Absolute morality question

[reggieM]

I really have no idea what you are saying…and likely noone else here either.
Once you can provide a coherent and consistent definition of truth do come back.

You do not understand that you cannot use logic to indicate why there is a distinction between truth and falsehood?

 

[goout]

The word “I” and “my” is at odds with your quest for absolutes.

If you replace “promotion of human well-being” with “god”, then it becomes the same argument from a religious point. Once you’ve picked your reference point of morality it can have absolutes. As I’ve heard the argument from the moral absolute point of a deity, the reason its morally absolute is in its benefit to human well-being. So I just jump to human well-being as the reference point of moral absolutes and by pass the cultural add on of the supernatural.

We know by experience that our self is not the sum total of reality (I hope), so our self cannot an absolute.

My own “I” only exists and makes sense in context with others.
So “I think” or “I prefer” or “I judge” cannot be an absolute.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You do not understand that you cannot use logic to indicate why there is a distinction between truth and falsehood?

But I can use logic to show that you do not have a consistent understanding or use of the word in this discussion which makes converse impossible until you decide what meaning you are actually intending in your arguments.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

How does calling A, god, provide any understanding about how the universe came about? It’s solving a mystery with a bigger mystery.
If this conversation shifts to the existence of a deity, then that’s fine, but not really why this conversation thread started. But we can go there.

It doesn’t other than to say that the origin is in an immaterial realm no longer accessible to either Physics or reason.

What it does do is point to a bridge between reason/physics and religion/revelation.
That the end point of one may well be the starting point of the other.
That is all the alleged proofs of God’s existence have ever purported.
That bridge of course requires an act of faith for traversal…not reason.

That is the difference between Deism (which you rightly reject) and Christianity (which Deism distorts).

 

[reggieM]

But I can use logic to show that you do not have a consistent understanding or use of the word in this discussion which makes converse impossible until you decide what meaning you are actually intending in your arguments.

Ok good. You claimed what I said was impossible to understand, but now I see you actually understood it and are trying to make a different argument out of it.

I think I’ve been consistent with the terms “true” and “false”

Oxford dictionary: * In accordance with fact or reality.* False would be “not in accord”.

But this distinction and most importantly, the values we place on true (good) and false (bad) do not come from logic. Instead, logic depends on that idea.

The distinction between true and false is one of the First Principles of reason. We cannot use reason to make that distinction or assign value.

Any reasoning or logic must accept the rule (which does not come from logic) that “what accords with fact or reality” has a higher value that that which does not accord.

But that rule is embedded in human nature, to bring us back to the first point. The First Principles of Reason are given.

We spent this time because you didn’t want to talk about where “human nature” comes from. You’ll notice, I have agreed with you that the principles we discussed are embedded in human nature. See? I used the very same term.

But I was challenging you to explain where this nature comes from.

Ok, time for a hint:
One very common answer is: “Human nature came from evolution.” First there were apes and then apelike-ancestors to humans and then humans. Evolution did it.
Right?

You could answer that way if you want. But you would see the problems in stating that First Principles are embedded in human nature because evolution somehow would have to create those first principles of reason.

There is another answer that is an alternative to that. And that answer is my view of it. The first principles of reason were embedded in human nature, not by evolution.

I just take a different view of origins than many other people do though.

That’s why i asked.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Ok good. You claimed what I said was impossible to understand, but now I see you actually understood it and are trying to make a different argument out of it.

I think I’ve been consistent with the terms “true” and “false”

Oxford dictionary: * In accordance with fact or reality.* False would be “not in accord”.

But this distinction and most importantly, the values we place on true (good) and false (bad) do not come from logic. Instead, logic depends on that idea.

The distinction between true and false is one of the First Principles of reason. We cannot use reason to make that distinction or assign value.

Any reasoning or logic must accept the rule (which does not come from logic) that “what accords with fact or reality” has a higher value that that which does not accord.

But that rule is embedded in human nature, to bring us back to the first point. The First Principles of Reason are given.

We spent this time because you didn’t want to talk about where “human nature” comes from. You’ll notice, I have agreed with you that the principles we discussed are embedded in human nature. See? I used the very same term.

But I was challenging you to explain where this nature comes from.

Ok, time for a hint:
One very common answer is: “Human nature came from evolution.” First there were apes and then apelike-ancestors to humans and then humans. Evolution did it.
Right?

You could answer that way if you want. But you would see the problems in stating that First Principles are embedded in human nature because evolution somehow would have to create those first principles of reason.

There is another answer that is an alternative to that. And that answer is my view of it. The first principles of reason were embedded in human nature, not by evolution.

I just take a different view of origins than many other people do though.

That’s why i asked.

As i say you need to define truth before a discussion can begin.
In accord with reality is a start.
Unicorns have one horn is true to me. It is a statement in accord with the concept of a unicorn.

So the next question re your definition of truth then is…what do you mean by reality. Are you speaking of the realm of concepts or the realm of what concepts allegedly refer to?

 

[reggieM]

So the next question re your definition of truth then is…what do you mean by reality. Are you speaking of the realm of concepts or the realm of what concepts allegedly refer to?

I was a little flippant in my previous remark, Blue - and I apologize for that.

But yes, either way would be fine.
The symbol “2” is a concept, it can refer to something in physical/material reality, or as an idea. The idea is an abstraction from the reality of entities.
It’s the same with a unicorn. It’s an abstraction from what we know of horses and horns, then put together.
But “true” in this case would be a positive accord with what is meant by the idea or the physical reality - either way.
False would be not in accord.

I think this is how logic or reasoning would proceed.
A syllogism is true or false. A mathematical formula calculates a true or false result.

But we could ask the question “why?” in the beginning of the reasoning process.

Why do we say that 2+2 - 4 is not the same as 2+2 = 5?
This is universal. If I insisted that those were both the same, we would say “that is false” - but why do all humans accept that?
Why also do we say that 2+2 = 4 is a better answer than 2+3 = 5?
Could I say that I just use different rules? In my rules, a false answer is better than a true one?
That would be strange, but obviously nobody does that.
So, the idea that true is correct and good, is part of that idea that is embedded in human nature.
There are no exceptions to that.
In fact, there can be no exceptions to that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I was a little flippant in my previous remark, Blue - and I apologize for that.

Accepted thanks.

But yes, either way would be fine.

It isn’t in my book.
If one’s logic and later syllogisms are to be consistent one cannot mix these two different understandings of what the terms/words refer to.

Take number.
We are not dealing with “reality” - we are dealing with one small conceptualised aspect of that bigger reality. You call it an “abstraction”.

This is the world of apriori “truth” then.
And any “logic” or self-evident principles would therefore seem to flow from the number abstractions as a matter of the arbitrary number definitions themselves. Much like the “truths” about unicorns.

If we allow our conceptual numbers to be further abstracted/symbolised by 10 different written digits or combinations thereof then **by definition **0 is not 1 and so on.

If we then invent/define operations like addition or division (which in maths is also an abstraction from a far richer and arbitrary way of regarding unity/place/separation in time/space) we are also “abstracting” from the real world by limiting the real world with a strict definition.

In the real world what we symbolise as “1” and what we symbolise as “2” can in fact be the very same thing. Take a blob of matter and imagine it “cut in half” (a very specific, arbitrary and narrow abstraction). 1 becomes 2.

But you say this is a contradiction of logic perhaps? Well yes, in terms of the defined concepts of number and operation then of course it is. If we understand what the arbitrary and abstract definition of “division” is then you are right.
But then we are simply back to the unicorn again.

Apriori knowledge whose certitude comes from the definition of the mental terms used.
But in the “real world” a blob of something can be any number you want it to be without contradiction. You just need imagination and a mental knife.

While most of us might say that even a blob of something is a single unity and therefore “1” objectively “in itself” is that really so?

Not really. We see it as “1” because we sensibly perceive it to be spatially or temporally separate from another blob perhaps behind us or yet to appear in the future (another apple on the tree).

Its our very words that imply a set of pre-existing conditions and ways of conceptualising what we want to see or do in “the real world”. We always have a narrow purpose built into our words and statements such that “the real world” is always shaped and “spun” in some way according to what we preconceive by our approach.

Which is why I am unable to agree with you that we may talk about “truth” in the same way when we deal with concepts as opposed to the bigger sensible realities that these concepts represent.

One is a truth of consistency (“concepts”) the other is a truth of “existence” or “adequation”.

The symbol “2” is a concept, it can refer to something in physical/material reality, or as an idea.

So it should be clear I find this assumed univocal predication of idea and material reality problematic when we want to start speaking of “truth” “logic” or “self evident”.

But “true” in this case would be a positive accord with what is meant by the idea or the physical reality - either way. False would be not in accord.

And what if we said that ideas (ie abstractions or symbols) are never wholly in accord with physical reality? Does that mean all ideas/symbols are false…or just somewhat “adequate”. And then what of “logic” and “self evident”?

A syllogism is true or false. A mathematical formula calculates a true or false result.

Yes, just like a unicorn having one horn. But its only a word game where the certitude of the truth flows from the narrow definitions imposed. It says nothing about whether a unicorn concept is a sensible reality…or even if the possible reality it refers to could ever coherently self-exist or be created by God if he wanted to.

For example we all believe that Newton’s Laws state that an object moving in space without friction will move forever. Yet there is no place in the universe completely without friction. So how do we actually know if that is true, logically and absolutely certain? We don’t really.

Why do we say that 2+2 - 4 is not the same as 2+2 = 5?
This is universal. If I insisted that those were both the same, we would say “that is false” - but why do all humans accept that?

For the same reason that we say an immovable object can never be shaken - not even by the most powerful of forces. Its a definition word game. Nothing necessarily to do with any nature or “thing” inherent the sensible world.

Could I say that I just use different rules? In my rules, a false answer is better than a true one?
That would be strange, but obviously nobody does that.
So, the idea that true is correct and good, is part of that idea that is embedded in human nature.
There are no exceptions to that.
In fact, there can be no exceptions to that.

Given the word/concept definitions it must be true or language and communication breaks down.

But that doesn’t mean this sort of “truth” is transferable to relations between “sensible realities” which defy our desire to encapsulate and tame them with symbols, definitions, concepts and abstractions that strangle “sensible reality” in attempting to bend it to the same sort of word definition games.

Like the riddle says: “what is the difference between truth and fiction…?”
Answer: “Only fiction has to make sense.”

 

[reggieM]

I believe you do not agree that there is a distinction between true and false.
If so, then you’re challenge would be to prove this to me without using that distinction. If you rely on it, and expect me to understand you - then you are showing that you cannot argue without referring to the concept that you are denying.

It isn’t in my book.

As in that case. Are you saying you agree that concept and reality are the same? Or are you saying that they are not the same?
You would need to answer that question without reference to the concept of true is distinct from false.

If one’s logic and later syllogisms are to be consistent one cannot mix these two different understandings of what the terms/words refer to.

As above, are you saying you can mix them, or cannot? Or are you saying that mixing and not mixing are the same thing?

What I’m getting at here is you cannot make yourself understandable without utilizing the very distinction between true and false that I think you are questioning.
But if you can express yourself in some kind of reasoning without using that distinction or, perhaps, with an ambiguous, uncertain view of the difference between true and false - I would like to see it.

I could try myself, but the conversation would be reduced to nonsense.

Take number.
We are not dealing with “reality” - we are dealing with one small conceptualised aspect of that bigger reality. You call it an “abstraction”.

What if I said: I totally agree with your conclusion because it is false and since it is therefore true, it should be rejected?

Obviously, we can’t and don’t talk like that. But we could. If the universe was irrational and chaotic - the result of random combination of molecules and reducible to unintelligent particles – speaking irrationally would actually conform to reality, and speaking rationally would be irrational.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

I believe you do not agree that there is a distinction between true and false.
If so, then you’re challenge would be to prove this to me without using that distinction. If you rely on it, and expect me to understand you - then you are showing that you cannot argue without referring to the concept that you are denying.

As in that case. Are you saying you agree that concept and reality are the same? Or are you saying that they are not the same?
You would need to answer that question without reference to the concept of true is distinct from false.

As above, are you saying you can mix them, or cannot? Or are you saying that mixing and not mixing are the same thing?

What I’m getting at here is you cannot make yourself understandable without utilizing the very distinction between true and false that I think you are questioning.
But if you can express yourself in some kind of reasoning without using that distinction or, perhaps, with an ambiguous, uncertain view of the difference between true and false - I would like to see it.

I could try myself, but the conversation would be reduced to nonsense.

What if I said: I totally agree with your conclusion because it is false and since it is therefore true, it should be rejected?

Obviously, we can’t and don’t talk like that. But we could. If the universe was irrational and chaotic - the result of random combination of molecules and reducible to unintelligent particles – speaking irrationally would actually conform to reality, and speaking rationally would be irrational.

By definition a concept abstracted from sensible reality cannot function as a perfect stand in for the reality it is derived from. It may be consistent but it can never be adequate. The same with symbols.

Truth that involves sensible realities is more probable than absolute.
I prefer to work in models not absolutely true concepts. Even our most cherished practical certainties are not immune…as Newton, had he lived until Einstein, would also have discovered.

After all a watch one minute slow is always wrong…yet that doesn’t make it useless by any means.

 

[reggieM]

I prefer to work in models not absolutely true concepts. Even our most cherished practical certainties are not immune…as Newton, had he lived until Einstein, would also have discovered.

After all a watch one minute slow is always wrong…yet that doesn’t make it useless by any means.

As I challenged you above, however, I will do so again. If you could express yourself to me in a manner consistent with that belief (that there are no absolutely true concepts) that would be different. But notice:

By definition a concept abstracted from sensible reality cannot function as a perfect stand in for the reality it is derived from. It may be consistent but it can never be adequate.

You offered me an absolute truth there. It can “never be adequate”.

Truth that involves sensible realities is more probable than absolute.

I think here, you’re saying that truths can be absolute, right?

 

[Russell_SA]

It doesn’t other than to say that the origin is in an immaterial realm no longer accessible to either Physics or reason.

What it does do is point to a bridge between reason/physics and religion/revelation.
That the end point of one may well be the starting point of the other.
That is all the alleged proofs of God’s existence have ever purported.
That bridge of course requires an act of faith for traversal…not reason.

That is the difference between Deism (which you rightly reject) and Christianity (which Deism distorts).

Is there anything you can not argue for based on faith? I have yet to hear from anyone about a topic that could not be argued as true based on faith. Since that appears to be the case, how can faith ever be a reliable pathway to truth at all?

 

[Russell_SA]

We know by experience that our self is not the sum total of reality (I hope), so our self cannot an absolute.

My own “I” only exists and makes sense in context with others.
So “I think” or “I prefer” or “I judge” cannot be an absolute.

This appears to be the matrix question. But if not, let me know. Yes we can’t tell the difference between reality and the matrix, so we have to deal with the reality we actually experience until we are justified in actually concluding this is the matrix or the true reality. Either way though, you still have to operate in both realms based on your abilities to interact with it. In the matrix if you still step in front of a car, you’ll die unless you learn how to alter that reality some how. Plus it is a little absurd to think that one person wrote all the terrible songs and all the good ones.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

As I challenged you above, however, I will do so again. If you could express yourself to me in a manner consistent with that belief (that there are no absolutely true concepts) that would be different. But notice:

You offered me an absolute truth there. It can “never be adequate”.

I think here, you’re saying that truths can be absolute, right?

Of course there are universals/absolutes if one defines them as such with word games and certain ways of representing multiple sensible realities (commonly known as abstraction of universals).

All Unicorns strangely only have one horn is an example of the former “truth.”
All swans are black is an example of the latter “truth” (kindly provided by Aristotle).

However, as I observe, these “truths” both limp in their own ways and to that degree they are also “false”.

I prefer an epistemology that refers to probable models of reality rather than “absolute truth”…whatever it precisely is you may exactly mean by that phrase.

Surely you know “It can never be adequate” is an expression not a scientific statement.
Do you think aeroplane “blackboxes” are actually black? In fact they are orange.
My expression in the context fairly clearly means “how would we ever know if a concept ever did manage to encapsulate all that a sensible reality it represents is.”
Perhaps it is possible, but given the huge deficiencies such claims have had to date I find that highly improbable. But who actually knows tell me?

I could say the sun will always rise tomorrow too. Is that an absolute truth?
I call that an induction. Inductions are not absolutely true according to the definition of “induction”. So if one day the sun does not rise…does that mean the law of induction is absolute truth? You tell me. Strange that the observation that something is not always true should prove there is a “law” that proves absolute truth exists. Sounds like just a word game to me.

Nevertheless I still believe the sun will always rise tomorrow…though I could be wrong.
Most people understand exactly what that sentence means. But you would assert I am asserting a logical contradiction and am denying the principle of non contradiction by my words.
Perhaps I am…yet people still understand the multiple truths I speak.

Hence a watch 1 minute slow is always wrong…yet very practical also.
So too with words and symbols and concepts. They never match completely the realities they represent…yet they are still very serviceable.

BTW I am aware I just said “never”. Be warned it’s also a linguistic device like “always” above and is to be treated similarly. Most people aren’t bamboozled by a rigid philosophy and intuitively understand that.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Is there anything you can not argue for based on faith? I have yet to hear from anyone about a topic that could not be argued as true based on faith. Since that appears to be the case, how can faith ever be a reliable pathway to truth at all?

It can’t. But it can be congruent, internally consistent, practical and adequately explain gaps that other systems explain less well. It also copes well with assimilating new and “contradictory” information so long as past conclusions have not fossilised into absolute truths.

Is that approach any more foolish than the one you seem to be pitting it against?

 

[reggieM]

BTW I am aware I just said “never”. Be warned it’s also a linguistic device like “always” above and is to be treated similarly. Most people aren’t bamboozled by a rigid philosophy and intuitively understand that.

What is intuitively understood is that when you use the term “never” it is an absolute.

If, for example, you are uncertain that anything at all exists - then that is non-intuitive. People interpret your thoughts as if you do believe in absolute truths - for example, that you are an existing person. But even to deny that is an absolute (to say “I do not exist”). Instead, everything you’d say would most correctly be answered "I don’t know for sure’.
However, even that would be impossible since that is an absolute. Either you know or you don’t know. If you assert “I don’t know” - you are using a truth.
So, you are using truths throughout your reasoning and expecting me to understand you.
If, however, you cannot even state that you are uncertain about something (because that references a truth) – then it would be truly impossible for you to communicate anything to me.
Instead, in every one of your sentences, you are using truth, making positive affirmations. To claim, for example, that you never wrote anything here would be a lie. Obviously, the opposite is a truth,
There is this distinction between true and false and you cannot prove otherwise without actually using the very distinction that you seem to be denying.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

What is intuitively understood is that when you use the term “never” it is an absolute.

If, for example, you are uncertain that anything at all exists - then that is non-intuitive. People interpret your thoughts as if you do believe in absolute truths - for example, that you are an existing person. But even to deny that is an absolute (to say “I do not exist”). Instead, everything you’d say would most correctly be answered "I don’t know for sure’.
However, even that would be impossible since that is an absolute. Either you know or you don’t know. If you assert “I don’t know” - you are using a truth.
So, you are using truths throughout your reasoning and expecting me to understand you.
If, however, you cannot even state that you are uncertain about something (because that references a truth) – then it would be truly impossible for you to communicate anything to me.
Instead, in every one of your sentences, you are using truth, making positive affirmations. To claim, for example, that you never wrote anything here would be a lie. Obviously, the opposite is a truth,
There is this distinction between true and false and you cannot prove otherwise without actually using the very distinction that you seem to be denying.

Of course people communicate positive affirmations…but they do not need to do so with absolute certainty as you keep opining.

And by “never” people do not in fact have to mean what you would interpret. That interpretation is your “truth” not mine. It’s a symbol, an expression, a linguistic game if you like. As I have clearly explained.

“I am an existing person”
I do not see what is absolutely certain about this at all.
You have made two predications.
First that I am, second that existence is by means of personhood.
I have no clear and precise idea of what you mean by a person…and even if I did we may well disagree over that…ands have theologians since the time of Arianism so that doesn’t seem very helpful. Therefore the above statement is not absolute truth.

As for “I am” yes that is a stronger claim to absolute truth but then that is of a different type of truth than personhood truth. The two predicates are not of the same type of “truth” as I tried to explain to you at the start…it is inconsistent of you to use two different definitions of truth in your musings at the same time. The truth of essences (consistency truth if you will) and truth of existence (adequation truth if you will) are different bedfellows.

Now even the phrase “I am” has difficulties in terms of your approach.
For it to be always and everywhere the case you would have to demonstrate there is no connection between you and me and that we have nothing in common. In fact it seems we possess a shared “nature” and philosophy, just like you, have argued for centuries that we have a partially shared intellect which seems problematic. Then quantum physics apparently indicates that physically separate particles do in fact function as if they are the same identity.
Then there is pantheism which identifies God with nature…so presumably the same could be true of different human individuals actually being one person.

Now on face value my experience of life is that the above are unlikely explanations and that the Catholic understanding of person and identity is the “true” one not that of the Muslims.
However, like the sun rising every morning, that is not an intrinsic certainty but a highly probable one…and in practice I live it as an absolute truth.
But as a philosopher I am not absolutely convinced.

Sure, we can say with absolute certainty that “existence is”.
But that may just be a tautological word game and symbolising the given ground of communication is hardly helpful for anything.
I really don’t see what you hope to gain by asserting the notion of absolute truths re predications of sensible reality.
We in fact all act on approximations and probabilities which serve us very well.

 

[reggieM]

“I am an existing person”

How about “I exist”?

You are not willing to unconditionally affirm that?

For it to be always and everywhere the case you would have to demonstrate there is no connection between you and me and that we have nothing in common.

How would you prove that I need to do that if there is no real distinction between true and false? You would be saying in the above, that you don’t know what I would need to demonstrate at all.

 

[BornInMarch]

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.

That’s not Moral Absolutism.

Moral Absolutism merely states that there are principles that must never be violated regardless of circumstances (example: “Killing another human is wrong, even in self-defense”). This is a subcategory of Moral Universalism, which merely states that there are principles that hold true across all space and time (example: “if killing another human being is wrong, then it’s wrong in every time period and culture”).

Neither of these suggest that there are rules for everything or that it needs to be provided by a conscious lawgiver.

An atheist can look at Moral Universalism or Moral Absolutism the way he might look at mathematics. In math many scientists (even secular ones) believe that theorems are discovered rather than created. In other words, 2+2=4 is universally and absolutely true. If you told a mathematician that it was subjective and that for you 2+2=1, he’ll more likely than not tell you that you’re just wrong. If you told him that your community raised you to believe 2+2=1, he’ll probably consider them wrong too. And the chance if very low that he’ll tell you “2+2=4 because God says so”.

Now you CAN write 2+2=1, but if you do any equation you try to build from that will suffer and whatever you’re trying to accomplish with said equation will fail. Likewise while you CAN murder a man for the rush of seeing him die, if you do your life will suffer.

 

[Bradski]

That’s not Moral Absolutism.

Moral Absolutism merely states that there are principles that must never be violated regardless of circumstances (example: “Killing another human is wrong, even in self-defense”). This is a subcategory of Moral Universalism, which merely states that there are principles that hold true across all space and time (example: “if killing another human being is wrong, then it’s wrong in every time period and culture”).

I might add that a moral absolute does not allow for conditions relative to the act in question. So that the statement: ‘Killing someone is wrong’ cannot stand on its own. You must specify the conditions in order to make a determination that it is wrong or not. Hence:

‘Killing someone is wrong IF done for the pleasure of watching someone die’. I’m assuming you would consider that to be wrong. But:

‘Killing someone is acceptable IF it is done in the defense of your family in a just war’. I’m assuming that you would consider that to be acceptable (adjust the scenario if you need to).

Neither are absolute statements because they contain conditional clause. Similarly: ‘Hurting a woman is wrong’ cannot stand alone. You need to describe the conditions relative to the act.

In some cases it is wrong (rape) and in some cases it is acceptable (a medical procedure). But one needs to give the conditions relative to the act.