Absolute morality question

[Russell_SA]

So I was listening to the argument for absolute morality. This is how I understand it went:
A1 All people are conscious of an objective moral law.
A2 Moral law requires a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

The argument was addressed to the first assumption, “All people are conscious of an objective moral law.” If someone does not acknowledge that there are objective moral truths, then anything is possible as a choice and there is no right or wrong. Isn’t that becoming a defense for, “This is not how I would like the world to be, so therefore there must be absolute morality because I would not want it otherwise.” ? How we would want the world to be has no bearing on how the world actually is.

Many people believe that all morals are subjective to a point. They give the example of using the numerical value of pi. To solve the problem, group A uses pi to the 15th decimal place while group B uses pi to the 8th decimal place. Both have a result that is not measurably different, aka neither group can point to who’s result was better over all. So is group A more morally correct than group B? Neither has an ultimate value of pi since it has not ultimate value though.

Ideas like ultimate good and bad, seems to be the same subjective conversation, like the ultimate subjective value of smelliness. Is there an ultimate smelly? good? bad? etc? Or is there just really smelly in reference to humans, really bad and good in reference to human well being, etc.

Doesn’t morality become subjective until you subjectively ground it to a reference point? Such as wanting to play a game. Are there good and bad moves for just wanting to play game? No, not until you pick a referenced game to play, such as chess. Once you subjectively pick chess, then you have objectively good and bad moves to make when playing the game of chess correct? So if someone picks their reference point of a deity as their grounds of absolute good and bad morality, don’t they then have to convince everyone else why picking a deity is any better than someone else’s reference point?

 

[Wesrock]

How many decimal places if pi to use is not a moral decision. Nor are things like “smelliness” or “hotness” transcendentals. It’s the transcendentals (goodness, truth, and some also say beauty – though I’d caution against oversimplifying this last) that are argued to be objectively grounded in reality and in God. So when people say that God is perfection, they refer to the transcendentals. They don’t mean He is perfect smelliness, or hotness, or other non-transcendental quality.

A transcendental property is one that applies to a being (something which exists) simply by virtue of it being. It is “transcendental” because it necessarily flows from the be-ing of a thing itself, and therefore applies to all things that be/are. That is, it is natural for any thing which exists to have this property. Not all things may have smelliness or hotness, but all have goodness and truth. Goodness in this case doesn’t mean moral goodness, that only follows from rational choices. Smelliness is subjective. Goodness is objective (not as an arbitrary command, but as intrinsic to the being of a thing).

I’ve yammered on enough. The last thing I’ll mention is that you are objecting as it’s an argument from desire. Now, I’m not going to prove the argument, nor do I think you’ll be compelled to accept it, but it is philosophically deeper than the objection “just because you desire something doesn’t make it true” lets on, even if that statement is true enough in itself. Prof. Ed Feser wrote a blog post which clarifies what is meant in formal arguments from desire which I found illuminating (though I haven’t reached the point of adopting such arguments myself yet): edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2017/06/arguments-from-desire.html?m=1

The linked blog post deals with the argument from desire in general and in how it may used to argue the immortality of the soul (not as a stand alone argument, but supporting. Though thinking on it, the argument seems even more apt for arguing for the transcendentals. That’s all I have time for right now.

 

[steve_b]

So I was listening to the argument for absolute morality. This is how I understand it went:
A1 All people are conscious of an objective moral law.
A2 Moral law requires a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

The argument was addressed to the first assumption, “All people are conscious of an objective moral law.” If someone does not acknowledge that there are objective moral truths, then anything is possible as a choice and there is no right or wrong. Isn’t that becoming a defense for, “This is not how I would like the world to be, so therefore there must be absolute morality because I would not want it otherwise.” ? How we would want the world to be has no bearing on how the world actually is.

Many people believe that all morals are subjective to a point. They give the example of using the numerical value of pi. To solve the problem, group A uses pi to the 15th decimal place while group B uses pi to the 8th decimal place. Both have a result that is not measurably different, aka neither group can point to who’s result was better over all. So is group A more morally correct than group B? Neither has an ultimate value of pi since it has not ultimate value though.

Ideas like ultimate good and bad, seems to be the same subjective conversation, like the ultimate subjective value of smelliness. Is there an ultimate smelly? good? bad? etc? Or is there just really smelly in reference to humans, really bad and good in reference to human well being, etc.

Doesn’t morality become subjective until you subjectively ground it to a reference point? Such as wanting to play a game. Are there good and bad moves for just wanting to play game? No, not until you pick a referenced game to play, such as chess. Once you subjectively pick chess, then you have objectively good and bad moves to make when playing the game of chess correct? So if someone picks their reference point of a deity as their grounds of absolute good and bad morality, don’t they then have to convince everyone else why picking a deity is any better than someone else’s reference point?

Where there is no law, there is no breaking of the law.

Where there is law, THEN there is a force behind that law. And such is the law of natural consequences which can be good or bad.

 

[1ke]

Listening to whom? Based on what?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

So I was listening to the argument for absolute morality. This is how I understand it went:
A1 All people are conscious of an objective moral law.
A2 Moral law requires a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

You will probably find this interesting:

youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

 

[Russell_SA]

How many decimal places of pi to use is not a moral decision. Nor are things like “smelliness” or “hotness” transcendentals. It’s the transcendentals (goodness, truth, and some also say beauty – though I’d caution against oversimplifying this last) that are argued to be objectively grounded in reality and in God. So when people say that God is perfection, they refer to the transcendentals. They don’t mean He is perfect smelliness, or hotness, or other non-transcendental quality.

I believe the point of the reference was to illustrate that people can solve moral problems without absolutes and gave the example of math problems without an absolute value of pi. They referenced the idea of Sam Harris’ “Moral Landscape” where there are correct moral responses to select from, but there are definite moral responses that are bad responses to the issue. So with the pi example, people may use 3.14 or pi to the 12th decimal place to solve the problem, but both still solve the problem. However if someone came in and used 4, 2, or any other number than pi, it would be the wrong answer. Sam Harris uses the example of nutrition. When trying to determine what is good and bad about human nutrition, then eating an apple or an orange is just fine, but drinking battery acid is objectively bad for human nutrition.

A transcendental property is one that applies to a being (something which exists) simply by virtue of it being. It is “transcendental” because it necessarily flows from the be-ing of a thing itself, and therefore applies to all things that be/are. That is, it is natural for any thing which exists to have this property. Not all things may have smelliness or hotness, but all have goodness and truth. Goodness in this case doesn’t mean moral goodness, that only follows from rational choices. Smelliness is subjective. Goodness is objective (not as an arbitrary command, but as intrinsic to the being of a thing).

So a bird using a stick to reach food applies “goodness” to the stick in it’s usefulness to help the bird survive, while prison inmates in Attica Prison would look at the night-sticks used on them as bad. Does the stick contain this good and bad property flowing from itself? Same with humans. Person is feeding their child food they took from their neighbor. The child thinks their parent is good, while their neighbor thinks the person is bad. It seems the reference point of good and bad is up to the individual themselves for how they are assessing the situation based on the information they know about reality and the instinctual values of that species and it’s ability to adjust to the reality. Or do you see this differently? IE: Vaccines are bad to a child, but fine for an adult.

This takes me to a question someone presented to me once: if the reference point for morality is a deity that is playing the end-all game of Hide and Go Seek with the people it is supposed to be in a relationship with, is it the fault of those people that get it’s moral code wrong if they can’t get the information from the source itself? If the people are then told a moral law from their deity that the people don’t understand is a moral issue at all. Is it just to hold a people accountable to a moral law where those people are too dense to understand why that moral law is an issue?

 

[reggieM]

A1 All people are conscious of the first principles of moral law.
A2 The first principles of moral law require a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

First principles of moral law: There is a distinction between good and bad, true and false.

These principles cannot be derived from anything else and require a law-giver, law-creator for them to be universally established in human existence.
There are no exceptions to the existence of these principles in all human life.

All humans know that whatever is considered good is distinctly different than what is considered bad. From that, gradients of goodness are understood (one thing is better than another). The same is more precise with truth and falsehood. A true answer is distinctly different than a false one.

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium of the Catechism (from Pope Benedict XVI)

415. What is the moral law?

1950-1953
1975-1978

The moral law is a work of divine Wisdom. It prescribes the ways and the rules of conduct that lead to the promised beatitude and it forbids the ways that turn away from God.

416. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

417. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Russell_SA]

A1 All people are conscious of the first principles of moral law.
A2 The first principles of moral law require a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

First principles of moral law: There is a distinction between good and bad, true and false.

This is obvious once you’ve determined what the reference point is first. 1 and 0 are referenced from the point of 0 on a number line. But you have to convince everyone else that 0 is a valid point of reference. Same with moral issues of good and bad or do you see this differently?

It’s been my experience that Good and Bad for people seems to be universally referenced to human welfare as the most commonly used reference point of 0.

These principles cannot be derived from anything else and require a law-giver, law-creator for them to be universally established in human existence.
There are no exceptions to the existence of these principles in all human life.

The moral laws require people to understand, agree, and apply them. If I tell my dog to get off the couch and it doesn’t understand why it should get off the couch, but still does, has my dog performed a moral action? No she has not. She performed an a-moral action. An action where my dog suspended her moral understanding of the situation and just followed orders. She did not assess the situation to see if she agrees and understands why sitting on the couch was a moral issue.

Our moral issues seem to be universal due to the commonality of our humanity. This is why different species display different moral actions than we do.

All humans know that whatever is considered good is distinctly different than what is considered bad. From that, gradients of goodness are understood (one thing is better than another). The same is more precise with truth and falsehood. A true answer is distinctly different than a false one.

Once someone has justification for defending their position on what the Good and Bad are and can convince other people of this though. Independent verification and assessment of the event is a good way to see if your assessment is valid or not.

 

[1ke]

Again, I will ask, to whom were you listening and where?

Because that doesn’t sound like a Catholic argument.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So I was listening to the argument for absolute morality. This is how I understand it went:
A1 All people are conscious of an objective moral law.
A2 Moral law requires a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

The argument was addressed to the first assumption, “All people are conscious of an objective moral law.” If someone does not acknowledge that there are objective moral truths, then anything is possible as a choice and there is no right or wrong. Isn’t that becoming a defense for, “This is not how I would like the world to be, so therefore there must be absolute morality because I would not want it otherwise.” ? How we would want the world to be has no bearing on how the world actually is.

Many people believe that all morals are subjective to a point. They give the example of using the numerical value of pi. To solve the problem, group A uses pi to the 15th decimal place while group B uses pi to the 8th decimal place. Both have a result that is not measurably different, aka neither group can point to who’s result was better over all. So is group A more morally correct than group B? Neither has an ultimate value of pi since it has not ultimate value though.

Ideas like ultimate good and bad, seems to be the same subjective conversation, like the ultimate subjective value of smelliness. Is there an ultimate smelly? good? bad? etc? Or is there just really smelly in reference to humans, really bad and good in reference to human well being, etc.

Doesn’t morality become subjective until you subjectively ground it to a reference point? Such as wanting to play a game. Are there good and bad moves for just wanting to play game? No, not until you pick a referenced game to play, such as chess. Once you subjectively pick chess, then you have objectively good and bad moves to make when playing the game of chess correct? So if someone picks their reference point of a deity as their grounds of absolute good and bad morality, don’t they then have to convince everyone else why picking a deity is any better than someone else’s reference point?

I wish I knew exactly what any of those three propositions really meant.

 

[Russell_SA]

Again, I will ask, to whom were you listening and where?

Because that doesn’t sound like a Catholic argument.

Just a discussion I walked in on.

 

[reggieM]

This is obvious once you’ve determined what the reference point is first. 1 and 0 are referenced from the point of 0 on a number line. But you have to convince everyone else that 0 is a valid point of reference. Same with moral issues of good and bad or do you see this differently?

Yes, I see this differently. No rational being needs a reference to understand the difference between being and non-being, thus we already have 1 is different than 0. Nobody can proceed at all, in any way, without that principle. There is no ambiguity with it either.

ce that Good and Bad for people seems to be universally referenced to human welfare as the most commonly used reference point of 0.

That’s in application, but in concept, it is universal that a thing can be considered good or better and a thing therefore bad or worse. Those are the first principles. There is a difference between true and false, good and bad. You can’t have any kind of reasoning at all without those first principles.
Thus, we need a law-maker that created those principles,they cannot be derived from something else.

Our moral issues seem to be universal due to the commonality of our humanity. This is why different species display different moral actions than we do.

You’re shifting the focus here to specific moral principles. They come after the first principles of reasoning.

Once someone has justification for defending their position on what the Good and Bad are and can convince other people of this though. Independent verification and assessment of the event is a good way to see if your assessment is valid or not.

The way my argument is assessed is that it is impossible for it to be incorrect.
The point here is that if someone denies that there is a fundamental difference between truth and falsehood, then they cannot assess anything.

So, the difference between true and false is a universal first principle, that must have been created by God. It could not have been created by reasoning or logic, since reasoning and logic depend on that first principle.

 

[1ke]

Just a discussion I walked in on.

Well, again, not very much information.

The Church does not make the claims you posed in your OP. I’m not really sure what you hope to gain in this discussion? It would be more productive to talk on a Catholic board about what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the subject, not something vague you overheard “somewhere”…

 

[Russell_SA]

Thus, we need a law-maker that created those principles,they cannot be derived from something else.

I don’t see a need for a “law-giver” only a need for a being that can experience reality and think about it. How that entity is able to interact with reality gives qualities to those things it interacts with. Thus if an entity made of fire interacts with a vacuum, it would conclude that a vacuum is a “bad” thing, since it’s bad in reference to the well-being of the fire entity. If the fire entity didn’t think that a vacuum was bad, then it would die off and that species would not thrive in that environment. That’s why we thrive in our environment. We have learned what is “bad” and “good” for our well-being. The other species of homosapiens that didn’t think their harsh environment was bad, or bad social practices, etc., died off. So to use your word, we are the “law-maker” of good and bad to reality. Or do you see something wrong with this approach?

The point here is that if someone denies that there is a fundamental difference between truth and falsehood, then they cannot assess anything.

I agree that someone has to be able to assess the reality that they experience.

So, the difference between true and false is a universal first principle, that must have been created by God. It could not have been created by reasoning or logic, since reasoning and logic depend on that first principle.

I don’t see how this follows because all you need for these identities of “good” and “bad” come from a reference of “well-being” to the entity interacting with it. Otherwise, a vacuum could be good, even if it kills off the fire entity. Which is a logical disconnect from the reference point of the fire entity that wants to live a full life.

 

[Russell_SA]

Well, again, not very much information.

The Church does not make the claims you posed in your OP. I’m not really sure what you hope to gain in this discussion? It would be more productive to talk on a Catholic board about what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the subject, not something vague you overheard “somewhere”…

Not really interested in the church’s position on this, just interested in people’s position on this that want to discuss it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Not really interested in the church’s position on this…

Then post it someplace other than “Catholic Answers”???

 

[reggieM]

I don’t see how this follows because all you need for these identities of “good” and “bad” come from a reference of “well-being” to the entity interacting with it.

Well, you have to start before that point to arrive at moral values.

You accepted that true and false cannot be derived by logic or reasoning. So, those are principles or rules.

Once you have that, now you have to decide that “true” is good, and “false” is bad.

 

[goout]

So I was listening to the argument for absolute morality. This is how I understand it went:
A1 All people are conscious of an objective moral law.
A2 Moral law requires a moral lawgiver.
C There must be a moral lawgiver.

The argument was addressed to the first assumption, “All people are conscious of an objective moral law.” If someone does not acknowledge that there are objective moral truths, then anything is possible as a choice and there is no right or wrong. Isn’t that becoming a defense for, “This is not how I would like the world to be, so therefore there must be absolute morality because I would not want it otherwise.” ? How we would want the world to be has no bearing on how the world actually is.

Many people believe that all morals are subjective to a point. They give the example of using the numerical value of pi. To solve the problem, group A uses pi to the 15th decimal place while group B uses pi to the 8th decimal place. Both have a result that is not measurably different, aka neither group can point to who’s result was better over all. So is group A more morally correct than group B? Neither has an ultimate value of pi since it has not ultimate value though.

Ideas like ultimate good and bad, seems to be the same subjective conversation, like the ultimate subjective value of smelliness. Is there an ultimate smelly? good? bad? etc? Or is there just really smelly in reference to humans, really bad and good in reference to human well being, etc.

Doesn’t morality become subjective until you subjectively ground it to a reference point? Such as wanting to play a game. Are there good and bad moves for just wanting to play game? No, not until you pick a referenced game to play, such as chess. Once you subjectively pick chess, then you have objectively good and bad moves to make when playing the game of chess correct? So if someone picks their reference point of a deity as their grounds of absolute good and bad morality, don’t they then have to convince everyone else why picking a deity is any better than someone else’s reference point?

Morality is a meaningless concept without objectivity. If you can’t start there (your post rejects it) then there’s not much to discuss.

What you get without an objective reference point is arbitrary force. (cloaked in things like consensus or popular wisdom). To be sure, societies may force standards on people that are good, but they are not arbitrary, they are “in reference to…” something other than “we said so”. Something like “you should die because my name is Stalin” is an arbitrary and self enclosed assertion, not an evaluation in reference to something larger.

Also, morality is not a thing.
Morality is an evaluation of acts in reference to the good. Everyone engages in decision making and makes assertions about what is good for people. Anyone who denies this is a silly fool. Even “I need another beer” is an evaluation about what is good for me. Morality is erroneously seen in popular culture as the arcane rules of superstitious religious zealots. Nonsense.

Morality is also used to refer to systems of statements and beliefs and rules. And this thread will go in circles over all that, I predict.

 

[goout]

Not really interested in the church’s position on this, just interested in people’s position on this that want to discuss it.

You seem to deny the very being of those you are discussing this with. Have you ever thought about the others on this board? How could you imagine that those posting here would not give you a Catholic position on your question, when many of us give our very being in faith to Christ?

Are we pretending to look for answers and honest discussion here?
Yep.