Absolute Morality: Does It Exist?

[Ouroboros]

I got tired of having several other threads being derailed by LNC, where he questioned us about morality and claimed that morality must be absolute. He hasn't provided any evidence or even any example of absolute morality, but still keeps on derailing thread after thread. So here it is. The one and only discussion (for now) about this. Go at it.

 

 

Sub topics:

 

1) Why would certain mores, values, deviance be absolute?

 

2) If it exist, how do we know? Who knows what it is?

 

3) If it exist, what examples can we find?

 

4) Where would it come from?

 

5) Why would the world be better if they existed? Why would we need them?

 

(I might add more questions)

[florduh]

Everyone develops their own morality, whether it's from the authority of a god they invented to mirror their own thoughts or simply picked up from their family and society in which they find themselves.

 

For example, someone who grew up in a hunting family is likely to think it's perfectly moral to inflict suffering, maiming and death on animals. Some are taught it's okay only if the animal is used for food, others learn that animals don't matter and are there for our use in any way we want. Yet others are raised in gentle, animal loving vegan families and they would consequently think it abhorrent and immoral to harm any animal unnecessarily.

 

Warlike cultures raise up children who think nothing of doing whatever is necessary to vanquish an enemy, but those from peaceful societies find burning villages to be immoral.

 

The few benchmarks of morality arise from common sense regarding benefits to the society. Things like murder and theft are universally immoral simply because a society can't function without some degree of order. Sexual morality varies widely among timelines and geography because heterosexual reproduction is a built in biological imperative, and the group will reproduce regardless of their other practices of poly and homo relationships.

 

As far as morality, and everything else, the gods always mimic the desires and prejudices of the people who worship them. Saying that certain rules come directly from a god is just a way to lend authority to what people already believe.

[oddbird1963]

This subject is one of my pet peeves. The notion of absolute morality is a Platonic fallacy.

 

Plato believed that there was an ideal form for all forms. Look at the chairs around you. Each one is a corrupt version of the ideal form of "chair" out there somewhere. Plato believed in a "top down" universe of the single invisible, conceptual form down to the imperfect copies you see all around you.

 

Rather than look around at all the imperfect chairs and abstracting the ideal forms from those individual items, Plate supposed that the ideal was somehow the source of the form for the individual ones.

 

Now think about this in terms of "Absolute" morality. We are to suppose that there are moral principles out there somewhere in space which are changeless, timeless and perfect for all situations from which all societies derive their individual moral codes.

 

But here is a more likely, more reality based situation that does not need an ideal lawgiver or a god to provide morality.

 

1. People are all similar in nature and needs. We have basic desires and needs for 1) Food 2) water 3) clothing 4) shelter 5) sex and procreation . We are similarly outfitted and wired organically.

2. We need rules to help us live together peacefully in order to meet the basic needs listed above.

3. Societies developed moral codes to assist in maintaining order and justice while their people pursued the five (or more?) basic needs.

4. because people are similar and have similar basic needs, many of the moral rules are the same between different societies, although many are different.

 

Any overlap in morals can be accounted for from the overlap of biological similarity without the appeal to absolute morality . Any need for a moral lawgiver is eliminated. With a moral lawgiver eliminated, the idea of absolute morality is rendered inert.

 

In light of what I have outlined, I will deal with your Sub topics:

 

1) Why would certain mores, values, deviance be absolute? - they wouldn't. No need.

 

2) If it exist, how do we know? Who knows what it is? - Assuming it exists, we would have to rely on some "god-given" authority to tells us what they are. That is why churches and religions thrive partly by insisting that they are the keepers of the absolute moral code.

 

3) If it exist, what examples can we find? Christians believe absolute morals include rules against , Murder, theft, adultery.

 

4) Where would it come from? - Christians believe god is the originator of absolute morality.

 

5) Why would the world be better if they existed? Why would we need them? - Without absolute morals, we would all sink into chaos and secular humanistic moral relativism. <You may now gasp with terror>

[agnosticator]

Without repeating what I posted in the other thread, I'll just put my initial two cents in. If we are referring to an absolute morality as originating from god's will, then the theist has zero knowledge of it. Since theists believe god is the basis for absolute morals, then (according to them)none can be created by humans. The theist is left with his own subjective explaination of what and how god's will is known and what that will for us is.

 

Christians blindly KNOW the bible communicates this morality. I think they FEEL this to be true because their morals were instilled by authority from childhood by parents, church, other adult figures, and society. So they believe morals are completely authoritarian, since they came from seemingly all-powerful authorities. Now, as adults, they can displace it all upon god by thinking god used these people as his instruments of divine will.

 

But absolute/objective morals don't exist for christians since they all believe in contradictory morals, while claiming they came from god. They disagree on issues such as homosexuality being right/wrong, and participation in war (they relabel murder as killing if pro war). So, their morals are really subjective and relative. They fear that if this were realized, the christian would be in chaos, their morals wouldn't matter, and so they could do whatever the hell they felt. They think their feelings are "evil", and they would act on them. But their fantasy is a mirage just like heaven and hell, and sin and salvation.

[Legion]

Of course absolute morality exists. It is always and everywhere immoral to make a profit.

 

Long live Obama.

[Guest Davka]

Just as in the last thread where this was brought up, I challenge anyone to come up with a single moral standard that is universally agreed on. If morality were absolute, we would expect a number of such standards. All I'm asking for is one.

[Legion]

All I'm asking for is one.

Okay I'll try. Not that I'll succeed

 

If people enter into a contract and the conditions of that contract obtain then it is immoral for either party not to fulfill the contract.

 

Something along those lines.

[Ouroboros]

If people enter into a contract and the conditions of that contract obtain then it is immoral for either party not to fulfill the contract.

And I will challenge that.

 

If the situation changes and one party realize that if he would fulfill the contract, he would do harm in some other way and he must breach the contract?

 

For instance:

 

Two parties agree to a shipment. One party has produced something, a food supplement, and they want to sell it in Africa. You are the guy who will ship it there. Suddenly you get to know that this food supplement is of a kind which could harm people there, because it's supposed to be boiled in clean water for preparation, but they don't boil it there (for lack of equipment), or they can't boil it in clean water (and get odd chemical results--just inventing some crazy stuff here ). You have already shipped some boxes, but now you have to ship the second one. Should you honor your contract, or would you breach it because you know people are getting sick, or maybe even dying because of it?

 

(You know I'm a master of putting in vagueness in everything. But I think it was a very good idea you had, a good try.)

[Legion]

Hmm... Yes Hans, I know that you are often a near master of highlighting the ambiguity of things. I am only playing Devil’s advocate here. As I see it, everything is conditional.

 

That’s why I said “if the conditions of the contract obtain”. I recognize that sometimes conditions or circumstances change such as to make fulfillment of a contract impossible. In your example I would feel morally bound to contact the other party involved in the contract and explain why I was unable to fulfill my end of it.

 

But I am highlighting contracts because we all sense intuitively that it is immoral to fail in our obligations. And it also seems to me that morality itself is an implicit contract of some sort.

[Guest Davka]

All I'm asking for is one.

Okay I'll try. Not that I'll succeed

 

If people enter into a contract and the conditions of that contract obtain then it is immoral for either party not to fulfill the contract.

 

Something along those lines.

Let's see - the Koran states that Muslims may enter into a peace treaty - which is a kind of contract - with infidels, with the express intent of breaking the treaty at a later date. This is intended to confer a military advantage over the infidel.

 

The Sawi people of Papua New Guinea, a headhunting, cannibalistic tribal group, considered it the height of cleverness to "fatten with friendship," meaning to pretend to be someone's friend (a kind of oral contract, IMO), in order to lure them into a position where you could kill and eat them. They no longer do this, because the missionaries civilized them. One of my favorite parts of their story is that when they first heard the Gospel, they thought Judas was the hero!

 

So there are two societies which not only do not always hold to the idea that honoring contractual agreements is a moral good, but in fact sometimes teach just the opposite. That's just off the top of my head.

[Legion]

Actually Davka I think you highlight the relationship between contracts and morality. In each of your examples there seems to be an ingroup and an outgroup, an us and a them. With “us” contracts have meaning but with “them”, the others, the outsiders contracts are meaningless.

 

I think one of the main discomforts or concerns with moral relativism is the suspicion that, in effect, it loosens or even destroys the implicit social contract which makes civil society possible.

[Guest Davka]

Actually Davka I think you highlight the relationship between contracts and morality. In each of your examples there seems to be an ingroup and an outgroup, an us and a them. With “us” contracts have meaning but with “them”, the others, the outsiders contracts are meaningless.

 

I think one of the main discomforts or concerns with moral relativism is the suspicion that, in effect, it loosens or even destroys the implicit social contract which makes civil society possible.

Contracts are just a symptom of the overarching in-group / out-group reality which has always been with us. It used to be one set of rules for the aristocracy and another for the peasants, now it's one for the rich and another for the poor.

 

Moral relativism merely points out the way we actually make moral decisions. It's not changing anything, just exposing the hypocrisy inherent in the system. All men are created equal, but some have always been more equal than others, and always will be. Killing the scary stranger is not the same as killing the beloved friend. In theory, we have adhered to a one-size-fits-all morality, but in practice it has never worked that way.

 

Moral relativism at least forces people to justify their double standard, instead of pretending that it doesn't exist.

[hereticzero]

I do not believe in absolute morality. Morality should be left up to the current generation to decide what it will or will not tolerate.

[Guest end3]

I guess you gentlemen are excluding love since it is difficult to define?

[Mriana]

Intriguing. LNC was the one this thread was given to, but LNC is not where to be found. His/her counterpart must be representing him/her currently.

[Ouroboros]

I guess you gentlemen are excluding love since it is difficult to define?

Are you suggesting that love is a moral duty? We have to love, or we are immoral? Or are you just sidetracking into a different area? If so, lets stay with "moral" and if that is absolute or not. And lets questions about if Pi (3.14) is absolute or not stay out too. Or 1+1=2. Or blue = blue. etc

 

When we talk about morals, we're talking about things we have a duty to do, or to avoid doing. It can be divided into less severe, and more severe degree, as folk-ways, mores, and taboos. They are usually based on values in society, and those values are either based on religion, tradition, reason, or emotions, or a mix of them all. To maintain the institution of morals we use different kinds of sanctions. Negative for deviant acts against the moral policy, and positive for acting according to our moral policy. People react to existing rules differently, based on strains. These strains comes from the gap between goals we learn to strive for, and the means we can't get to achieve those goals. One reaction is to just accept it, and fall into either ritualism or retreatism. But some become innovators and use illegitimate means to achieve the goals, and act deviant, or some become rebels and try to change both goals and means. These forces cause society to change, and the value base is moving, which then influence the moral policy, and hence morality changes slowly over time. And it's caused by this basic strain. However, this is just one out of many forces that pull morality to new grounds. Another is the ideological myths produced by the power elites, or prestige hungry "preachers" (not only religious, but can be political as well).

[florduh]

What's love got to do with it?

 

- Tina Turner

[Ouroboros]

What's love got to do with it?

 

- Tina Turner

Maybe he wanted to say that "love is the foundation for morality." But then, why is it immoral to steal music through download from a corporation? Did Jesus tell us to love corporations too, as ourselves? Perhaps I should give Microsoft all my money, food, house, and family as slaves, if they ask me to walk an extra mile...

 

Hmm... Yes Hans, I know that you are often a near master of highlighting the ambiguity of things. I am only playing Devil’s advocate here. As I see it, everything is conditional.

 

That’s why I said “if the conditions of the contract obtain”. I recognize that sometimes conditions or circumstances change such as to make fulfillment of a contract impossible. In your example I would feel morally bound to contact the other party involved in the contract and explain why I was unable to fulfill my end of it.

 

But I am highlighting contracts because we all sense intuitively that it is immoral to fail in our obligations. And it also seems to me that morality itself is an implicit contract of some sort.

I think you're making a decent point. In a sense, everything we do, we do because we have learned it some way, and we learn it because we have accepted it, or in other words, we've made some tacit contracts with our peers to behave according to the established rules. But it doesn't mean that we sometimes have to break them to follow a higher "contract."

[Legion]

I feel compelled to somewhat come to End’s defense. I wouldn’t use the word ‘love’. But I do think that morality must be based in empathy. For instance it makes no sense to me to speak of our moral obligations to a rock. Why? Maybe because it is impossible to empathize with a rock.

[Guest end3]

Hey,

 

I am not trying to be adversarial for once. I am just trying to understand the question. And I am not even arguing for Christianity this time. Gheez already.....

 

Morals being something right or wrong.....and absolute/objective would be the question regarding this, no?

 

I am posing that love is always right.

 

Now what I was stating is that since love is difficult to define, then is it a valid proposition?

 

Edit: As in behaving with love.

 

 

Main Entry: 1mor·al

Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom

Date: 14th century

1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

2: probable though not proved : virtual <a moral certainty>

3: perceptual or psychological rather than tangible or practical in nature or effect <a moral victory> <moral support>

[Ouroboros]

I feel compelled to somewhat come to End’s defense. I wouldn’t use the word ‘love’. But I do think that morality must be based in empathy. For instance it makes no sense to me to speak of our moral obligations to a rock. Why? Maybe because it is impossible to empathize with a rock.

True. To some degree we base our morals on emotions and empathy, but when the moralists preach that abortion is wrong, they look at the feelings they have for the babies, not for the mothers or their situation, so sometimes morals are more complex than just a feeling one way or the other. Another thing is that "love" as a concept we have today, has evolved too. In some societies, respect and status is more important than love.

[florduh]

I do think that morality must be based in empathy.

 

In practice, I think it is based on empathy, and also self preservation to a degree. Regarding the original question though, absolute morality would exist independent of human influence or interpretation. That's what makes it absolute.

 

Love is an emotion we can't conjure up on demand. As such, it is usually a good thing, but there are many instances of destructive love.

[Ouroboros]

I am not trying to be adversarial for once. I am just trying to understand the question. And I am not even arguing for Christianity this time. Gheez already.....

??? No one said you argued for Christianity... or did I miss that? I don't think I said that. So if I did, then I'm sorry.

 

Morals being something is right or wrong.....and absolute/objective would be the question regarding this, no?

 

I am posing that love is always right.

Right. I can understand that. Basically, the values that are the foundation for morals would be based on love.

 

So how do we define love? Is being infatuated and passionate the same as love? What kind of definition of love would you use?

 

Now what I was stating is that since love is difficult to define, then is it a valid proposition?

Right. Love is difficult to define. And I think emotions are one part, but only one part, of how we bring about morals. I think there are rational reasons sometimes for a moral code, and sometimes there is pressure from people with power to bring about a society with a certain moral (and after some generations they've forgotten where it came from or why).

 

Also, sometimes we have things we consider beyond regular duty. For instance, even if you love people in general, does it mean that the moral thing for you is to travel to Africa and help the starving people? And if you don't, then you're immoral? Even though you love people, and would like to do this, no one require you as a moral duty that you do it.

 

And as Florduh said, there is also destructive love. Like some mothers who love their kids so much that they protect them from the world, and the kid isn't prepared to take on reality when they have to leave. Is it moral to protect our kids from definitely everything and never let them out of the nest?

[Guest end3]

It would make sense to me, that without the definintion of objective/absolute morality, we would find it difficult to behave as such. Then you go back into what is a moral endpoint of a man's life and the relationships he had with others and the environment.

 

Is the answer one that one's behavior is moral if it perpetuates life?

 

Not enough dope, beer, or time to answer this question.

[Legion]

Well, I don’t know. Morality seems to be a complex thing to me. But I do believe we live in a power evolving universe. And I doubt that morality would exist if it wasn’t powerful. The question that I lean towards is... Why does morality exist?

 

If I knew the answer to that question then I might be better positioned to see if an absolute morality could exist.