Are there absolute moral axioms?

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

Defining what a line is is so basic that I don’t see how anyone can disagree. It is a constant stream of connected points.

By the same token, the definition of morality is so basic that I don’t see how anyone can disagree.

Morality is the science of knowing not how we behave, but how we should behave or how we should not behave.

Yes, definitions do precede axioms. And definitions also should be universally agreed upon.

 

[Bradski]

Defining what a line is is so basic that I don’t see how anyone can disagree.

It does seem trite. But the definitions of basic elements such as lines and circles need to be agreed so that the axioms can be stated unequivocally. It doesn’t work otherwise.

Yes, definitions do precede axioms. And definitions also should be universally agreed upon.

So how do we agree on the ‘line’ equivalent in the case of morality. How do we define ‘good’? If we can’t do that, we can’t proceed. At least in using ‘good’ an part of an axiomatic standard of morality.

And I think you mentioned secular morality in the OP, so can we define it without recourse to religion?

 

[oldcelt]

Defining what a line is is so basic that I don’t see how anyone can disagree. It is a constant stream of connected points.

By the same token, the definition of morality is so basic that I don’t see how anyone can disagree.

Morality is the science of knowing not how we behave, but how we should behave or how we should not behave.

Yes, definitions do precede axioms. And definitions also should be universally agreed upon.

I agree…nor do they require one deity or another to arrive at that place, IMHO.

 

[Tomdstone]

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.

This was not the case according to eye-witnesses who testified that for no good reason, Palestinian children were targeted and killed by Israelis.
I am not sure exactly what the question of the OP was, but I would say that such a circumstance would be a moral axiom which is self-evident (It is wrong to deliberately target and kill innocent children playing at the beach), but does not have universal assent. It does not have universal assent because there were Israeli soldiers who deliberately targeted and killed innocent children according to the testimony of witnesses as reported in media available to the public.

 

[Tomdstone]

Morality is the science of knowing not how we behave, but how we should behave or how we should not behave.

How we should behave is something which is not agreed upon in many cases. Take for example, the case of the violent rape of a 11 year old weak child. Now she is pregnant and the doctor has determined that she cannot survive her pregnancy. There is going to be disagreement on what to do at this point, with the pro-life people saying one thing and the pro-abortion people saying something else. In mathematics everyone who understands the proof will agree with the conclusion of the theorem. In the science of morality, there will not be agreement in some cases.

 

[Tomdstone]

Morality is the science of knowing not how we behave, but how we should behave or how we should not behave.

Here is an example of where people would disagree on how to behave. Suppose that there are ten people in a lifeboat and the captain has a gun. Now the lifeboat is sinking as it has a capacity for only 9 people. With the lifeboat sinking, all 10 will surely die and there are no volunteers who agree to jump off the boat. Should the captain shoot and throw overboard one person in order to save 9? If he does nothing, everyone (all 10) will die. If he kills one person, then 9 will be saved. Does the captain have the moral right to kill one innocent person in such a case?
The appropriate moral axiom in such a case is “Thou shalt not kill.” But would it have universal assent?

 

[Nihilist]

Yes, there are certain ‘oughts’ of behaviour which require, of humans beings, universal assent. Kant was pretty much on the right track, I would say.

Don’t kill. Don’t lie.

Now, having said this- there are of course complexities- such as when a person lies (or kills) for a ‘justified reason’. They continue to know that the action is basically contrary to being human, but, for whatever reason, they are compelled (or feel compelled) to do it. So, even in telling an innocent ‘white lie’, there is a feeling that it is somehow wrong. And I believe even killing in war- there must still be some sense of ‘wrongness’.

It is possible genuinely to be forced to break one of these imperatives. This is fallenness the human condition- sometimes, even with the best intention, we cannot be completely ‘pure’ in our actions. Sometimes, it’s either lie, or hurt someone. But the axioms themselves cannot be compromised or modified.

Logically, as human beings, human life must be an end. As rational beings, so must truth. So the prohibition on lying and killing stem from this- that these prohibited actions are contrary to ‘being human’.

But this only applies to humans, of course. They are absolute for humans. But not ‘objective’ in the sense of being rationally demonstrable without a human orientation.

 

[Tomdstone]

Yes, there are certain ‘oughts’ of behaviour which require, of humans beings, universal assent. Kant was pretty much on the right track, I would say.

Don’t kill. Don’t lie.

Now, having said this- there are of course complexities- such as when a person lies (or kills) for a ‘justified reason’. They continue to know that the action is basically contrary to being human, but, for whatever reason, they are compelled (or feel compelled) to do it. So, even in telling an innocent ‘white lie’, there is a feeling that it is somehow wrong. And I believe even killing in war- there must still be some sense of ‘wrongness’.

It is possible genuinely to be forced to break one of these imperatives. This is fallenness the human condition- sometimes, even with the best intention, we cannot be completely ‘pure’ in our actions. Sometimes, it’s either lie, or hurt someone. But the axioms themselves cannot be compromised or modified.

Logically, as human beings, human life must be an end. As rational beings, so must truth. So the prohibition on lying and killing stem from this- that these prohibited actions are contrary to ‘being human’.

But this only applies to humans, of course. They are absolute for humans. But not ‘objective’ in the sense of being rationally demonstrable without a human orientation.

Suppose the Jewish child, Simon, comes to you after his mother and father had been taken away to a death camp by the Nazis. Now the Nazis knock at your door and ask you if you had seen Simon recently. You know that if you say yes, they will kidnap the child and take him to be starved to death or gassed in a concentration camp. Since you have a moral axiom Don’t lie, should you then behave morally according to that axiom and tell the Nazis where the child is so that they can kill him?

 

[Ion]

What about : Life is good.

 

[Nihilist]

Suppose the Jewish child, Simon, comes to you after his mother and father had been taken away to a death camp by the Nazis. Now the Nazis knock at your door and ask you if you had seen Simon recently. You know that if you say yes, they will kidnap the child and take him to be starved to death or gassed in a concentration camp. Since you have a moral axiom Don’t lie, should you then behave morally according to that axiom and tell the Nazis where the child is so that they can kill him?

No, I would lie. But, I would certainly lie, even knowing that I was doing something somehow contrary to an axiom.

It would be the ‘right’ thing to do to lie- although contrary to the axiom.

The rule doesn’t change. But sometimes, the rule gets broken. But the rule is still there.

 

[Bradski]

No, I would lie. But, I would certainly lie, even knowing that I was doing something somehow contrary to an axiom.

It would be the ‘right’ thing to do to lie- although contrary to the axiom.

The rule doesn’t change. But sometimes, the rule gets broken. But the rule is still there.

You can’t have an axiom which is applicable most of the time. You can’t have a definition of a line that is correct almost all of the time and which you can change to suit the particular circumstances.

Having said that, you can have two different types of geometry that define straight lines differently. So could there be more than one type of morality? Each one to be used in it’s own circumstances?

 

[grannymh]

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?

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

 

[tonyrey]

No reasonable person can deny that we should always attempt to be reasonable. Only a fool thinks otherwise…

 

[inocente]

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.

Then there is no universal assent that it is wrong to kill innocent children.

For both the Israeli and US governments, the moral seems to be more along the lines that it is wrong to kill innocent children unless there’s an overriding reason. They are utilitarians, they sum the positives and negatives to decide the most moral action.

On the other hand a deontologist would say there can never be a situation where it isn’t wrong to kill innocent children.

Most of us are inconsistent. If told that a trolley is speeding towards 5 people who will be killed, but you can save the 5 by switching it to a line where only one person will be killed, most people choose to save the 5.

If told that the trolley can’t be switched, but you can push a fat guy off a bridge to block the line, most people choose not to save the 5.

Exactly the same, 5 against 1, but most of us are inconsistent.

(The trolley problem is a well known moral dilemma.)

There’s an excellent course of youtube lectures by Michael Sandel at Harvard, to a packed hall of students, for anyone interested in this question: see Justice: what’s the right thing to do?

 

[Nihilist]

You can’t have an axiom which is applicable most of the time. You can’t have a definition of a line that is correct almost all of the time and which you can change to suit the particular circumstances.

Having said that, you can have two different types of geometry that define straight lines differently. So could there be more than one type of morality? Each one to be used in it’s own circumstances?

No. A rule is a rule. But sometimes it gets broken.

Like- “stop at a red light”. It’s always the rule. But then sometimes, people go through red lights (either for justified reasons- ambulances- or unjustified reasons).

In a perfect world, no one would have to lie, or kill. It’s never “OK” for these things to happen- because its a fallen world, they do happen.

 

[Nihilist]

Then there is no universal assent that it is wrong to kill innocent children.

For both the Israeli and US governments, the moral seems to be more along the lines that it is wrong to kill innocent children unless there’s an overriding reason. They are utilitarians, they sum the positives and negatives to decide the most moral action.

On the other hand a deontologist would say there can never be a situation where it isn’t wrong to kill innocent children.

Most of us are inconsistent. If told that a trolley is speeding towards 5 people who will be killed, but you can save the 5 by switching it to a line where only one person will be killed, most people choose to save the 5.

If told that the trolley can’t be switched, but you can push a fat guy off a bridge to block the line, most people choose not to save the 5.

Exactly the same, 5 against 1, but most of us are inconsistent.

(The trolley problem is a well known moral dilemma.)

There’s an excellent course of youtube lectures by Michael Sandel at Harvard, to a packed hall of students, for anyone interested in this question: see Justice: what’s the right thing to do?

The cases you describe are true- but I believe you are misunderstanding Kant. Kant says human life is an end in itself, and therefore, it is never “OK” to kill. Or even to lie, for that matter…But Kant is not actually giving us practical advice, nor does he set out to do so, so much as providing a metaphysical framework of morals.

Imagine a person was in a situation the only way the could save a life was by lying. Now, not to save the life would be wrong. To lie would be wrong. Neither are “OK”. But, still a decision is made.

LIfe in this fallen world, is like a warped multiple choice test. What’s 4 x 5=? And the options are: a) 7, b) 23 or c) Paris. None are really right, but we must pick one, so we pick which one seems closest. The correct answer (the moral axiom) still stands, however.

No human being is free of culpability, even if he always does what the best possible thing with the best intentions. This is why we need God’s mercy.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So how do we agree on the ‘line’ equivalent in the case of morality. How do we define ‘good’? If we can’t do that, we can’t proceed. At least in using ‘good’ an part of an axiomatic standard of morality.

You raise a very important point which I think addressed earlier a little bit.

Good is whatever is consistent with the natural law. That’s a rather wide-ranging definition, but it has to be because there are millions of ways to be good and there is no other way to define them all together except by a definition like this. When determining the natural law, we should always appeal to conscience as our guide. In most cases, it is a sure guide. In the cases where it is not a sure guide, that is usually because we don’t want to listen to our real conscience so we lie to ourselves and give ourselves a fake conscience to cover the situation.

I know this sounds altogether elaborate, but then nature herself is elaborate.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Due to today’s schedule, looks as though I’m going to be a little slow answering posts after Bradski’s #21.

Please be patient.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Here is an example of where people would disagree on how to behave. Suppose that there are ten people in a lifeboat and the captain has a gun. Now the lifeboat is sinking as it has a capacity for only 9 people. With the lifeboat sinking, all 10 will surely die and there are no volunteers who agree to jump off the boat. Should the captain shoot and throw overboard one person in order to save 9? If he does nothing, everyone (all 10) will die. If he kills one person, then 9 will be saved. Does the captain have the moral right to kill one innocent person in such a case?
The appropriate moral axiom in such a case is “Thou shalt not kill.” But would it have universal assent?

Yes, if the captain turned the gun on himself, he would have the assent of the other nine plus his own.

His action would be suicidal, but rather heroic.

“No greater love has a man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How we should behave is something which is not agreed upon in many cases. Take for example, the case of the violent rape of a 11 year old weak child. Now she is pregnant and the doctor has determined that she cannot survive her pregnancy. There is going to be disagreement on what to do at this point, with the pro-life people saying one thing and the pro-abortion people saying something else. In mathematics everyone who understands the proof will agree with the conclusion of the theorem. In the science of morality, there will not be agreement in some cases.

The principle here is more complex than usual. Aquinas talked about the principle of double effect.

If the object is to save the child’s life, and the side effect is the death of the fetus, the thing to do is save the child’s life. It’s the taking of the unborn child’s life that is absolutely wrong (and there should be universal assent to this) when that is the only object of the abortion.

But the case you raise here is not concerned with a moral axiom so much as a moral theory.