What does absolute mean?

[Zor]

"You're looking for an absolute, and there isn't one" is what my teacher said after I asked her what "should" means.

I am currently taking an ethics class, and I'm having a hard time. I'm trying to get some definitions of the words that we're using, but all I'm getting one word definitions (synonyms).

Q: "What does should mean?"
A: "it means ought"
Q: "What does ought mean?
A: "it means an obligation"
Q: "What does obligation mean?"
etc

So, what I'm left with is:

should = ought = obligation = duty = responsibility = requirement = good = right = ethical = moral = should...

As far as I can tell, this is just a big synonym pile, and can figure out what a word means by making synonyms. In all of these "definitions" (really they're just one word definitions), not one single idea or concept is identified. Now, my teacher is saying that I'm looking for an absolute, and now I'm confused. Is asking for a definition the same asking for an absolute? Because I don't really care what the definiton is, so long as there is one to discuss. We can change the definition as we go along, but we need to have at least some definition to work with, or else those words can't be discussed. Because we're discussing the concepts and ideas that those words represent, not the symbols that represent them.

Can anyone tell me what my teacher means by "you're looking for an absolute, and there isn't one"?

 

[nolongerhome]

Words don't have an absolute meaning.

Words are sounds, or the representations of sounds. In relation with other human beings we give meanings to these sounds and their representations, but these meanings depend on our continued usage of the sound/representation, and are therefore relative to space and time.

Gay, for example. What does it mean? It used to be solely a word that represented happiness. Now it seems to have lost that meaning entirely and refers to homosexuality. Which is the "true" meaning? There is no true meaning other than that which we invest in the word when we use it.

So, when your teacher says you are looking for absolutes she is referring to the fact that you want to find an absolute definition, an absolute truth, of something which can not have an absolute definition - language is relational and relative, we chose the words we use and construct their meanings, we renew those meanings daily and those words will have a specific meaning for you which does not necessarily mean that it has the same meaning for another.

So, what is "should"? It depends - it depends on your religious, political, social/culture views, because when you start talking about obligations, morality and ethics you are talking about concepts which human beings create, recreate and change in accordance with their specific experience of the world.

 

[The Nihilist]

Morality is a mere matter of preference. To say that a thing is good is to say that I prefer that thing.

 

[Rauffenburg]

Morality is a mere matter of preference. To say that a thing is good is to say that I prefer that thing.

Which shows precisely that morality is not a matter of preference alone. Murder doesn't become good by the fact that the murderer thinks it is good - that he has a preference for killing somebody. That is why the problem of "should" arises in the first place. Morality requires a universal and objective norm. We commonly use the term "good" to apply it to others. We commonly act in such a way that indicates, we disapprove of the actions of others. Even this makes to obvious that we assume some kind or standard common to us.

So, what is "should"? It depends - it depends on your religious, political, social/culture views, because when you start talking about obligations, morality and ethics you are talking about concepts which human beings create, recreate and change in accordance with their specific experience of the world.

"Should" - at first - is simply a verb; albeit a very special one, since it is a modal verb. As a such, it has a certain semantic structure - it is used (if it is used in moral contexts) to express the speakers believe in the truth that something is a moral necessity according to some set of moral contents. Of course in our common speech we simply presuppose these moral contents, our values, as given. The formal semantics of "should" does not depend on these specific contents but only on the fact that there are some contents or values. We all mean the same when we say "You should do x" but we often disagree on the truth of such statements.

Words don't have an absolute meaning.

Words are sounds, or the representations of sounds. In relation with other human beings we give meanings to these sounds and their representations, but these meanings depend on our continued usage of the sound/representation, and are therefore relative to space and time.

Of course it is in principle arbitrary that a certain meaning is attached to some phonological utterance. But the truth value of the sentence "Caesar crossed the Rubicon with his troops" is by no means arbitrary. It is in some sense absolute since it is true if and only if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon with his troops. One could say the symbols we use are static but variable, which is to say, that they are static once they are set to represent a certain semantic structure but that the representation of semantic structures can be fulfilled by any symbol you can think of.

Can anyone tell me what my teacher means by "you're looking for an absolute, and there isn't one"?

Your teacher seems to have a position which is commonly called moral skepticism. That means he or she denies that there is such a thing as moral knowledge. Of course it immediately raises the question how you teacher can know that there isn't an absolute standard.

 

[nolongerhome]

Rauffenberg - obviously our usage of words is not entirely arbitrary - the material world constrains our usage.

In the case of "Caeser crossed the Rubicon with his troops", we say the sentence is true because we give a man, a river and a group of men names, the verb in the sentence refers to the actions of a man, his movement in relation to the river, and there is a preposition which associates with the movement of the man the movement of troops, which are "his" because he led them.

So far we are in complete agreement, I believe.

Where we diverge, however, is how we deal with what you yourself call a special case. Your first statement, that morality "requires a universal and objective norm" contradicts your second statement, that the word should in a moral context "express[es] the speakers believe in the truth that something is a moral necessity according to some set of moral contents".

The emphasis on the beliefs of the speaker in the second of your statements contradicts the fact that morality must be based on objective standards. You just demonstrated that it isn't, and that it is subjective.

Caesar, the Rubicon, troops... these are/were real material things which we have provided with names to identify them. Morality is an abstract concept. The "hardness" of matter limits our ability to use the words Caesar and the Rubicon arbitrarily. We can't say that the Rubicon is a mountain, because it is not, it is a river. We can not say that Caesar was a woman because he was a man.

This limit on arbitrariness does not exist in a concept like morality. You yourself demonstrate why this is so - it rests on the beliefs of the people involved.

Murder is generally accepted across most religions/political beliefs/moral codes to be wrong. Is that because it is objectively wrong or because as humans, despite our diverse beliefs, have generally intersubjectively defined murder as wrong? I would argue that it is the latter.

One can have moral knowledge. One must recognise the limits of this knowledge, however, because of the way that the concept is socially constructed and therefore maleable.

 

[Received]

Something is absolute if it's universal and holds true for all time.

Asking for a definition isn't asking for an absolute. The problem with attempting to define everything is that words are signifiers for intuitions or experiences, and these obviously can't be mediated through language. Words like "good", or "up", or even "should" are essentially intuitively based concepts, which differentiates them from empirical ones -- ones that we can eventually point to if a person incessantly keeps asking for definitions.

 

[Bellicus]

There are many absolutes. For example light speed. Or a vacuum. Distilled water. A room with no light sources.

 

[Rauffenburg]

Your first statement, that morality "requires a universal and objective norm" contradicts your second statement, that the word should in a moral context "express[es] the speakers believe in the truth that something is a moral necessity according to some set of moral contents".

The emphasis on the beliefs of the speaker in the second of your statements contradicts the fact that morality must be based on objective standards. You just demonstrated that it isn't, and that it is subjective.

That is a strange argument of yours. I consider it very natural that we, in our natural language, express our moral beliefs and assume these beliefs to be true - which we presuppose by expressing them. In so far the basis upon which we act is subjective. But that does not yet answer the question whether these beliefs are actually true or not. But of course a moral belief is a belief about something being actually good or evil.

This limit on arbitrariness does not exist in a concept like morality. You yourself demonstrate why this is so - it rests on the beliefs of the people involved.

Speaking about Caesar crossing the Rubicon with his troops is also speaking from by beliefs that he did so. My beliefs are crucial as well in speaking about states of affairs. But it is the state of affairs that makes my sentence (and my expressed belief) true or false. So the limit on arbitrariness seems to be the states of affairs persisting in the world.

Since I am a Kantian - at least more or less - when it comes to matters of ethics, I of course belief in a non-arbitrary moral law. I will not elaborate on that now; but it should be obvious that this is the basis of our disagreement.

Murder is generally accepted across most religions/political beliefs/moral codes to be wrong. Is that because it is objectively wrong or because as humans, despite our diverse beliefs, have generally intersubjectively defined murder as wrong? I would argue that it is the latter.

If you reformulate "murder" into "killing of a human being" it becomes less clear that it is outlawed everywhere. In fact the idea of what is murder is different at different place and times.

One can have moral knowledge. One must recognise the limits of this knowledge, however, because of the way that the concept is socially constructed and therefore maleable.

How can you have moral knowledge without moral truths? How can there be moral truths without moral facts or something equivalent to facts?

Of course the belief system we have is socially constructed - but that also applies to Caesar having crossed the Rubicon. I have no beliefs about what Caesar thought about the night before he crossed the Rubicon - even though such facts probably existed once. I didn't learn about that in history class and didn't read about it afterwards. And of course we also have lots of false beliefs about how the world actually is or was or will be.

Beliefs can be socially constructed, knowledge can not, because it requires truth.

 

[quatona]

"You're looking for an absolute, and there isn't one" is what my teacher said after I asked her what "should" means.

I am currently taking an ethics class, and I'm having a hard time. I'm trying to get some definitions of the words that we're using, but all I'm getting one word definitions (synonyms).

Q: "What does should mean?"
A: "it means ought"
Q: "What does ought mean?
A: "it means an obligation"
Q: "What does obligation mean?"
etc

So, what I'm left with is:

should = ought = obligation = duty = responsibility = requirement = good = right = ethical = moral = should...

As far as I can tell, this is just a big synonym pile, and can figure out what a word means by making synonyms. In all of these "definitions" (really they're just one word definitions), not one single idea or concept is identified. Now, my teacher is saying that I'm looking for an absolute, and now I'm confused. Is asking for a definition the same asking for an absolute? Because I don't really care what the definiton is, so long as there is one to discuss. We can change the definition as we go along, but we need to have at least some definition to work with, or else those words can't be discussed. Because we're discussing the concepts and ideas that those words represent, not the symbols that represent them.

Can anyone tell me what my teacher means by "you're looking for an absolute, and there isn't one"?

Naturally, I can´t tell you what your teacher means. Possibly she´s trying to communicate that - depending on the person using them (as well as depending on the context) - words represent a great variety of concepts.

Another point ( a point that I personally would like to make, not the point that I think your teacher meant to make) is:
The problem that definitions are made of words (each of which requires a definition itself, and so on) will persist no matter whether they consist of one or several words.

 

[pinqy]

Murder doesn't become good by the fact that the murderer thinks it is good - that he has a preference for killing somebody. That is why the problem of "should" arises in the first place. Morality requires a universal and objective norm. We commonly use the term "good" to apply it to others. We commonly act in such a way that indicates, we disapprove of the actions of others. Even this makes to obvious that we assume some kind or standard common to us.

But that doesn't make it absolute. "Murder" is defined as an unlawful killing. But what makes a killing unlawful has and does vary over time and across cultures. And not all unlawful killings, such as illegally killing an animal, is considered murder, although some religions and some individuals would consider it murder. Add on that for any group of people to continue to exist as a group, there has to be some kind of rule against arbitrary killings or the group might not continue to exist. So the rule is necassry if you want the group to continue to exist but that does not make the rule necessary in an Absolute sense.

 

[Rauffenburg]

Add on that for any group of people to continue to exist as a group, there has to be some kind of rule against arbitrary killings or the group might not continue to exist. So the rule is necassry if you want the group to continue to exist but that does not make the rule necessary in an Absolute sense.

That explains why so many existing groups do have rules against abitrary killings. The others simply died out. But it does not explain the most important question, namely that of right and wrong. I of course do not suggest that any of the moral rules present in any society is necessary in an absolute sense. But that does not disprove the idea of a universal moral law just as an error of thought does not disprove the idea that we can know the truth.

 

[pinqy]

That explains why so many existing groups do have rules against abitrary killings. The others simply died out.

Or rather formulated rules to regulate their society.

But it does not explain the most important question, namely that of right and wrong. I of course do not suggest that any of the moral rules present in any society is necessary in an absolute sense. But that does not disprove the idea of a universal moral law just as an error of thought does not disprove the idea that we can know the truth.

You are correct, but if all moral/legal rules can be explained by perceived necessity of those rules in the society, and if it can be shown that any apparently universal rules can be explained by universality of the problems they are meant to address, then we've eliminated the need for an outside moral law as an explanation of societal morals/laws.

What would help the claim of absolute moral law would be the existence of multiple identical rules independently occuring in seperate societies where other rules would work equally as well, but were not put in place. I'm not aware of any such rules, however.

 

[Rauffenburg]

You are correct, but if all moral/legal rules can be explained by perceived necessity of those rules in the society, and if it can be shown that any apparently universal rules can be explained by universality of the problems they are meant to address, then we've eliminated the need for an outside moral law as an explanation of societal morals/laws.

I think you are mixing up two different questions. The question of right and wrong is not an explanatory question in my eyes. And I doubt that any classical author from Plato to Kant ever tried to explain the actual laws of society by reference to the ideal moral law or the form of that law they thought to be correct (Hegel may be an exception though). In fact the question of natural law arose out of the question of the legitimacy of societal laws in the Greek polis that was raised by the Sophists.

What would help the claim of absolute moral law would be the existence of multiple identical rules independently occuring in seperate societies where other rules would work equally as well, but were not put in place. I'm not aware of any such rules, however.

Kant famously said that the moral dignity of real friendship is left untouched by the fact that there may never have been a real friendship. The legitimacy of morals is not a question of the evolution of morals. Just as the question of the legitimacy of a scientific theory is not answered by showing how this theory came about - and it is not discredited by this either.

 

[Radagast]

"You're looking for an absolute, and there isn't one" is what my teacher said after I asked her what "should" means.

"Should" is (in logic) a (not necessarily explicitly defined) modal operator, subject to rules like: "I should do X, but doing X requires doing Y, therefore I should do Y"; with "I should do X" asserting that it would in some sense be better if I did X.

An "absolute" (as I think your teacher is using the term) is some fundamental statement (or list of statements) of the form "I should do X" that starts off the logical process.

"Moral relativism" denies that such an absolute exists -- i.e. you can do what you personally prefer or feel like, or at least what you can get away with within society. From such a relativistic standpoint, you can still discuss the logical rules like "doing X requires doing Y", at least in a theoretical sense.

Most religions, on the other hand, have some kind of moral absolute ("thou shalt" or "thou shalt not").

Immanuel Kant based his ethics on a single moral absolute: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time (consistently) will that it should become a universal law." For example, I can (consistently) wish that nobody would steal, therefore I should not steal.

 

[Quasicentennial]

If the human brain is a robotic electronic computer then should would mean do it correctly. There is no failure to do it incorrectly. But if there is a malfunction then it should be fixed. Evil is a human intention where should can either be done correctly (obeyed) or incorrectly (disobeyed). The bible story of Adam and Eve started disobedience by obeying a lie from Satan. God's curse on the human race caused confusion by making multiple languages instead of one language because we were too nosy of the whereabouts of God's created heaven and angels.