Are there absolute moral axioms?

[grannymh]

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?

My answer to non-theists and miscellaneous –
The human person is worthy of profound respect because she or he is a member of a peerless species. This is an objective truth which is not dependent on a consensus.

To theists –
The human person is worthy of profound respect because God gave her or him a spiritual soul. God is an objective truth which is not dependent on believers. Those who have other theistic beliefs can use the answer to non-theists and miscellaneous.

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

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

This is still not convincing as a hypothetical situation. Not trying to be evasive, but if you are looking for a dilemma that cannot be resolved except by killing an innocent person, you need a better dilemma than this one.

Why not go with something like Sophie’s Choice? It poses a comparable dilemma.

In order to save one of her two children, the sadistic concentration camp warden requires that she pick the one who is to live. That means she must also pick the one who is to die. If she refuses to pick, the warden will have both children executed. Is she to pick or to let both of them be executed?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

My answer to non-theists and miscellaneous –
The human person is worthy of profound respect because she or he is a member of a peerless species. This is an objective truth which is not dependent on a consensus.

I like the way you think.

What you have said above sounds comparable in some ways to:

We should hate the sin but love the sinner. (The Christian way of putting it.)

We should loathe the crime but respect the criminal. (The secularist way of putting it).

The only reason for loving the sinner and respecting the criminal is that he a member of the “peerless” human family.

 

[Bradski]

This is still not convincing as a hypothetical situation.

Try this one in regard to the lifeboat. The lifeboat is pulling away from the sinking boat. It’s barely floating because of the numbers on board. A man appears on the sinking ship begging for help.

Does the captain allow him on, almost certainly sinking the lifeboat, or does he intentionally leave the man to die? Is the greater evil to allow one death or to almost certainly kill
many?

I’m really not sure that there are any correct answers to any of these questions, so maybe there aren’t any fixed axioms. They’re all variable, depending on the circumstances. Yikes! relative morality!

 

[JapaneseKappa]

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?

I believe “moralities” are simply optimization problems. I suppose the affirmation of the optimization problem itself would be your axiom.

Religious morality attempts to maximize the extent to which it’s follower’s do God’s will. It’s axiom would be: “We ought to always do God’s will.”

Secular morality might attempt to minimize human suffering. In that case, the axiom would be “We ought to never cause human suffering.”

 

[Bradski]

Secular morality might attempt to minimize human suffering. In that case, the axiom would be “We ought to never cause human suffering.”

I can see cases where you may have to cause it, so why not ‘We ought to seek to minimise human suffering’.

 

[Tomdstone]

Not trying to be evasive, but…

You have evaded the moral question by not accepting the hypothesis of the problem. Since you have not answered the question posed, but simply evaded answering it, I believe that my claim stands that this is a case where you will have people choosing the greater of two evils as the better choice.
You are going to have many people saying that it is better for the captain not to kill one innocent person, because a good end does not justify an immoral means. However, in the problem as posed, if the captain does nothing, this will result in the death of 10 people. If the captain were to kill one innocent person, then 9 would be saved and only one would die.
Therefore there are 2 scenarios to this moral question:
A. 10 people die.
B. 1 person dies and 9 people are alive and well.
Which is the greater evil? Is it better to have 10 dead innocent people or is it better to have only 1 dead innocent person? Most people will say that it is better to have only 1 person who will die and have the remaining 9 live. They will nod their heads and say that the greater evil is to have 10 people die.
However, the moralist who goes by the rule that the end does not justify the means might say that it is better to choose the greater of the two evils and have the captain do nothing which will result in the deaths of all ten.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

I can see cases where you may have to cause it, so why not ‘We ought to seek to minimise human suffering’.

We could quibble over the specific wording, another alternative would be “we ought not to cause unnecessary human suffering.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Try this one in regard to the lifeboat. The lifeboat is pulling away from the sinking boat. It’s barely floating because of the numbers on board. A man appears on the sinking ship begging for help.

Does the captain allow him on, almost certainly sinking the lifeboat, or does he intentionally leave the man to die? Is the greater evil to allow one death or to almost certainly kill
many?

I’m really not sure that there are any correct answers to any of these questions, so maybe there aren’t any fixed axioms. They’re all variable, depending on the circumstances. Yikes! relative morality!

At the risk of being repetitious, I’ll just say that life is full of dilemmas that cannot be satisfactorily resolved. Not being able to resolve them does not mean that we have caused them. As I said earlier, when you approach a burning house and know someone is inside, and you know you cannot enter the house and exit alive, that does not mean you have caused the person’s death. The same applies to the lifeboat situation. You have not caused the man to die because he was going to die anyway if he was allowed on board the lifeboat. But that situation does not nix the universal moral axiom that we should never deliberately kill an innocent person.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Secular morality might attempt to minimize human suffering. In that case, the axiom would be “We ought to never cause human suffering.”

This would be a good phrasing for the secular moralist. I would only add one word.

“We ought never to cause needless human suffering.”

Sometimes we have to cause suffering, as when you discipline a child for its own good.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You have evaded the moral question by not accepting the hypothesis of the problem.

One can justifiably evade an hypothesis that seems so unreal.

Sophie’s Choice would have been a rational hypothesis since I believe it is based on a true life dilemma.

But I think you may be evading that one?

It involves a similar hypothesis: choosing which child is to die in order to save the other child.

 

[Bradski]

But that situation does not nix the universal moral axiom that we should never deliberately kill an innocent person.

OK. But the guy is trying to get in and the only way to stop him is to shoot him.

But this I like:

We ought never to cause needless human suffering.

Seems to cover most scenarios.

 

[Oreoracle]

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.

That’s not quite what I meant. I am saying that some philosophies do not admit any gradation or nuance in morality at all. All actions are right or wrong, and none of the wrong ones are “more wrong” than others.

Consider an extreme system such as the Categorical Imperative of Kant. If a member of the Gestapo came to your door and asked if you were harboring any Jews, and you were, what should you do? Most people would say that lying is wrong and that aiding a murderer is wrong, but would concede that lying is the lesser evil. But not Kant! No, Kant’s solution was to simply stay silent. You wouldn’t be lying then. Of course, the Gestapo would arrest you and then search your house and find the Jews, but you would be morally unblemished according to Kant. Again, to emphasize: Staying silent is not a lesser evil in such a case under Kant’s framework. It is completely morally neutral.

Now you can say that Kant was a psychopathic nutjob, but then you have to define what a psychopath is. All you’ve done is replaced the question of defining evil with the question of defining psychopathy.

 

[Nihilist]

That’s not quite what I meant. I am saying that some philosophies do not admit any gradation or nuance in morality at all. All actions are right or wrong, and none of the wrong ones are “more wrong” than others.

Consider an extreme system such as the Categorical Imperative of Kant. If a member of the Gestapo came to your door and asked if you were harboring any Jews, and you were, what should you do? Most people would say that lying is wrong and that aiding a murderer is wrong, but would concede that lying is the lesser evil. But not Kant! No, Kant’s solution was to simply stay silent. You wouldn’t be lying then. Of course, the Gestapo would arrest you and then search your house and find the Jews, but you would be morally unblemished according to Kant. Again, to emphasize: Staying silent is not a lesser evil in such a case under Kant’s framework. It is completely morally neutral.

Now you can say that Kant was a psychopathic nutjob, but then you have to define what a psychopath is. All you’ve done is replaced the question of defining evil with the question of defining psychopathy.

Are you sure you are understanding Kant correctly? The example you give is often used, but I haven’t encountered it, or anything analogus, in Kant. If quotes of Kant are taken out of context (about the universality of the categorical imperative), they can lead to a kind of distorted view of him.

The categorical imperative means that it is not in a form dependent upon any result (i.e.“Do not lie”, as opposed to “Do not lie if you want X”…), which Kant demonstrates exists for all humans (even for all rational beings). Although it takes various expressions- he says the categorical imperative is one.

Nevertheless, he recognises, that even in transgressing it (which we do), the conflict between two realities is reflected. For Kant, there is the ‘world of reason’, in which we are free, rational beings, and the ‘world of appearances’, which is determined and in which we are not wholly free. The interaction between the two (in which all humans are engaged) is the ‘dialectic of reason’. In this sense, our actions may depart from the categorical imperative- yet we know this is a compromise of our own freedom.

He says “we recognize the validity of the categorical imperative, and allow ourselves a few exceptions to it, which are, as it seems to us, insignificant or forced upon us.”

I recommend reading Kant’s Groundwork- a short text (only about 60 pages), and really convincing, in my humble opinion. He is certainly not a psychopath- but quite sensitive to human reality- that we live in a world of comprise, between our freedom and being determined. But the axiom stands, even and we continue to recognize it, even if we are compelled in some way to make an exception.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sophie’s Choice would have been a rational hypothesis since I believe it is based on a true life dilemma.

But I think you may be evading that one?

It involves a similar hypothesis: choosing which child is to die in order to save the other child.

It is the same situation really. A slight modification of Sophie’s choice is simply another example of the same theme which I am trying to illustrate:
**There are going to be those who will say that it is better to choose the greater of 2 evils. **
Let us look at the situation: A Nazi soldier gives Sophie a choice. She can kill one of ten children, or if she refuses to kill one child, the Nazi soldier will kill all ten. So there are two outcomes:
A. All ten children die.
B. 1 child dies and 9 children are alive and well.
Which is the greater evil? Is it better to have 10 dead innocent children or is it better to have only 1 dead innocent child? Many people will say that it is better to have only 1 child who will die and have the remaining 9 live. They will nod their heads and say that the greater evil is to have 10 children die.
However, the moralist who goes by the rule that a good end does not justify an immoral means would say that Sophie should not do anything because to directly kill one child is morally wrong. But if Sophie does nothing, this then results in having ten children dead instead of one, which is the greater of the two evils.

 

[inocente]

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.

It seems that we all reason moral questions from either categorical duties and rights, or from the consequences of an act. Which of these wins out depends on the person, the situation, and how the question is framed. Politicians, for instance, can manipulate us by how they frame an issue.

 

[inocente]

This is covered by another moral axiom:

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

But people disagree on which, so it is only absolute in a relative sense.

 

[inocente]

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?

This makes me question the definition of a moral axiom in the OP - I would say the ought is a theorem (a moral imperative), while the axiom is the principle on with imperatives are based.

So I don’t think granny has to put it into an ought form. For instance, the UDHR states principles, and it is up to us collectively to decide the oughts:

*"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

[etc.]

1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

[etc.]" - un.org/en/documents/udhr/*

 

[Cromwell4]

No, there are no moral absolutes (once you remove religion) from the human condition.

Cannibalism, incest, slavery, homosexuality, booty/plunder, human sacrifice, murder of prisoners taken in battle, child prostitution, capital punishment, infanticide, free love – all these and many others were accepted as the norm in very many societies. These were not aberrations; societies lived with such ‘laws’ for thousands of years. Now we think they are abominations but this was not always the case.

Today we must accept miscegenation, homosexuality, abortion & euthanasia; these were capital or serious offenses in our g’parents’ day. So where are the ‘absolute’ axioms?
Without the great philosophers & religious teachers we would never question such behaviour. Each age makes its own rules…or at least bend the rules to suit the majority.

 

[Ion]

No, there are no moral absolutes (once you remove religion) from the human condition.

Cannibalism, incest, slavery, homosexuality, booty/plunder, human sacrifice, murder of prisoners taken in battle, child prostitution, capital punishment, infanticide, free love – all these and many others were accepted as the norm in very many societies. These were not aberrations; societies lived with such ‘laws’ for thousands of years. Now we think they are abominations but this was not always the case.

Today we must accept miscegenation, homosexuality, abortion & euthanasia; these were capital or serious offenses in our g’parents’ day. So where are the ‘absolute’ axioms?
Without the great philosophers & religious teachers we would never question such behaviour. Each age makes its own rules…or at least bend the rules to suit the majority.

This is interesting as an exercise, may be possible to formalize philosophy?