Absolute Morality: Does It Exist?

[Guest end3]

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.

 

That's why it says love you neighbor. Neighbor being defined in that you have immediate neighbors but undefined in that your immediate neighbor will have a neighbor that is not immediate to you....and on and on.

[Ouroboros]

Well, I don’t know. Morality seems to be a complex thing to me.

It is. And I think it's wrong to decide it is only one way it works. I see it like how different forces affect an object. Lets say you have a paper on a table. The gravity pull it down, the centrifugal force from Earth spinning is pulling it out, the wind is pushing it sideways and up, and the frictional forces (if you can call them that) keep the paper on the table, etc. Co-operating forces making the paper stay or move.

 

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?

To stabilize power and security. Morality is a set of rules or guidelines, and without them, you have everyone for themselves and anarchy. Perhaps in early human existence, we didn't have this ability, but as small groups grew and the population did too, the guidelines, as well as the ability, evolved, because in those groups where it didn't, they erased themselves from existence. To have a larger group, you have to have some common principles. They don't have to be exact, or absolute, but they need to be somewhat similar. In bigger picture we have to agree, but we can disagree to the details, or we would be pulling society apart.

 

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

Okay. So what do you think of my explanation to "why" above?

 

That's why it says love you neighbor. Neighbor being defined in that you have immediate neighbors but undefined in that your immediate neighbor will have a neighbor that is not immediate to you....and on and on.

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

But take this example (or question): is it immoral to download a copy of a music CD from Internet without paying to the producing company?

 

Or take the example of a situation where you would have to choose between two people you love. Did you see Batman, the last one, at the end when the police chief had to pick between his son or daughter to be killed? If he must choose, which choice is the moral one? Or perhaps at that point, any act is immoral, and the real act is to not choose and let both be killed?

 

Basically, my response to you is that love is only one part, but it's more complex than just that. (however not a bad one)

[Guest end3]

From a non Christian standpoint, do you think absolute morality can exist in this environment?

[Guest end3]

But take this example (or question): is it immoral to download a copy of a music CD from Internet without paying to the producing company?

 

I will try an answer....yes I think it would be immoral.

 

Or take the example of a situation where you would have to choose between two people you love. Did you see Batman, the last one, at the end when the police chief had to pick between his son or daughter to be killed? If he must choose, which choice is the moral one? Or perhaps at that point, any act is immoral, and the real act is to not choose and let both be killed?

 

Basically, my response to you is that love is only one part, but it's more complex than just that. (however not a bad one)

 

What would you add as the other parts?

[Ouroboros]

From a non Christian standpoint, do you think absolute morality can exist in this environment?

I think morality is culturally relative and subjective. It has to be, and will be, to some degree "universal" within a larger group, but not necessarily identical to the morals of another group.

 

And anthropological expeditions, where they've gone to many different kinds of foreign places, watching groups of people in the far, distant places, confirm this. There are standards that are so far from our basic understanding of how things should be, and yet they maintain a stable society.

 

In some of them killing a person because they offended them is normal and show strength. I heard about one where it is the norm and duty for the woman to get pregnant by one man, and not marry him, but have to marry someone else. (I read about it recently in one of my books, but I can't remember which one. There's so much material I'm going through at the moment, I'm getting a bit dizzy.)

[Guest Davka]

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.

Love is indeed difficult to define. You would need to narrow it down some. There's desire-based love, emotional love, family love, etc. Simply saying "love is always right" is not enough.

 

I do see where you're coming from, and I personally would agree that acting from a place of love is always right. Maybe compassion would be a better word, or perhaps empathy. But even then we have problems: I might honestly feel that the most compassionate, loving thing I could do for an unborn infant with severe brain trauma is to abort him/her. Does that make it right?

[agnosticator]

Finally, thanks to you, we can actually have an interesting discussion.

 

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

 

I think there are different kinds of love: father-child, mother-child, child-parent, adult-adult passionate, friend-friend, even human-animal (non-sexual). It's all intense positive feelings we have for someone we highly value where we would sacrifice altruistically to protect. Beyond this, I would label it goodwill concern for others because the feeling is lessened due to a lack of intimacy. "Love", to me, is a general term covering those feelings we have towards others we intimately know (we can also love ourselves I suppose). But these are just labels we use to describe our differing feelings towards others.

 

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).

 

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?

 

Good points. The overprotective parent ends up with the opposite they were protecting their child from-the inability to make mature decisions in the world.

 

Yes, morality can't exist without human empathy (and other emotions) and reason. That's why absolute/objective morality an idealistic fantasy. The human component isn't considered. Our makeup-what we are as a species and individually-is missing.

[Ouroboros]

But take this example (or question): is it immoral to download a copy of a music CD from Internet without paying to the producing company?

 

I will try an answer....yes I think it would be immoral.

So would your answer be based on the concept of love? Who are you showing love to by considering copying a CD as immoral?

 

Or take the example of a situation where you would have to choose between two people you love. Did you see Batman, the last one, at the end when the police chief had to pick between his son or daughter to be killed? If he must choose, which choice is the moral one? Or perhaps at that point, any act is immoral, and the real act is to not choose and let both be killed?

 

Basically, my response to you is that love is only one part, but it's more complex than just that. (however not a bad one)

 

What would you add as the other parts?

Some would be reasons, arguments, rational thoughts, and there are others.

 

Is it immoral to steal? Always? Regardless of situation?

 

1) To steal from a poor man, would be very immoral, because you're supposed to love thy neighbor.

 

2) But to steal from a rich man, who got everything he needs, and you steal food because your beloved children are starving, would be it be immoral or moral? Would you say there are higher and lover kinds of love? And could we say that "stealing" isn't an absolute deviance?

 

And another source of morals would be traditions, and that is where religion comes into play. Religion brings in moral codes based on traditional views, where emotions, social pressure, reasons, or whatever else, caused a certain idea to become the right moral code, and it has been kept through generations.

 

Another one is through influence of leaders, preachers, and teachers... etc, who convince us through elaborate speech to believe certain things to be morally correct, and only because we perhaps don't have enough skills to figure it out, we buy into their ideas. (Jim Jones, and other sects with charismatic leaders)

 

And in those two last sources, I am not saying it's the right kind, or stable kind, we get, but those directions can become dysfunctional to society. On the other hand, the suffrogate movement, the actions against racism etc, they were led by charismatic leaders too, and their message was good for society, since it removed dysfunction instead. So it can go both ways. And traditions can be good, and we all have them, so it's not that we can say: "get rid of traditions and make something new." It's a progressions towards (hopefully) better conditions for us all. (But it actually looks bleak, because of the future multinational corporate world controlling our life.)

[Ouroboros]

Yes, morality can't exist without human empathy (and other emotions) and reason. That's why absolute/objective morality an idealistic fantasy. The human component isn't considered. Our makeup-what we are as a species and individually-is missing.

Right (and you said other good things too), but I just tie in here a thought I've had many times before:

 

1) morality only applies to human affairs. You can't apply morality on ants, elephants, star constellations, or the wind. Only humans are really concerned about what morality is about.

 

2) morality can only apply in a situation of relations between a human and another human (or humans), or human and animals. Perhaps it is correct to apply morality to humans actions towards corporations too, but I find it a bit confusing since there are many arguments out there which claim that corporations are amoral and have no obligation or duty but to make money. So if corporations don't have morals, then why should humans have morals in relationships towards corporations? But also, can there be morals for a person who is alone? If I was stranded on a desolate planet, and had food packages to survive for 50 years. But other than that, I could watch old TV shows, play games (not online), investigate the desert... would there be codes of conduct for me in this place? I could place rules on myself, but would those be moral codes?

[Guest end3]

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

I think this is where prayer fits in...IMO....we ask that more be done than we can do.

[Ouroboros]

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

I think this is where prayer fits in...IMO....we ask that more be done than we can do.

I don't know if that solves the problem of morality. Would you consider the moral act is to pray when you can't do something? I suspect it's rather a way for the mind to free itself from blame. "I can't help the poor, starving kid in Africa. But at least I prayed, so now it's up to God to do something." It could even be an escapism for some: "I want to watch football instead of going to Africa and help the starving, so I'll pray and let God fix it."

[Mriana]

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

I think this is where prayer fits in...IMO....we ask that more be done than we can do.

 

I don't understand. How does prayer fit in?

[Guest Davka]

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

I think this is where prayer fits in...IMO....we ask that more be done than we can do.

And if the prayer is not answered?

 

Thing is, everyone I ever knew in church prayed this prayer, or said that they did. But in practice, it never seemed to work. Christians don't treat others any better or worse than non-Christians. They might feel more guilty about it, but when the shit hits the fan, Christians don't smile through it and love, they get just as selfish as everyone else.

 

So all that prayer is pretty pointless, seeing as how it doesn't change anything.

[agnosticator]

Why does morality exist?

To stabilize power and security. Morality is a set of rules or guidelines, and without them, you have everyone for themselves and anarchy. Perhaps in early human existence, we didn't have this ability, but as small groups grew and the population did too, the guidelines, as well as the ability, evolved, because in those groups where it didn't, they erased themselves from existence.

 

In a more primitive way, we see chimps balancing competition and cooperation to stabilize power and security. Too much either way causes the group to die out or be taken over by another.

 

 

To have a larger group, you have to have some common principles. They don't have to be exact, or absolute, but they need to be somewhat similar. In bigger picture we have to agree, but we can disagree to the details, or we would be pulling society apart.

 

It makes sense. But I'm no sociologist! A general agreement would help in group cohesion. Maybe that's why the muslims in certain middle eastern countries where their religion is valued foremost, and is law, has such group cohesiveness. Factions who regularly fight each other, band together to exterminate outsiders who they see as a threat to islam.

[florduh]

"I want to watch football instead of going to Africa and help the starving, so I'll pray and let God fix it."

 

Could it be immoral to merely offer a prayer rather than perform a concrete act? After all, anyone COULD volunteer to go to Africa and help, but most choose not to. It's easier to pray, and with that useless act feel that you've done your part.

[Guest end3]

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

I think this is where prayer fits in...IMO....we ask that more be done than we can do.

I don't know if that solves the problem of morality. Would you consider the moral act is to pray when you can't do something? I suspect it's rather a way for the mind to free itself from blame. "I can't help the poor, starving kid in Africa. But at least I prayed, so now it's up to God to do something." It could even be an escapism for some: "I want to watch football instead of going to Africa and help the starving, so I'll pray and let God fix it."

 

I don't think it is rational to believe I can constantly help everyone that needs help. I can though, love my neighbor.

 

Mriana, if every neighbor was loved and helped there would be no one without help. For example, let's look at a number line.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Now if one helps two, and two helps three and so on (immediate neighbors), then in the end all neighbors will be helped.

 

But me, being one, and seven being the guy in Africa, I can pray that God intervene with help before the neighbor chain reaches him through actions.

 

that's how I view it....

[agnosticator]

2) morality can only apply in a situation of relations between a human and another human (or humans), or human and animals. Perhaps it is correct to apply morality to humans actions towards corporations too, but I find it a bit confusing since there are many arguments out there which claim that corporations are amoral and have no obligation or duty but to make money. So if corporations don't have morals, then why should humans have morals in relationships towards corporations?

 

It seems to me that humans run and are an integral part of corporations. If the customer is held accountable morally, so should the corporation.

 

 

But also, can there be morals for a person who is alone? If I was stranded on a desolate planet, and had food packages to survive for 50 years. But other than that, I could watch old TV shows, play games (not online), investigate the desert... would there be codes of conduct for me in this place? I could place rules on myself, but would those be moral codes?

 

I can only think of how I would affect the environment. If I screw it up, I am lessening my chances of survival. Other than that, if I harm myself,is it immoral? If I respect and value myself, maybe.

[Guest end3]

So would your answer be based on the concept of love? Who are you showing love to by considering copying a CD as immoral?

 

The person relying on the money to feed their family. It would what they deserve for some musical enjoyment in my life.

 

2) But to steal from a rich man, who got everything he needs, and you steal food because your beloved children are starving, would be it be immoral or moral? Would you say there are higher and lover kinds of love? And could we say that "stealing" isn't an absolute deviance?

 

No, there are probably many ways an affluent man's wealth reaches the poor without the morality of the rich man being involved.

[Legion]

Okay. So what do you think of my explanation to "why" above?

Thank you Hans, but let me think about it later. I'm drinking tonight, and thus I don't feel like thinking too deeply.

 

 

tra la la la

[chefranden]

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.

 

 

Yes morality is in part based on empathy, but what is absolute about that?

[Legion]

Yes morality is in part based on empathy, but what is absolute about that?

Well seeing as I'm drinking tonight, let me just say this...

 

I love you Chef.

[Ouroboros]

I don't think it is rational to believe I can constantly help everyone that needs help. I can though, love my neighbor.

Exactly! Notice the word use in your sentence. "I don't think it is rational to..." because sometimes morality must be dictated by reason and rational thought. Emotions cannot be the lone source.

[Ouroboros]

It seems to me that humans run and are an integral part of corporations. If the customer is held accountable morally, so should the corporation.

Right.

 

I can only think of how I would affect the environment. If I screw it up, I am lessening my chances of survival. Other than that, if I harm myself,is it immoral? If I respect and value myself, maybe.

Exactly. There's not much which can be said to be "moral" or not when you're alone, since how would you condemn or punish yourself for breaking it?

 

 

So would your answer be based on the concept of love? Who are you showing love to by considering copying a CD as immoral?

 

The person relying on the money to feed their family. It would what they deserve for some musical enjoyment in my life.

True. But most of the money goes to the corporation and to the high paid management. The CEO of Sony, EMI, etc, they already make over million dollars a year, and still have close to hundred million dollars put away in savings. How many gallons of milk do they need to survive? Do we love the rich CEO?

 

2) But to steal from a rich man, who got everything he needs, and you steal food because your beloved children are starving, would be it be immoral or moral? Would you say there are higher and lover kinds of love? And could we say that "stealing" isn't an absolute deviance?

 

No, there are probably many ways an affluent man's wealth reaches the poor without the morality of the rich man being involved.

I'm not talking about the morality of the rich man, but is it morally right for a poor man to steal food for his kids? He loves his kids more than the rich man. So in this case, wouldn't it be correct to think that it's morally right for the poor man to steal?

[Guest end3]

I don't think it is rational to believe I can constantly help everyone that needs help. I can though, love my neighbor.

Exactly! Notice the word use in your sentence. "I don't think it is rational to..." because sometimes morality must be dictated by reason and rational thought. Emotions cannot be the lone source.

 

Yes, but in my example, I used the neighbor scripture and prayer scripture to also rationally defend my belief. It's rational both ways IMO.

 

You yourself are making a point for Christianity. If we cannot identify the complex nature of chemistry, that mechanism that produces empathy and the supporting actions et al., and can produce a unity through this chemistry, then I am staying with Christianity.....and probably still would. But, but, I applaude you for the search.

[Mriana]

I see. You think of it as that you have a form of depreciating love. A high love for those who are closer to you, and lesser love to those who are further away. You know, you are not wrong at all. That's how we work as humans. We can't love everyone. But we can declare some rules of how to live based on the principle of love.

 

I think this is where prayer fits in...IMO....we ask that more be done than we can do.

I don't know if that solves the problem of morality. Would you consider the moral act is to pray when you can't do something? I suspect it's rather a way for the mind to free itself from blame. "I can't help the poor, starving kid in Africa. But at least I prayed, so now it's up to God to do something." It could even be an escapism for some: "I want to watch football instead of going to Africa and help the starving, so I'll pray and let God fix it."

 

I don't think it is rational to believe I can constantly help everyone that needs help. I can though, love my neighbor.

 

Mriana, if every neighbor was loved and helped there would be no one without help. For example, let's look at a number line.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

Now if one helps two, and two helps three and so on (immediate neighbors), then in the end all neighbors will be helped.

 

But me, being one, and seven being the guy in Africa, I can pray that God intervene with help before the neighbor chain reaches him through actions.

 

that's how I view it....

 

That makes absolutely no sense. Prayer only helps the one who is praying, much like meditation. It involves neuro-chemicals that helps them feel better in some manner, but the person being prayed for... it does not work. The individual has to want to do something for themselves.