Moral Absolutism

[john_doran]

Oh and John the arguments in this link are exaclty ones you and I have made…just a bit more long haired in it’s language.

NATURALISM AND MORAL REALISM by JAMES M. SIAS III

it’s not the same argument that you’ve made, because you haven’t made any argument: you go between simply and repeatedly stipulating your point, and quoting bits of other peoples’ arguments (which, incidentally, are also all different).

and while this most recent paper of yours makes an interesting argument against moral naturalism simpliciter, it uses a model of moral “properties” that is far from ubiquitous, and is not, for example, one which makes any sense to me.

but whatever. this tack has clearly become fruitless, so lets try a new one…

why don’t you tell me what you think grounds moral norms: what makes the proposition “one ought not to commit murder”, true?

Doug50:

You have a choice: Either you accept moral realism at the rejection of naturalism (ego becoming a non-naturalist)

ok, let’s assume you’re right about this, and that one can be a moral realist only by becoming a metaphysical non-naturalist. that still doesn’t entail that one needs to believe in god to be a moral realist: one can certainly be an atheistic non-naturalist.

and that’s where this whole thing began: with the question “can one be an atheist and a moral realist?”

why can’t one believe that the world contains objective things like chairs, tables, sets, propositions, and moral properties, but no god?

and understand the question correctly: i’m not asking why there needs to be a god, or if there are good general arguments for his existence (because i believe there are); i am asking for a good argument for god’s existence from the existence of non-natural moral properties. that is, what is it about the simple (and putative)non-naturalness of moral properties that requires god for their existence, as opposed to the non-naturalness of sets or propositions?

 

[Doug50]

With only a quick skim it’s obvious you don’t know what my argument is because you try to explain something back to me that I’ve already ackowledged. An example of such is that a person can be an atheist and a non-naturalists. Go back and look it up. Atheism only means a lack of belief in gods. It doesn’t mean you must also disbelieve in ghosts…It follows that if you believe in ghost you are a non-naturalist. Naturalism is more restrictive. You can’t be a Naturalist and believe in any objective thing supernatural…and that objective moral facts. Unless of course you can explain, using the scientific method, how objective moral facts manifest themselves in nature.

A person is left with a choice: Either

If he accepts Natualism as being true then it follows that he, as Keith Augustine has, should also accept moral relativism (moral irrealism) as being true. Or…

If he rejects moral relativism for moral realism/objectivism, then if follows that he should also reject naturalism as a working model of reality, which I’ve done.

The only substantive diffence between myself and Keith is in the methaphysical choice.

Since you keep forcing me to re-explain myself I’ve gone as far as I care to go with debating you. That last link is all you need to know my argument.

 

[Doug50]

apologetics.johndepoe.com/naturalism-ethics.html

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/

 

[john_doran]

With only a quick skim it’s obvious you don’t know what my argument is because you try to explain something back to me that I’ve already ackowledged. An example of such is that a person can be an atheist and a non-naturalists. Go back and look it up.

i did. where did you say this? i couldn’t find it.

Doug50:

Atheism only means a lack of belief in gods. It doesn’t mean you must also disbelieve in ghosts…It follows that if you believe in ghost you are a non-naturalist. Naturalism is more restrictive. You can’t be a Naturalist and believe in any objective thing supernatural…and that objective moral facts.

and there lies the rub: you have never explained why you think moral facts need to be “supernatural” to be objective(if it’s a natural fact that human’s require food energy to survive, why can’t it be a natural fact that they also need to abstain from acts of murder in order to be good?); the closest you have ever come is by saying (more than once) that you have never seen a good explanation of natural moral facts. so what? i’ve never seen the marianis trench. or the gobi desert…

let me say it again: you have never explained WHY moral facts need to be supernatural to be objective. (“if i want to build a house efficiently, then i ought not to use a wet noodle as a hammer” is presumably not a “supernatural” fact. so why is “if i want to be a good human being, i ought not to commit murder”?) not that i haven’t asked you this question before…

but whatever. did you read my last post? or the previous 2 or 3 posts where i asked you to provide an explanation of supernatural morality, and it’s normativity for human beings? if so, why have you not answered the various questions i’ve put to you?

here’s my last post again, with some added emphasis:
john doran:

ok, let’s assume you’re right about this, and that one can be a moral realist only by becoming a metaphysical non-naturalist. that still doesn’t entail that one needs to believe in god to be a moral realist: one can certainly be an atheistic non-naturalist.

and that’s where this whole thing began: with the question “can one be an atheist and a moral realist?”

why can’t one believe that the world contains objective things like chairs, tables, sets, propositions, and moral properties, but no god?

and understand the question correctly: i’m not asking why there needs to be a god, or if there are good general arguments for his existence (because i believe there are); i am asking for a good argument for god’s existence from the existence of non-natural moral properties. that is, what is it about the simple (and putative)non-naturalness of moral properties that requires god for their existence, as opposed to the non-naturalness of sets or propositions?

but hey, if you’re conceding my claim that atheists can be moral realists, then sweet - we agree. finally.

 

[frnate]

Not being the deepest philosophical thinker around (tho I do try to read “Mere Christianity” about once a year), I took my time (two days off and on) reading and re-reading this complete thread, following the sub-threads and discussions etc. I found it to be quite fascinating. I’m not caught up in the minutiae associated with this subject so I offer my perspective.

For a slightly more advanced absolutist morality, try Kant: Act always by that maxim whereby you can will it becomes universal law. The Categorical Imperative is perhaps the best absolute morality one can contrive, God or no God.

Yet without God, the CI is just relativistic drivel. An individual human cannot will anything to become universal. Once you put more than one human into the equation, there will be disagreement. At that point the Parties must appeal to an authority higher than themselves to determine which is right.

Of course, nobody is necessarily bound by any moral code; but that’s just as true of divinely mandated morality as it is of any other.

Nonsense, all are bound to experience the consequences of a divinely mandated moral code, whether pleasant or unpleasant.

Ok, take it easy on me, I’m a philosophy noob remember.

Peace,
+N

 

[Mirdath]

Yet without God, the CI is just relativistic drivel. An individual human cannot will anything to become universal. Once you put more than one human into the equation, there will be disagreement. At that point the Parties must appeal to an authority higher than themselves to determine which is right.

There will be disagreement, certainly. But that just isn’t an issue: what’s at stake is your personal ethics, not the other person’s. According to A’s mores, B is acting immorally, no matter how much B may think he’s just fine. Unity is not a prerequisite for validity – if it were, there would be no such animal as a valid moral code.

Nonsense, all are bound to experience the consequences of a divinely mandated moral code, whether pleasant or unpleasant.

Maybe, maybe not. That’s a whole different discussion. If it turns out that there is a God who has ordained a moral law and set up an afterlife or two, then yeah, you’re right – but good luck proving it!

 

[frnate]

There will be disagreement, certainly. But that just isn’t an issue: what’s at stake is your personal ethics,…

I’m thinking that the truth is what’s at stake. I was speaking of disunity as catalyst for revealing truth.

According to A’s mores, B is acting immorally, no matter how much B may think he’s just fine.

If A’s moral code is the valid one should not B be informed of it so he has an opportunity to revise his mores?

Unity is not a prerequisite for validity – if it were, there would be no such animal as a valid moral code.

You’ve only used half of the equation. According to B, A is acting immorally. They cannot both be right, there must be a way to determine which is right. If there is, what is it? If there isn’t, why go on pretending that there can be such an animal as a valid moral code.

Maybe, maybe not. That’s a whole different discussion. If it turns out that there is a God who has ordained a moral law and set up an afterlife or two, then yeah, you’re right – but good luck proving it!

Allow me to reword:
Nonsense, all are bound to experience the consequences of a divinely mandated moral code (if there is one), whether pleasant or unpleasant.

Your original statement is still nonsense.

Peace,
+N

 

[Mirdath]

I’m thinking that the truth is what’s at stake. I was speaking of disunity as catalyst for revealing truth.

I bet the Orthodox and the Protestants would just love to take that one up with you

If A’s moral code is the valid one should not B be informed of it so he has an opportunity to revise his mores?

Which would be why I… ah, nevermind!

Of course. And if A’s code is not, in fact, quite so reasonable as it seems, perhaps B’s could be instructive.

You’ve only used half of the equation. According to B, A is acting immorally. They cannot both be right, there must be a way to determine which is right. If there is, what is it? If there isn’t, why go on pretending that there can be such an animal as a valid moral code.

There must be a way? I’m not nearly so certain. We’re talking about the only branch of human thought that can never reach a unified conclusion, after all.

We are, I think, working from different ideas of what a valid moral code would be. To you, it’s one that matches up with what God thinks – one that’s right. To me, it’s one that is absolute, universally applicable, and founded on solid reasoning. I do not consider utilitarianism valid because it is relative and the reasoning behind it shaky at best – although, to be fair, it can still have its uses. On the other hand, I consider Randian objectivism a valid, but thoroughly despicable, moral code.

Allow me to reword:
Nonsense, all are bound to experience the consequences of a divinely mandated moral code (if there is one), whether pleasant or unpleasant.

Your original statement is still nonsense.

There’s a distinction between having to face the music and having to obey

 

[cpayne]

There must be a way? I’m not nearly so certain. We’re talking about the only branch of human thought that can never reach a unified conclusion, after all.

I’m still working on my book.

 

[frnate]

I bet the Orthodox and the Protestants would just love to take that one up with you

Ain’t that the…uh…truth

Which would be why I… ah, nevermind!
…if A’s code is not, in fact, quite so reasonable as it seems, perhaps B’s could be instructive.

The moment you say that one person’s morals can be better than another’s, you are measuring them both by a standard, saying one of them conforms more closely to that standard than the other. A standard which measures two things is something different than those things.

Man has (as far as is knowable by us) always known that there is an absolute, universally applicable, moral code. The question is, does this code already exist in toto, or does it evolve?

If the code itself evolves then it cannot be absolute and universal. If it does not evolve, only our understanding and application of it, then those interested parties (like me and you) who are curious enough to ask, should now inquire as to the source of this absolute and universally applicable code.

I do agree that man’s understanding of an absolute, universally applicable moral code evolves through man’s interaction with man. Of course I would also say that it evolves through man’s interaction with God as well.

There must be a way? I’m not nearly so certain. We’re talking about the only branch of human thought that can never reach a unified conclusion, after all.

Unity and dis-unity are irrelevant until we determine whether or not the absolute and universally applicable moral code exists in toto or if it evolves. If unity is theoretically possible, then an evolving code is essentially eliminated.

We are, I think, working from different ideas of what a valid moral code would be. To you, it’s one that matches up with what God thinks – one that’s right. To me, it’s one that is absolute, universally applicable, and founded on solid reasoning.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Tho I can see why Christianity’s faulty understanding and even more faulty application of it at times, might make it seem that they are mutually exclusive. Christianity’s concept of God (if there is one ) is that He is not just *solid *reasoning, but perfected reasoning. Reasonable Christians hold no illusions about their faults when understanding or applying God’s reasoning.

I do not consider utilitarianism valid because it is relative and the reasoning behind it shaky at best – although, to be fair, it can still have its uses.

Exactly what I thought when reading FuzzyBunny’s posts about it in this thread.

On the other hand, I consider Randian objectivism a valid, but thoroughly despicable, moral code.

Don’t really know a lot about this, though I did enjoy “The Fountainhead” as an interesting yarn.

There’s a distinction between having to face the music and having to obey

I know, I was just trying to score points, heheh.

Peace,
+N

 

[frnate]

Mirdath,

Did you forget me?
Is my line of thought too amateur?
I’m a noob remember.

Just as I was beginning to really enjoy our exchanges you abandon me. How could you?

+N

**BUMP…

**

 

[Mirdath]

I kinda forgot the thread – a very similar one started up over in Moral Theology

The moment you say that one person’s morals can be better than another’s, you are measuring them both by a standard, saying one of them conforms more closely to that standard than the other. A standard which measures two things is something different than those things.

Yes – that’s ethics. Note that I’m not taking into account particular mores, but reasoning. I say objectivism is a ‘better’ moral code than utilitarianism not because it is closer to mine (it isn’t, by a long shot) but because it has a far firmer foundation. I generally agree much more with a utilitarian, but the method used to reach our shared conclusions is what I have a problem with.

Man has (as far as is knowable by us) always known that there is an absolute, universally applicable, moral code. The question is, does this code already exist in toto, or does it evolve?

Have we? Absolutism honestly seems to be a pretty recent development in moral philosophy. History is full of examples of people applying thoroughly relativist principles. Consider the practice of slavery: I’m not sure there’s any culture which hasn’t done it. Yet would any one of those people have sold themselves into slavery, assuming no pressure?

Even the Bible shows that there was no want of wiggle-room in the old days. The children of Adam and Eve obviously weren’t subject to an absolute prohibition on incest, or humanity would’ve been a very short-lived species; Abraham got away with marrying his half-sister; Jacob the liar and cheat never saw any consequences or indeed even loss of regard for screwing Esau over twice; although Moses was punished for striking the rock at Horeb, water still flowed; ‘Thou shalt not kill’ got divinely suspended when it came time to exterminate the populace of Jericho, man, woman, and child; the Maccabees abandoned the practice of the Sabbath in order to wage war. All in all, pretty situational.

Now that you and I know better, we may say that the story of Adam implies some pretty screwed-up things, Abraham was wrong, Jacob was wrong, Moses should’ve known better (temper, temper), Jericho was an utter atrocity, and the Maccabees violated an absolute principle we don’t happen to follow. But in light of all those examples, and all those from every other culture on the face of the earth, I don’t think we have much of a case for ‘we’ve always known there was an absolute moral code’.

If the code itself evolves then it cannot be absolute and universal. If it does not evolve, only our understanding and application of it, then those interested parties (like me and you) who are curious enough to ask, should now inquire as to the source of this absolute and universally applicable code.

I do agree that man’s understanding of an absolute, universally applicable moral code evolves through man’s interaction with man. Of course I would also say that it evolves through man’s interaction with God as well.

I agree with you completely on the evolution of morals; however, I don’t subscribe to the Plato’s Heaven situation you seem to imply. I don’t think there’s some Ur-Ethic floating around: ethics are simply part of what makes us human. It’s more an ontological thing to me – ethics are independent of everything except the mind. We can reason up solid ethics that can be very good things or very bad things from other points of view – case in point, objectivism. I find it abhorrent, but I have to admit it makes sense (if you’re a totally selfish jerk).

So who’s got the right morals? I do, of course! But according to you, you do – and never will we be able to convince each other! And that’s kind of the beauty of it.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Tho I can see why Christianity’s faulty understanding and even more faulty application of it at times, might make it seem that they are mutually exclusive. Christianity’s concept of God (if there is one ) is that He is not just *solid *reasoning, but perfected reasoning. Reasonable Christians hold no illusions about their faults when understanding or applying God’s reasoning.

They aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. The ‘founded on solid reasoning’ bit hurts when you have a deity who asks you to take his existence and ethics on faith, though.

 

[frnate]

I kinda forgot the thread – a very similar one started up over in Moral Theology

I’ll check it out.

Yes – that’s ethics. Note that I’m not taking into account particular mores, but reasoning. I say objectivism is a ‘better’ moral code than utilitarianism not because it is closer to mine (it isn’t, by a long shot) but because it has a far firmer foundation. I generally agree much more with a utilitarian, but the method used to reach our shared conclusions is what I have a problem with.

This really doesn’t answer the question tho. I’ll chalk it up to my failure to ask it properly.

Here it is another way:

1. If two individuals hold diametrically opposed opinions regarding a particular ethical issue, *can *one be right and the other wrong?

or…

1. Is there a single ethical/moral standard that is better than all others?

I’m not looking for anything more specific than a yes or no at this point. I’ll certainly take more, but I don’t think we can really have a truly productive dialogue without an answer to this question.

Absolutism honestly seems to be a pretty recent development in moral philosophy.

I wasn’t really referring to the discipline of philosophy, rather the fact that man has always had the capacity to feel offended (as far as we know.)

History is full of examples of people applying thoroughly relativist principles. Consider the practice of slavery: I’m not sure there’s any culture which hasn’t done it. Yet would any one of those people have sold themselves into slavery, assuming no pressure?

Not likely, and you can bet that each and every one of them felt offended, from the very first slave in history on down.

I agree with you completely on the evolution of morals; however, I don’t subscribe to the Plato’s Heaven situation you seem to imply. I don’t think there’s some Ur-Ethic floating around:

wha…? :ehh: no common point of reference here, sorry, did I mention I’m a noob? I’m willing to explore tho (as long as it doesn’t give me a migraine) Are there online resources for Plato’s Heaven and Ur-Ethic? Google gave me squat.

ethics are simply part of what makes us human. It’s more an ontological thing to me

Yes, ontology is the key here, my questions above are ontological. Especially the second.

ethics are independent of everything except the mind.

Whose mind? Each individual? Is that not relativism?

We can reason up solid ethics that can be very good things or very bad things from other points of view – case in point, objectivism. I find it abhorrent, but I have to admit it makes sense (if you’re a totally selfish jerk).

The objectivist would differ with you on that. So who’s right? How can you be certain?

So who’s got the right morals? I do, of course!

Huh uh, I do… oh wait…

never will we be able to convince each other! And that’s kind of the beauty of it.

If this is true then really the whole exercise is ultimately pointless, we should take up crochet or something.

They aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. The ‘founded on solid reasoning’ bit hurts when you have a deity who asks you to take his existence and ethics on faith, though.

Why is it any harder than any other faith system?

Peace,
+N

 

[Mirdath]

1. If two individuals hold diametrically opposed opinions regarding a particular ethical issue, *can *one be right and the other wrong?

Yes. Or both could be wrong.

1. Is there a single ethical/moral standard that is better than all others?

Define ‘better’

Not likely, and you can bet that each and every one of them felt offended, from the very first slave in history on down.

But obviously the slavers and slaveowners didn’t feel offense – because they weren’t slaves. And if their positions had been reversed, it’s quite likely that the latter group wouldn’t feel a twinge of regret.

wha…? :ehh: no common point of reference here, sorry, did I mention I’m a noob? I’m willing to explore tho (as long as it doesn’t give me a migraine) Are there online resources for Plato’s Heaven and Ur-Ethic? Google gave me squat.

Plato’s Heaven is a ‘place’ where archetypes live. A chair, for example, is only a feeble copy of the real Chair in Plato’s Heaven. It’s the reason Plato didn’t like art: it’s a copy of a copy, even farther removed from the thing’s true nature.

The prefix ‘ur’ refers to an earliest or greatest example of a thing – I was using it to refer to a platonic ideal ethic.

Whose mind? Each individual? Is that not relativism?

No. It’s merely an acknowledgement that our ideas of the absolute differ.

The objectivist would differ with you on that. So who’s right? How can you be certain?

I’m quite certain I’m right

Why is it any harder than any other faith system?

No harder than any other. It’s the ‘faith’ that’s the dealbreaker.

 

[frnate]

Define ‘better’

You really don’t know what I mean? The real point of the question is to determine if there is a single perfect ethical standard against which an individual can measure his own ethical standard, if he so desires. Perhaps in order to improve his behavior, or for whatever reason, the reason is not important at this point.

But then I think you may have answered this already in the “Ur” explanation. If I understand you correctly, then lack of a single perfect ethical standard leaves only one other option, every ethic is, de facto, some form of relativism. In which case pure logic fails to support a claim that you have been wronged by someone who is in no way obligated to abide by your personal standard.

Plato’s Heaven is a ‘place’ where archetypes live.

Oooohhhh yeaaah, I seem to have some vague memory of this from my college days (20+ years). Just didn’t remember the terminology. I think I blocked it because I seem to remember it giving me a migraine.

No. It’s merely an acknowledgment that our ideas of the absolute differ.

Without a single perfect ethical standard there can be no true moral absolute. But in fact we know that there is a moral absolute (tho we don’t necessarily know what it is) because we have ideas about that absolute and no one thinks those ideas are pointless. If a moral absolute did not exist then having ideas about it would not really matter.

I’m quite certain I’m right

I’m certain you’d be right too.

No harder than any other. It’s the ‘faith’ that’s the deal breaker.

Everyone has that level of faith in something.

Peace,
+N

 

[Mirdath]

But then I think you may have answered this already in the “Ur” explanation. If I understand you correctly, then lack of a single perfect ethical standard leaves only one other option, every ethic is, de facto, some form of relativism. In which case pure logic fails to support a claim that you have been wronged by someone who is in no way obligated to abide by your personal standard.

(snip)

Without a single perfect ethical standard there can be no true moral absolute. But in fact we know that there is a moral absolute (tho we don’t necessarily know what it is) because we have ideas about that absolute and no one thinks those ideas are pointless. If a moral absolute did not exist then having ideas about it would not really matter.

No, no. I say there is a ‘perfect’ absolute ethical standard (and also that I happen to have a pretty good idea of what behaviors it entails), but that it is not separate from the human condition.

 

[faithfulrock3r]

Aquinas’s Natural Law, which is well articulated in Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”.

 

[frnate]

No, no. I say there is a ‘perfect’ absolute ethical standard (and also that I happen to have a pretty good idea of what behaviors it entails), but that it is not separate from the human condition.

Excellent!
We agree that:

1. There is a perfect and absolute ethical standard.
2. Most humans have a good idea of what behavior is in keeping with that standard.
3. That standard is inextricably linked to the human condition.

Now we need to determine the correct method for defining/quantifying that standard.

In the final analysis, all attempts to define it exclusively thru the human condition can only end up as some form of relativism, which negates absoluteness.

Theism is the solution to that quandary.

Peace,
+N

 

[frnate]

Aquinas’s Natural Law, which is well articulated in Lewis’s “Mere Christianity”.

Yes, I realized I quoted from “Mere Christianity” (post 189) without attribution. (I apologize Jack )

+N

 

[Mirdath]

Now we need to determine the correct method for defining/quantifying that standard.

If we are so inclined. As proponents of ‘natural law’ show in spades, one need not know what something is to do it.

In the final analysis, all attempts to define it exclusively thru the human condition can only end up as some form of relativism, which negates absoluteness.

I invite you to prove this. My attitude toward other ethics is ‘wrong, but as long as it works out to about the same conclusions I arrive at it’ll do’, which is not relativist in the least.

Theism is the solution to that quandary.

It is a solution, but unless one can prove a specific brand of theism correct, an unacceptable one. But that’s a debate for elsewhere.