Are there absolute moral axioms?

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

If the object of the soldiers was to kill the children, that ought to be morally heinous.

The soldiers would tell you that their object was to take out the missile site as a matter of self defense (self defense is a moral right). It was the object of the people who put the children in harm’s way (the Palestinians) that made possible the deaths of the children.

But as I said earlier, a plague on both their houses for not figuring out a better way to fight.

 

[Oreoracle]

When you ask what is good, you don’t just say that it is what you should do. That is only a fundamental axiom.

I would rather call it a definition. I can’t think of a circumstance in which “should” and “good” make sense but don’t imply one another. I don’t suppose it matters though. You can have a redundant axiom if you wish.

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?”).

Well no, you don’t. Deciding on such matters is the point of morality. To assume beforehand that people “know” what is right or wrong is to render morality useless.

If that were truly the case, the only moral anyone would need is one you so often accuse atheists of having: Do whatever you feel is right.

Besides, the fact that some people disagree on matters such as “should I rob a bank?” shows that your morals do not have “universal assent”. You can disqualify some people on an ad hoc basis by saying that they are psychotic, but then you’ve just replaced the question of defining evil with the question of defining psychopathy.

Also, regarding your “lesser evil” axiom, that doesn’t have universal assent either. Not all moralities hold that evil can be quantified, and some are deliberately set up so that there will always be a “good” option, not merely a lesser evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

There is another moral axiom to follow. “When confronted with the necessity of choosing between two evils, always choose the lesser evil.”

The lesser evil is still evil. We still have to repent.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The human person is worthy of profound respect.

As an “ought” moral axiom I would rephrase this:

“We should give profound respect to the human person.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

This is covered by another moral axiom:

When forced to choose between two evils, it is better to choose the lesser evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Well no, you don’t. Deciding on such matters is the point of morality. To assume beforehand that people “know” what is right or wrong is to render morality useless.

Why useless? The reason for morality is to assure ourselves that our actions are right or wrong.

The rightness or wrongness of an act is not always immediately evident. Sometime we must deliberate about what to do when the action is complex or against our self interest.

The self evidently right thing to do is to save someone inside a house on fire.

However, if the house is on fire to the point of knowing that you cannot get inside and out alive, you must deliberate in favor of saving your own life. That does not negate the universal axiom that we should try to save others in peril (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”).

 

[grannymh]

As an “ought” moral axiom I would rephrase this:

“We should give profound respect to the human person.”

Regarding – “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” This is an universal moral axiom, that is, a true statement. This is the foundation for morality.

Pardon me. The rephrase is somewhat inaccurate. The objective subject is the human person per se. Shifting to a “We” cannot be stated universally because a “We” includes people who will not respect someone for whatever reason. People’s judgments or world views do not have the power to alter human nature per se.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Besides, the fact that some people disagree on matters such as “should I rob a bank?” shows that your morals do not have “universal assent”. You can disqualify some people on an ad hoc basis by saying that they are psychotic, but then you’ve just replaced the question of defining evil with the question of defining psychopathy.

You are conflating the issue here.

“Should I rob a bank?” is different from “You should not rob a bank.”

“Should I rob a bank?” assumes a complex set of circumstances leading to the question.

Even when you ask, “Should I rob a bank?” you know you should not, because the word “rob” means to take by force what is not yours. Only an idiot would not know that to rob is to commit a crime (sin). Idiots are excused from making moral choices.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Regarding – “The human person is worthy of profound respect.” This is an universal moral axiom, that is, a true statement. This is the foundation for morality.

Pardon me. The rephrase is somewhat inaccurate. The objective subject is the human person per se. Shifting to a “We” cannot be stated universally because a “We” includes people who will not respect someone for whatever reason. People’s judgments or world views do not have the power to alter human nature per se.

You are not sticking with the definition of an axiom, which has to do with an “ought” rather than an “is.” I agree that your statement is true as such, but it is a philosophical axiom because it describes what is, rather than how we “ought” to behave.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Also, regarding your “lesser evil” axiom, that doesn’t have universal assent either. Not all moralities hold that evil can be quantified, and some are deliberately set up so that there will always be a “good” option, not merely a lesser evil.

Well you got me there. I can’t say I have met anybody that argues we should choose the greater evil over the lesser evil. Apparently you have.

Even so, I stand by my assertion that there are psychotics in this world (and plenty of them) who are dedicated to evil. I’m not so sure I would rely on their judgment about anything, never mind moral axioms.

Throughout this thread, when I have spoken of universal assent, I always thought it was implicit that I was speaking of the universal assent of reasonable men.

 

[grannymh]

You are not sticking with the definition of an axiom, which has to do we an “ought” rather than an is. I agree that your statement is true as such, but it is a philosophical axiom because it describes what is, rather than how we “ought” to behave.

How about – The human person ought to be profoundly respected. That is still true.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How about – The human person ought to be profoundly respected. That is still true.

Yes, the “ought” is there, making it a moral axiom.

Now someone is going to object that not everyone will agree that all human persons are worthy of respect.

What would be your answer?

 

[Tomdstone]

There is another moral axiom to follow. “When confronted with the necessity of choosing between two evils, always choose the lesser evil.”

The lesser evil is still evil. We still have to repent.

There are two problems here.

1. How do you know for sure which is the lesser of the two evils.
2. Suppose it is a case of deciding whether to choose an evil or not to choose which would result in a greater evil. For example, in the case of the sinking lifeboat, mentioned above. Is it better to choose to do evil which would result in a lesser harm, or is it better to let things play out and stay out of any choices, but that would result in a greater evil?

 

[Tomdstone]

I can’t say I have met anybody that argues we should choose the greater evil over the lesser evil.

Consider the lifeboat situation. You have a ship that has sunk and there are 10 people on the lifeboat, which has a capacity of only 9. With 10 people on board, the lifeboat will sink and all 10 will die. there are no volunteers to jump overboard. IF the captain kills one person, there will be 9 saved.
Which is the greater evil: all ten die or only one dies? Most people would argue that the greater evil is for all 10 to die. But many would argue that it is wrong to directly kill one innocent person, regardless of the end, because a good end does not justify an evil means.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Consider the lifeboat situation. You have a ship that has sunk and there are 10 people on the lifeboat, which has a capacity of only 9. With 10 people on board, the lifeboat will sink and all 10 will die. there are no volunteers to jump overboard. IF the captain kills one person, there will be 9 saved.
Which is the greater evil: all ten die or only one dies? Most people would argue that the greater evil is for all 10 to die. But many would argue that it is wrong to directly kill one innocent person, regardless of the end, because a good end does not justify an evil means.

I thought I had answered this earlier.

If the Captain is willing to take one life, it should be his own. If he takes a life other than his own, he is indeed faced with a moral dilemma not to kill the innocent. But if he takes his own life, he is faced with an act of heroism … as all Captains are supposed to go down with the ship, so to speak.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How do you know for sure which is the lesser of the two evils.

In most cases it is obvious and common sense applies. Some cases may be more complex, but in any case you should follow your conscience which (if you are not monkeying with it) will be a reliable guide.

Another moral axiom:

You should not monkey with your conscience!

 

[Tomdstone]

I thought I had answered this earlier.

If the Captain is willing to take one life, it should be his own. If he takes a life other than his own, he is indeed faced with a moral dilemma not to kill the innocent. But if he takes his own life, he is faced with an act of heroism … as all Captains are supposed to go down with the ship, so to speak.

I forgot to mention that the captain cannot take his own life because he is the only one with the capability to operate the lifeboat successfully. All the others are incapable, and the lifeboat would surely sink if there were no captain. That is the assumption in this problem. So if the captain took his own life, all of the remaining 9 people would surely die. So in the end, with the captain killing himself, you would have 10 people dead. On the other hand, if the captain deliberately killed one innocent person, you would have only one dead and 9 living. So should you choose the greater evil of 10 people dead (by either doing nothing or having the captain kill himself) or should you choose to kill one innocent person and as a result have 9 people alive and well and the lesser evil of one person dead? Some people would argue that it is better to have the greater evil of 10 people dead because a good end (of 9 people living) does not justify an immoral means (killing an innocent person).
This then would be an example of a case where someone could argue that it is better to choose the greater evil over the lesser evil.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I forgot to mention that the captain cannot take his own life because he is the only one with the capability to operate the lifeboat successfully. All the others are incapable, and the lifeboat would surely sink if there were no captain. That is the assumption in this problem. So if the captain took his own life, all of the remaining 9 people would surely die. So in the end, with the captain killing himself, you would have 10 people dead.

This then would be an example of a case where someone could argue that it is better to choose the greater evil over the lesser evil.

As with all hypothetical situations, your challenge is flawed by its own description. A lifeboat cannot be so complicated to operate that the nine survivors (after the Captain had killed himself) could not figure out how to operate it. Lifeboats are built for the purpose of simplicity. What would a lifeboat be worth if ten people could get on it but none of them was a Captain or a crew member? What idiot would design such a boat?

Oh, now you’re going to say an idiot did design such a boat!

 

[Ion]

I was wondering, is it possible to get into Satan’s “moral system” following this path of thought?

 

[Tomdstone]

As with all hypothetical situations, your challenge is flawed by its own description. A lifeboat cannot be so complicated to operate that the nine survivors (after the Captain had killed himself) could not figure out how to operate it. Lifeboats are built for the purpose of simplicity. What would a lifeboat be worth if ten people could get on it but none of them was a Captain or a crew member? What idiot would design such a boat?

Oh, now you’re going to say an idiot did design such a boat!

Yes. That is the hypothesis. Of course, you can always try some way of getting around the hypothesis of the problem which effectively is refusing to answer the problem posed. The assumptions of the moral problem here are that all 9 people would surely die if there were no captain to pilot the lifeboat. Those are the working assumptions to the moral problem posed here. To emphasize - In this particular problem if the captain were to kill himself, the result would be that the remaining 9 passengers would surely die.