all the situations and exceptions you would have to set in stone ahead of time and difficult for anyone to actually implement in their lives.

Perhaps the morality of conscious AI's will be enlightening when they come into being.

In order for morality to be objective, it would have to be much more than "set in stone" it would have to be demonstrable like math, temperature, or measurement. Everybody agrees to the rules of math, temperature, and measurement; but everybody does not agree on morality. Because there is no one set rule that morality is based upon, morality is subjective.

Ken

 

[variant]

In order for morality to be objective, it would have to be much more than "set in stone" it would have to be demonstrable like math, temperature, or measurement. Everybody agrees to the rules of math, temperature, and measurement; but everybody does not agree on morality. Because there is no one set rule that morality is based upon, morality is subjective.

Ken

My point is that there is nothing keeping an objective system of morality from being very complicated.

For the sake of the argument, If we posit a God, which enforces a system of morality on all of the universe absolutely, there is nothing that would say that the God would not have a exceptionally nuanced view of that morality while maintaining consistency.

This leaves the question open though, of whether, a man trying to replicate such a system, even with help would be able to approach an objective morality in any way, shape, or form. Or, whether they would just carve out exceptions to suit themselves (as you alluded to).

This also leads to a new problem that the simplified instructions for man can be followed correctly as to the instructions, in an objectively immoral way.

 

[Eudaimonist]

In order for morality to be objective, it would have to be much more than "set in stone" it would have to be demonstrable like math, temperature, or measurement. Everybody agrees to the rules of math, temperature, and measurement; but everybody does not agree on morality. Because there is no one set rule that morality is based upon, morality is subjective.

Therefore, since some people are flat Earthers, the shape of the Earth is subjective and not set in stone.

It isn't at all clear that morality can't be demonstrable. The simple fact of disagreement on the issue doesn't prove anything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[stevevw]

Ken

I made my quote from the last reply in bold to show it separate from what you said. But it has ended up being too bold and big. So dont think I'm making it that way because I'm shouting or getting upset. I cant seem to edit things at the moment. There has been something intermittently wrong with the editing button for a while.

Steve.

Noooo now I just edited all my reply out.

 

[Freodin]

Therefore, since some people are flat Earthers, the shape of the Earth is subjective and not set in stone.

It isn't at all clear that morality can't be demonstrable. The simple fact of disagreement on the issue doesn't prove anything.


eudaimonia,


Mark

Well, yes, it is clear that morality can't be demonstrable. But you are right, disagreement doesn't prove anything here.

 

[quatona]

It isn't at all clear that morality can't be demonstrable.

Well, the best way to support the idea would be to demonstrate a moral fact. It never seems to happen, though. That´s reason enough for me to put that idea to the side.

The simple fact of disagreement on the issue doesn't prove anything.

Agreed.

 

[stevevw]

double quote

 

[stevevw]

Ken-1122

Steve
This is where I dont get it. Arent you making a statemnet that I was wrong and therefore saying you know better or you know something about what is correct and incorrect whether you are proving it or not.
Kens reply yes.

Then if this is the case you are stating that you know something of the truth more than I in this matter. But how do you know that.

Okay; you seem to be under the impression that there is one morality, one truth that exist. If that’s the case, where is it? Demonstrate this morality exists. Don’t say you believe it is in God; demonstrate it is through God or where ever it is you believe it exists.

How can I do that. What does morality look like. It would be as hard as proving God. Morality doesn't like like a chair or spoon. But I can make a case that we all know and have this objective morality in us by the way we behave. Even though you say we all have different views of morality when it comes to our reactions we behave in the true manner. So some may say I believe that people can have different versions of morality and we all have to accept that and can't judge them. But when someone actually takes some action against that person with their version of morality they will react differently to what they said they believed.

Thats because the true moral is written in their hearts so they will respond to this no matter what they say. Its just everyone will change the true original moral of something with their own version. They will substitute it with humanities truth which is not Gods truth. They will be influenced by things like personal motives, ambition, desires, money, power and this will cause them to make justifications why they can change the moral so they can act against that moral without feeling guilty. But deep down they still know its wrong but they are denying and telling themselves its all OK.

Objective means “written in stone”. If killing is objectively wrong; you can’t make exceptions to that rule.

Yes you can when that moral crosses with another moral that will over rule it. What happens when two morals clash. You have to compromise one of them. Objective morals can be compromised with a greater moral good. By not taking action you are doing a greater wrong. But what people do is they make out that this compromise is another version of the same moral. Its not, the original moral stays upheld. There is a good reason why only in that situation and that occasion it can be compromised and thats it. It is justified and its not another new version of that moral. Its an exception to the rule and doesn't mean that people can now breach or compromise that moral for any or all reasons.

But what happens is people then start to use all sorts of reasons to compromise a moral and claim that morals are objective. But what they are using is their personal opinion and not making a new moral. So the original moral stays set in stone and the personal views of people about that moral are just that personal views. Subjectivity is not about the moral itself. Its about the person and their personal view. The way they see things. But the moral itself stays the same. Those who compromised morals in the past either did it justified because of a greater moral or unjustified and rationalized that it was OK according to them. But compared to the true original moral they were either wrong or right, justified or unjustified. But an unjustified opinion or view is not a moral its an opinion.

If a line is drawn in the sand; and you are allowed to cross that line for a specific reason, later down the road whoever allowed you to cross the line for a specific reason the first time will allow you to cross the line again for another specific reason; then you will be allowed to cross that line again and again each time for specific reasons, and each time you cross the line; the line will fade a little and when you’ve crossed the line enough times eventually the line will have faded away; now there is no line. When you get to the point that you no longer have a line drawn in the sand; anything goes.

This is what happens with moral subjectivity. As I said the reason should only be because of a greater moral wrong or right. But with subjectivity because no absolute morality is believed this can happen. Because there is no clear moral set in stone anyone can argue and make a case for why they can change the rules and compromise or breach the moral standard. It is all undermined. But if we had a clear set of morals then we would know that only very rare and justified situations would allow that moral to be changed.

If we assume morality is objective, whoever allowed an adjustment to the moral in that one situation was wrong. Anybody who attempts to make an exception to 1+1 so that it equals 3 is wrong. When something is written in stone, you can’t change it. If morality is objective; it can't be interpreted to be changed.

No they dont make the adjustment to 1+1 to equal 3. On rare occasions because a greater moral injustice maybe done they may compromise or be allowed to take an action despite that moral which would make it like 1+ .5 +.5 to equal 2 still as the calculation. The sum still adds up to 2 which is the moral staying the same. Its just they are making an alteration to the set criteria of how that moral is seen because of a another moral which would cause a greater wrong.

For example killing is wrong. But not defending your family against a killer is a greater wrong. So if you happen to kill that attacker because you were defending the this is not the same as killing for no good reason like some say with abortion because someone just doesn't want to bring up a baby. It can get complicated and people can make all sorts of arguments for allowing something. But if we use reasoning and have a clear set standard of what is morally true we can judge whether it should be justified or not. Now Christians use God as the moral standard so this would be the measure. But the important thing is that we have a measure. If we dont then there is not guideline for checking what is justified or not. Then anyone can make a case for justifying all sorts of things under subjective morality.