Are there absolute moral axioms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_III

Guest
This question raised about absolute moral axioms is intended to address not the moral axioms of revealed religion, such as the Ten Commandments, but any moral axioms that might exist from a strictly secular point of view.

First, a definition:

A moral axiom should not be about how we behave, but about how we ought to behave.

Also, a moral axiom should be self-evident, and not require demonstrative proof, but rather universal assent.

Are there any such absolute moral axioms that require universal assent?

Can you name just one?
 
What do you mean by “require universal assent”? Do you mean that everyone should agree with it, or that everyone does agree with it?
 
Oreoracle said:
What do you mean by “require universal assent”? Do you mean that everyone should agree with it, or that everyone does agree with it?
Click to expand...
Unless one is psychotic, one should and does agree with it.

Satan, of course, would reverse the axiom. Do evil and avoid good.

But Satan is deranged. :rolleyes:

Can you think of anyone anywhere in the world, other than a psychotic, who would say we should not do good and avoid evil?
 
Amandil said:
Really?

What is conscience?

And how does that relate to my other questions?
Click to expand...
According to the catechism of the Catholic Church:

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: (2261)
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense… To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.

I would say conscience is the voice of the natural law speaking to all men.

As when we know instinctively that we should do good and avoid evil.

But for more about conscience, read up on it in your catechism. It isn’t just revelation. It’s the common sense of reason. Every society has a word for conscience, and in every society (Christian or otherwise) people are urged to follow their conscience. The conscience is formed first by the natural law, then by the parents, then by the religion, then by the laws of the land.

In an atheistic system, the conscience could be formed by the person with the most battalions. But that isn’t really natural law, is it? It’s the law of the man with the biggest fist. More often than not, he is seriously deranged.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
According to the catechism of the Catholic Church:

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: (2261)
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense… To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.

I would say conscience is the voice of the natural law speaking to all men.

As when we know instinctively that we should do good and avoid evil.

But for more about conscience, read up on it in your catechism. It isn’t just revelation. It’s the common sense of reason. Every society has a word for conscience, and in every society (Christian or otherwise) people are urged to follow their conscience. The conscience is formed first by the natural law, then by the parents, then by the religion, then by the laws of the land.
Click to expand...
But the Catechism says more than that. The Catechism says that the conscience is the interior judgment of God.

Don’t mistake me, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, I was trying to show that it’s nearly impossible to come up with objective moral axioms apart from an appeal to religion.
40.png
Charlemagne:
In an atheistic system, the conscience could be formed by the person with the most battalions. But that isn’t really natural law, is it? It’s the law of the man with the biggest fist. More often than not, he is seriously deranged.
Click to expand...
I would think that the default moral axioms would rest upon utility.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
Unless one is psychotic, one should and does agree with it.
Click to expand...
The question is about the requirements that moral axioms must meet to qualify as moral axioms. Recall that, by your own definition, moral axioms tell us what we should do. So by saying that one should agree with such axioms, you are saying that one should agree with what one should do. I hope you agree that this answer isn’t exactly any clarification. It’s just redundant.

As for whether I agree that one should do good and avoid evil, this is another tautology. If you ask someone what they should do, they say you should do good. If you ask what is good, they say it is what one should do. This isn’t a clarification, it’s redundant.
 
Oreoracle said:
As for whether I agree that one should do good and avoid evil, this is another tautology. If you ask someone what they should do, they say you should do good. If you ask what is good, they say it is what one should do. This isn’t a clarification, it’s redundant.
Click to expand...
It’s not a tautology unless you refuse to get your helicopter off the ground.

When you ask what is good, you don’t just say that it is what you should do. That is only a fundamental axiom. Then you have to choose between two or more courses of action (propositions) in a given instance. When you choose, you know immediately which course is right and which course is wrong (as in “Should I or should I not rob a bank?”). You ask yourself, “Would I be doing good or would I be doing evil?” and right away you know the answer. Some cases are more complex than that, and require more difficult choices (as in the case of Sophie’s Choice). But even when you have to choose between two evils, you know you are morally obliged to choose the lesser evil (therein lies yet another moral axiom).
 
Amandil said:
I would think that the default moral axioms would rest upon utility.
Click to expand...
It may well rest upon utility, though the utilitarianism of someone like Stalin or Mao (both atheists) rested upon the biggest fist. 😉
 
Charlemagne_III said:
This question raised about absolute moral axioms is intended to address not the moral axioms of revealed religion, such as the Ten Commandments, but any moral axioms that might exist from a strictly secular point of view.
Click to expand...
I think this may go nowhere without there being agreement on definitions. Which I don’t think you’re going to get.

For example, if one axiom is to always do good, how does one define what that is without giving examples? Not everyone is going to agree with all your examples or with mine, so there is not much likelihood of universal agreement.
Charlemagne_III said:
It may well rest upon utility, though the utilitarianism of someone like Stalin or Mao (both atheists) rested upon the biggest fist. 😉
Click to expand...
I have to admit I struggle with some aspects of utility. We all use it in everyday life but taken to the extreme, as you say, it can lead to dreadfully uncomfortable positions to try to support.
 
Bradski said:
For example, if one axiom is to always do good, how does one define what that is without giving examples? Not everyone is going to agree with all your examples or with mine, so there is not much likelihood of universal agreement.
Click to expand...
The universal agreement would not necessarily be upon the specific instances of good and evil, but rather upon the general axiom of “do good and avoid evil.”

I don’t think you will be convinced, but let’s try it this way.

In mathematics there is an axiom that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

This is self evident and requires no proof.

But when you talk about specific applications of the straight line, such as a square or a triangle, you have advanced beyond the self evident axiom of a straight line and are approaching the realm of propositions concerning several connecting lines, which do require proof.

This likewise applies in morals. There are moral axioms and moral propositions.

A self evident moral axiom such as “do good and avoid evil” is quite different from a theory (proposition) of utilitarian ethics, which is not self-evident and requires proof, such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham were pleased to supply ad nauseam, that we should act so as to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism is a moral theory, not a moral axiom.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
A moral axiom should not be about how we behave, but about how we ought to behave.

Also, a moral axiom should be self-evident, and not require demonstrative proof, but rather universal assent.

Are there any such absolute moral axioms that require universal assent?

Can you name just one?
Click to expand...
Is the question whether or not there is a moral axiom which is self-evident but does not have universal assent? If so, one possible guess would be the axiom A:
A: It is wrong to target and kill Palestinian children when they are simply playing peacefully on the beach. The assumption is that these children are innocent of any connection with any warlike activity going on.

Universal assent would appear to be lacking according to recent news reports.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
The universal agreement would not necessarily be upon the specific instances of good and evil, but rather upon the general axiom of “do good and avoid evil.”

I don’t think you will be convinced, but let’s try it this way.

In mathematics there is an axiom that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

This is self evident and requires no proof.
Click to expand...
No proof, but it does require definitions.

In maths, specifically Euclidian geometry, there are a few axiomatic definitions that need to be agreed even before you can get to the postulate that the shortest distance etc. (4 in fact: aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/elements/bookI/bookI.html). In effect, you need to define what a line is before you get to the point where it can be said to be the shortest distance between two points.

To do good is the equivalent of drawing the line between those two points. But, just as you need to define what a line is so you can draw it, you also need to define what good is so you can do it.
 
Tomdstone said:
Is the question whether or not there is a moral axiom which is self-evident but does not have universal assent? If so, one possible guess would be the axiom A:
A: It is wrong to target and kill Palestinian children when they are simply playing peacefully on the beach. The assumption is that these children are innocent of any connection with any warlike activity going on.

Universal assent would appear to be lacking according to recent news reports.
Click to expand...
Universal assent would be that it is wrong to kill innocent children.

I don’t think even the Israelis would deny that. Their intent is not to kill innocent children, but to defend themselves from missiles fired from the school district. Who puts missiles near a school district? People who don’t care whether their own children are killed. So who committed the crime? What does your conscience tell you? I say a plague upon both their houses for not being able to find a different way to fight, or not fight at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top