Moral Absolutism

[Texas_Roofer]

Sorry for the delay however this post goes full circle. Atheist complain about the Christian “Holier than thou” then write post as this which really boil down to " do what you want or think is best" and thus the whole problem. If the atheist is willing to accept such an answer the atheist is simply making up the rules as he goes, while denying making up the rules while he goes.

Nothing is ‘in’ the Categorical Imperative. It’s a tool, not a box. As such, it’s useless without a user – and it can be misused or lie gathering dust in your neighbor’s garage.

and thus the problem

Try applying it and see!

which is to say my personal decision is the moral standard

The imperative doesn’t break down, just as your ‘natural law’ doesn’t break down. People do. We always have a choice to behave morally or to behave evilly. It says nothing about the validity of any ethical system.

The imperative if fully of nothing could not breakdown, but thus cannot have any meaning either. By definition “nothing” inside means “nothing”

You’re pulling that out of context. In the event that you did so unintentionally, I was referring to proponents of ‘natural law’ saying ‘this action should be universally acceptable or reprehensible’ prima facie.

how could anything full of “nothing” be accepted or rejected? You mean the new standard proposed by the current thinker could be accepted or rejected. That is popularity not morals

No no no, ‘natural law’ is supposedly universal, remember? What good would it be if it weren’t?

Natural Law is universal. It is becoming clear there is a misunderstanding of Natural Moral Law

Sure, we have different ideas on what tool to use to determine the morality of an action. What I was saying is that the end results aren’t all that different. You’ve got a hammer and a nail, I’ve got a screwdriver and a screw. Whichever we use, the picture still hangs on it.

May be not your screw and screw driver must have all credit given to man, and consider this a finished goal. My hammer and nail believe men working as instructed by God achieve an trivial goal, and the big stuff is outside our control.

 

[chevalier]

Lying is wrong in a normal situation and sometimes refusing to answer or giving an incomplete answer may not be successful enough. Let’s say you’re a soldier being tortured for information. Do you die valiantly or do you buy your comrades some time by feeding the enemy useless information and making him waste time? What about fake IDs of undercover police officers?

If we were to absolutise a ban against disinformation, feinting in combat would be wrong. Gambit tactics in chess would be wrong. Telling jokes would be a great hazard.

This is sometimes being escaped by using the right of the target to the information he’s requesting, or lack thereof. Obviously, in many situations askers have no right to the answer. However, this doesn’t mean it’s always right or neutral to tell them untruth. For example, people may not be entitled to personal information they’re asking about, but this doesn’t mean that giving them random falsehoods is proper.

I try to take in consideration overwhelming force. For example no one can be blamed if he’s forced into something. We don’t blame people held at gun point. We can’t blame people for lying if their alternatives are doing harm by releasing true information or being killed for refusing to answer.

 

[Mirdath]

which is to say my personal decision is the moral standard

Personal decision is how you arrive at the moral standard. The standard is universal.

The imperative if fully of nothing could not breakdown, but thus cannot have any meaning either. By definition “nothing” inside means “nothing”

Things other than mere containers exist, you know. Do you ask ‘what’s in there?’ when you see a hammer or a wheel?

how could anything full of “nothing” be accepted or rejected? You mean the new standard proposed by the current thinker could be accepted or rejected. That is popularity not morals

I was talking about ‘natural law’ in the paragraph you quoted, not the Categorical Imperative.

Natural Law is universal. It is becoming clear there is a misunderstanding of Natural Moral Law

Maybe, but I don’t think it’s on my part. Here is what you said on page 4: Natural moral Law is in all hearts ( except maybe reprobates). If there is an exception, this ‘natural law’ is not universal.

May be not your screw and screw driver must have all credit given to man, and consider this a finished goal. My hammer and nail believe men working as instructed by God achieve an trivial goal, and the big stuff is outside our control.

And is either really reprehensible, so long as we act morally? Remember, you presuppose God. I cannot act for the greater glory of a deity I do not believe in. Recall the fable of Abou ben Adhem:

*Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An Angel writing in a book of gold:

Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said,
“What writest thou?” The Vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord
Answered, “The names of those who love the Lord.”

“And is mine one?” said Abou. “Nay, not so,”
Replied the Angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerily still; and said, “I pray thee, then,
Write me as one who loves his fellow men.”

The Angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And, lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest!*

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Personal decision is how you arrive at the moral standard. The standard is universal.

and there you go! proclaiming your decision as a universal standard. The very thing known to all yet denied by those whom call themselves atheist.

… Here is what you said on page 4: Natural moral Law is in all hearts ( except maybe reprobates). If there is an exception, this ‘natural law’ is not universal.

Again it appears you wish to tell us what you do not understand. If you understand the comments of reprobates (in scripture) please explain it to me as I do not fully understand it. Yet my understanding is not the requirement for Natural Moral Law, nor is my ability to interpret correctly. If one claims the only laws which exist is the laws they personally understand, is that another form of making it up as you go?

And is either really reprehensible, so long as we act morally? Remember, you presuppose God. I cannot act for the greater glory of a deity I do not believe in. Recall the fable of Abou ben Adhem:

*Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An Angel writing in a book of gold:

Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said,
“What writest thou?” The Vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord
Answered, “The names of those who love the Lord.”

“And is mine one?” said Abou. “Nay, not so,”
Replied the Angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerily still; and said, “I pray thee, then,
Write me as one who loves his fellow men.”

The Angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And, lo! Ben Adhem’s name led all the rest!*

More typical “Atheism” talk about God, and how to uphold God’s Law while claiming not to believe in God. In your fable Ben Adhem follows all Jesus’ commandments to the letter, of course the Atheist claims these actions to be accidental

 

[tdgesq]

tdgesq- did anyone here claim to be a strict Kant-and-Kant-Onlyian or something? Mirdath sure didn’t, and I know I sure didn’t. Have you actually READ the posts in this thread?

You and Mirdath have told all of us simple theists to go look at Kant multiple times. It is impossible to be a “partial” Kantian in the way you suggest Nepenthe. And yes, I read all of the posts. How about you answer the question I asked. Do you really believe there is a perfect duty not to mislead the nazi?

I thought it was pretty simple - CI is a handy tool, and one that works very well with other tools (like social contract theory, for one).

A handy tool? The O.P. asked how moral objectivity and absolutism are possible for the atheist. At least Kant gives an objective standard for morality - perfect practical reason and the human will. Now you are going to abandon it once the going gets tough and go partially adopt another moral system, one that in fact conflicts with Kant’s. Subjectivism and consequentialism are exactly what Kant was trying to avoid.

Cripes, it gets hard to keep it on such a kindergarten level around here sometimes, but maybe that’s just from my natural-born tinkerer pov.

Your belief that you can mix and match other systems of morality consistently with Kant’s is painfully naive. When you decide to make an exception to the universal truth from Kant’s standard that it is never permissible to mislead, you’ve just unwittingly destroyed his entire system. The objective standard of pure reason that he gives doesn’t apply anymore. Some other standard from some other moral system does, usually one that looks at the consequences of the particular act; something that Kant’s system adamantly denies can be the standard. Not only is the primary basis of Kant’s morality at war with this other standard, there now has to be some explanation that objectively explains why it is in this one particular circumstance (the nazi scenario) we adopt another standard. So now you have two levels of arbitrariness to deal with. Whatever happened to an objective and absolute standard of morality?

I have always had a nasty case of engineeritis - I don’t accept ANYthing without thorough understanding of premises, function, and a willingness to fix things by dropping them from a reasonable height including orbital distances.

Then please apply your engineering training to your ethic. You wouldn’t have made such a silly suggestion if you had.

I do try to illustrate what it feels like to be a lifelong nontheist, since I gather many people here find that inconceivable, let alone that such as I are capable of virtue.

This isn’t about whether you are capable of virtue or not. It’s about whether you have an objective standard of morality and whether moral absolutes exist. The possibility of you having either of those at this point is looking pretty grim.

 

[averheyen]

How does one discover the moral authority for objective values and morality, without reference to God (because referencing God is pointless to atheists or in a secular matter)? Even those who believe in objective morality will differ on what it is. How then, does one decide what the outside authority of morality is? And how can someone say that lying is wrong, and then say lying to protect Jews from Nazis is right? If lying is wrong the way murder is wrong, how can it be justified? And if it is justifiable, isn’t that basically Utilitarianism?

I’m sure I’ll have more moral questions as they come up . I suppose I just need to play the Devil’s Advocate for a while, if anyone cares to help me.

This is exactly G.K. Chesterton said that out of all the philosophies in the world, the best one with which to live your life by is Christanity, best defined in the apostles creed.

It’s also why I’m Catholic.

 

[fix]

Here’s an example of what Mirdath is talking about, I think: If you say to the Nazi’s question, “No” with the mental reservation “not for you to kill,” that’s intentional deception because the direct answer directly deceives.

If my wife says, “Are you going to the grocery store?” and I answer truthfully, “Yes” with the mental reservation “and then to Dairy Queen,” that’s not a deception; it’s just a reservation. To be sure, it might be a reservation my wife would argue with should she know about it. Which is why it’s reserved. But it’s not a direct intentional deception.

I am not seeing the distinction. A lie intends to decieve, right? The reservation witholds information. The hearer may be self deceived based on limited information, but that does not mean the speaker intended a deception. The speaker was not revealing information that the hearer had no right to.

If the speaker wanted to deceive he could say he saw the wanted folks walking into another home or he saw them taken away by Germans.

Someone else brought up double effect. I do not see how that applies either. Double effect starts with a morally good or neutral intent and the means used must be good or neutral. How is it good to intend to deceive? Or, how is it good to deceive as a means to an end?

 

[john_doran]

I am not seeing the distinction. A lie intends to decieve, right? The reservation witholds information. The hearer may be self deceived based on limited information, but that does not mean the speaker intended a deception. The speaker was not revealing information that the hearer had no right to.

sure, but the information is withheld precisely in order to cause the germans to believe a falsehood: namely that there are no jews in the basement. that the germans come to believe something that is not true is the point of your withholding the information - you want the germans to leave your house without searching the basement.

look at it this way, if you awere primarily concerned with the german’s rights concerning your truth-telling when you make your mental reservation, then whether or not the germans actually came to believe that there were jews in the basement would be merely incidental to the structure of your action. but the belief of the nazis with regard to jews in your basement is not simply an unintended consequence of your action: it is, in fact, of central importance to you when you frame your reply.

fix:

If the speaker wanted to deceive he could say he saw the wanted folks walking into another home or he saw them taken away by Germans.

sure. and if all the speaker cared about was the rights of the germans, he could simply say “you have no right to an answer from me”…

the speaker may not “want” to deceive the germans in the same way that a wayward husband may not “want” to cheat on his wife with the co-worker he’s sleeping with…

fix:

Someone else brought up double effect. I do not see how that applies either. Double effect starts with a morally good or neutral intent and the means used must be good or neutral. How is it good to intend to deceive? Or, how is it good to deceive as a means to an end?

you misunderstand the application of double-effect; it was not meant to be proposed as a way of justifying an intent to deceive, but rather deception as a foreseen but unintended consequence of intending a truthful response.

for example, if you’re hiding jews under your stairs, and the nazis ask you “are there jews in your basement?”, then answering “no” may not necessarily be to lie, since - even though you know that the nazis are interested in knowing if you’re hiding jews ***anywhere ***- what you intend to do is answer their actual question truthfully, accepting the nazis’ inevitable belief in the falsehood that you’re not hiding jews at all, as a foreseen but unintended side-effect.

of course, this isn’t to say that you need to be indifferent to their accepting what is ultimately an untruth, since being relieved or hopeful that something does or does not obtain as a result of what one does, is not to ***intend ***the occurrence of the thing about which one is fearful or happy…

look - moral absolutism about lying is a hard saying with hard consequences, and it behooves those who ascribe to such an ethic to give those consequences a frank and unflinching treatment: doing the right thing often has bad effects…that’s just life.

 

[fix]

sure, but the information is withheld precisely in order to cause the germans to believe a falsehood: namely that there are no jews in the basement. that the germans come to believe something that is not true is the point of your withholding the information - you want the germans to leave your house without searching the basement.

Sure, I want them to leave. That does not mean I lied.

look at it this way, if you awere primarily concerned with the german’s rights concerning your truth-telling when you make your mental reservation, then whether or not the germans actually came to believe that there were jews in the basement would be merely incidental to the structure of your action.

My concern is not revealing what others should not know while not violating the moral law.

but the belief of the nazis with regard to jews in your basement is not simply an unintended consequence of your action: it is, in fact, of central importance to you when you frame your reply.

The intent is to withold information not entitled to others. That some are misdirected through limited information is the result of their reasoning. Why must they have all information?

sure. and if all the speaker cared about was the rights of the germans, he could simply say “you have no right to an answer from me”…

the speaker may not “want” to deceive the germans in the same way that a wayward husband may not “want” to cheat on his wife with the co-worker he’s sleeping with…

Look at the examples in the old CE:

All Catholic writers were, and are, agreed that when there is good reason, such expressions as the above may be made use of, and that they are not lies. Those who hear them may understand them in a sense which is not true, but their self-deception may be permitted by the speaker for a good reason.

I accept it is ambiguous. What I fail to see is the intent to deceive? The intent is to not give all information.

you misunderstand the application of double-effect; it was not meant to be proposed as a way of justifying an intent to deceive, but rather deception as a foreseen but unintended consequence of intending a truthful response.

OK, great then you agree it was not intended to deceive?

for example, if you’re hiding jews under your stairs, and the nazis ask you “are there jews in your basement?”, then answering “no” may not necessarily be to lie, since - even though you know that the nazis are interested in knowing if you’re hiding jews ***anywhere ***- what you intend to do is answer their actual question truthfully, accepting the nazis’ inevitable belief in the falsehood that you’re not hiding jews at all, as a foreseen but unintended side-effect.

of course, this isn’t to say that you need to be indifferent to their accepting what is ultimately an untruth, since being relieved or hopeful that something does or does not obtain as a result of what one does, is not to ***intend ***the occurrence of the thing about which one is fearful or happy…

look - moral absolutism about lying is a hard saying with hard consequences, and it behooves those who ascribe to such an ethic to give those consequences a frank and unflinching treatment: doing the right thing often has bad effects…that’s just life.

But, are you not contradicting your position here? Is the intent of mental reservation to deceive?

 

[Nepenthe]

Okay, sigh. I was about to throw up my hands at the futility of answering someone who doesn’t want to hear the answers from a certain point of view, but I’m game for one more try.

tdgesq:

You and Mirdath have told all of us simple theists to go look at Kant multiple times. It is impossible to be a “partial” Kantian in the way you suggest Nepenthe. And yes, I read all of the posts. How about you answer the question I asked. Do you really believe there is a perfect duty not to mislead the nazi?

I didn’t suggest ‘partial Kantianism;’ rather I was pretty clear that while Kant is fairly useful, his ideas simply aren’t adequate to handle all jobs. I don’t subscribe to his metaphysics either (or really to metaphysics at all). Whenever the opinions of other human beings become germane to a situation, an element of relativism does, indeed, come into play, if the outcome of the situation depends on mutual understanding and cooperation.

The best course of action is to minimize the relativism in order to avoid the evils that come from misunderstanding - and social contract theory fills this purpose very well, since then we (whether that ‘we’ is me and you, me and this forum, me and the US government - or me and the Nazi party for that matter) then have a set of absolutes we can work with and from. In the example above, the nazi has violated the social contract (or at least any I would agree to in the first place), and badly enough that there is no way to rearbitrate that contract. It is null and void, so you bet I will lie loudly, fluently and gladly.

Your belief that you can mix and match other systems of morality consistently with Kant’s is painfully naive. When you decide to make an exception to the universal truth from Kant’s standard that it is never permissible to mislead, you’ve just unwittingly destroyed his entire system.

But I’m not using Kant’s standard, or his system. I’m using a tool. You may not realize it, but philosophically, you too mix and match philosophical methods all the time, one one or many levels.

Not only is the primary basis of Kant’s morality at war with this other standard, there now has to be some explanation that objectively explains why it is in this one particular circumstance (the nazi scenario) we adopt another standard. So now you have two levels of arbitrariness to deal with.

I have already answered this, though perhaps a little obliquely. My standards of morality are absolute, so long as they are internal, since that’s the only place I can be sure they’re applied. When other people with all their differences get involved, noise and chaos start to gum up the signal - so there are methods of reducing that noise and reaching standards we can agree to, and then hopefully we can all live by our shared, agreed-upon morality. ‘Arbitrary,’ in the sense of ‘arbitration’ is a good choice of words, really. The best legal (ie socio-ethical) systems have quite a lot of ‘wiggle-room’ and permissiveness, including the US constitution, and Christianity, at least as put forth by their founders.

Continued Below…

 

[Doug50]

Taking it point for point:
For metaphysics and metaethics morality is either realism or anit-realism.

Two forms of realism: absolutism and situational ethics aka objectivism. Because a true morality exists, is real, and discoverable, real moral progress is possible.

Two forms of anti-realisms: Subjectivism (individual relativism) and cultural relativism. Because no true morality exists, there’s nothing to discover and no real moral progress is possible.

Your metaphysic must be compatible with your metaethcis.
Secular humanism is an oxymoron. Why?

There is no such thing as a true morality in nature, in Naturalism. The scientific method does not lend itself to study moral realsim. Secularism holds to a belief in Naturalism but…

humanism holds to a belief in moral realism. If you marry the two terms together secularism and humanism into secular humanism you create an oxymoron. Why?

Because there is no such thing as a human right to life in naturalism. Nature does no endow anything with a right to life. So…

Atheists who claim to be secular humanists are actaully being oxymoronic. (note: by definition it is possible to be an atheist and reject naturalism for some form of spritualism but you can’t be a naturalists without being an atheist)

Since you can never prove that objective morality is true, to believe in moral realism takes a leap of faith - a reasoned leap. Claims of Human Rights are claims of faith in an objective morality. Atheists unwittingly make this leap of faith. But because everyone takes these rights as a given most theists don’t recognize the atheist’s leap. Human Rights are non-organic rights. Civil rights are organic rights and relative to cultural norms. For Naturalism, because the jews did not have civil rights in Nazi Germany they simply did not have rights, period, full stop.

There is no reason to try and convience an atheist that moral realism is true and that moral relativism must be false based upon its abserdity. Why?

Because nobody lives a life based upon moral relativism. Moral realtivism, being compatible with naturalism, rejects human rights phylosophy as being nothing more than a mythic fable - the very things that atheists claim to reject. People may differe on what should be moral/immoral but nobody consistently lives their life as though moral relativism is true. So…

If you find yourself debating atheists simply hold their feet to the fire and make them admit that (using if/thens) if Naturalism is true then it logically follows that human rights can’t be real, and that since moral relativism would also have to be true there is no such thing as moral progress. Moral progress is made when civil rights more closely resemble human rights, when the organic thing more closely resembles the non-organic thing - aka the spiritual thing.

At some point an atheist (everyone really) with inject some kind of objective moral standard to support their moral position. That’s why they’re in the debate to begin with.

If moral relativism is true then it factually doesn’t matter what the universal moral code (if it’s possible to socially invent one) is based upon. Without an objective moral standard, a secularized code could not be better than a theocratized code. A democracy’s code can’t claim to be factually better than a dictatroical code.

Secular humanism is an oxymoron

 

[Nepenthe]

Continued from above…

Roofer, tdgesq, I realize we are talking past each other to an extent, since there are obviously words we both use yet think of in very different ways. I do, in fact, apply engineering ideas to my life a good deal of the time, especially when I don’t have the time or resources to work everything out from the research end! But I also make a point of going back and doing the theoretical work whenever I can, since that makes me a better, more effective ‘engineer’ with higher-quality parts and tools at my disposal.

There is a part of my mind that can be thought of as a ‘morality generator’ which helps to automate and verify various decisions, and the results are always submitted to the ‘overseer’ or ‘foreman’. If it kicks out a result that appears wildly aberrant (ie, something like ‘You must tells the nazis where the Jews are!’) then it’s time for a close inspection and likely some heavy adjustments and retrofitting, even possibly a total overhaul. It isn’t a simple mechanism at all - but knowing intimately how all the simple parts work makes it very powerful even in complex situations. If, after extensive testing, I still get a result I don’t like, well…then I must consider whether the preconceptions and expectations were wrong to start with, and then I start running those through the generator for verification too (it includes a nifty Unnecessary Variable Eliminator feature!), and after that, in the absence of any new information, I treat the results as absolute. Please remember - this is only intended as an illustration!

You may think it ‘silly’ of me to bother with my attempts to analogize how my internal processes work, and of course imprecision is to be expected in our mutual understanding. The format of ‘internet forum’ doesn’t exactly lend itself to a lot of detail and clarity either! I have tried to get theists to tell me how their processes work - in other words, what does it FEEL like to be a theist, at least for starters - and have gotten a lot of awfully vague and messy answers, mostly ending with ‘but I know it’s right!!!’ It isn’t the word ‘right’ I think we stumble on most of the time, but the word ‘know.’ I strongly suspect most theists use that word very differently than most nontheists, or at least differently than I do. Even so, we come to the same conclusions more often than many theists apparently expect.

I know that probably didn’t help, but eh, it was worth a go.

 

[john_doran]

Sure, I want them to leave. That does not mean I lied.

it’s not only that you want them to leave - you try to cause them to leave by causing them to believe something that is false.

fix:

My concern is not revealing what others should not know while not violating the moral law.

look, if the point of your speech-act was not to cause the nazis to leave, then why not say what you’re saying now: “you don’t have a right to that information”?

if you are actually and primarily concerned only with the appropriate distribution of information, then saying exactly that will be the best way to discharge what you believe is your duty in the circumstances.

fix:

The intent is to withold information not entitled to others. That some are misdirected through limited information is the result of their reasoning. Why must they have all information?

but that’s obviously not what you’re intending: you intend (at least) to make the nazis believe a falsehood - it’s why you chose to say “no” (plus some kind of mental reservation) rather than “you have no right to that information”.

and that’s intentional deceit.

fix:

OK, great then you agree it was not intended to deceive?

no, i don’t agree.

fix:

But, are you not contradicting your position here? Is the intent of mental reservation to deceive?

it is in your example, anyway.

and the application of double effect that i outlined is not mental reservation.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Easily. The Golden Rule itself is an absolutist moral code that does not invoke a deity.

precisely. even bible moral codes are based on the golden rule.

 

[tdgesq]

I didn’t suggest ‘partial Kantianism;’ rather I was pretty clear that while Kant is fairly useful, his ideas simply aren’t adequate to handle all jobs.

What am I to make of this? Seriously. Kant provides useful tools. Kant is fairly useful. Kant’s ideas aren’t adequate to handle all jobs. If you mean that you are borrowing from several moral systems to create one of your own, I understand that, trust me. So how does this result in an objective moral system that contains moral absolutes? That is the question.

I don’t subscribe to his metaphysics either (or really to metaphysics at all). Whenever the opinions of other human beings become germane to a situation, an element of relativism does, indeed, come into play, if the outcome of the situation depends on mutual understanding and cooperation.

I gathered that you don’t subscribe to Kant’s metaphysic. That makes it a little bit difficult to use the C.I., because you’ve ripped the basis away from the conclusion. If you want to substitute something else for it, then proceed. If you think an element of relativism is involved, explain how it fits into an objective moral system that provides absolutes.

The best course of action is to minimize the relativism in order to avoid the evils that come from misunderstanding - and social contract theory fills this purpose very well, since then we (whether that ‘we’ is me and you, me and this forum, me and the US government - or me and the Nazi party for that matter) then have a set of absolutes we can work with and from.

No, not absolutes; unless we want to stand the meaning of moral absolutes on its head. A moral principle is absolute when it applies to everybody everywhere. Different societies have different contracts that result in different principles. Even within a society the contract can be and usually is frequently changed, resulting in different, sometimes diametrically opposed, moral principles. All of this according to social contract theory of course.

In the example above, the nazi has violated the social contract (or at least any I would agree to in the first place), and badly enough that there is no way to rearbitrate that contract. It is null and void, so you bet I will lie loudly, fluently and gladly.

Social contract theory of most varieties does not require your explicit consent. If you were living in Nazi Germany at the time, then you’ve given implicit consent. There may have come a time when it was no longer living up to the contract. Then you would have to decide if the contract was broken using Locke’s standard or some other. Minority rights are meaningless, unless the majority has somehow decided to contract to protect the minority. Time to go borrow from another moral system.

But I’m not using Kant’s standard, or his system. I’m using a tool. You may not realize it, but philosophically, you too mix and match philosophical methods all the time, one one or many levels.

If you aren’t using Kant’s system or his standard, then precisely what tool of his are you using? Better have a basis for it, and it better be objective and provide for absolutes, or else you’ve got problems. You can mix and match all you want so long as in the end you’ve got something coherent that accounts for objective and absolute morality.

I have already answered this, though perhaps a little obliquely. My standards of morality are absolute, so long as they are internal, since that’s the only place I can be sure they’re applied.

You’ve just described the antithesis of a moral absolute. It doesn’t apply to anybody but yourself. I’ve got mine and you’ve got yours.

 

[tdgesq]

‘Arbitrary,’ in the sense of ‘arbitration’ is a good choice of words, really. The best legal (ie socio-ethical) systems have quite a lot of ‘wiggle-room’ and permissiveness, including the US constitution, and Christianity, at least as put forth by their founders.

These terms have profoundly different meanings, despite any shared etymology. One means to have no underlying principle, except for personal preference. Looks like an arbitrary system of morality is what you are advocating. A legal arbitration proceeding is the function of an agreed upon format to resolve a legal dispute, usually done by contract in advance of any dispute. Most consumer arbitrations are the result of a contract of adhesion, where one party (not the consumer) to the contract had vastly superior bargaining power at the time the contract was formed. An arbitrator is appointed to resolve the dispute according to the rules. One party wins and one party loses based on his decision. The commonalities between the two terms are few.

tdgesq, I realize we are talking past each other to an extent, since there are obviously words we both use yet think of in very different ways. I do, in fact, apply engineering ideas to my life a good deal of the time, especially when I don’t have the time or resources to work everything out from the research end! But I also make a point of going back and doing the theoretical work whenever I can, since that makes me a better, more effective ‘engineer’ with higher-quality parts and tools at my disposal.

All of my brothers are engineers. All of my spouse’s brothers are engineers. I consult with engineers on a regular basis. I am not confused by your use of language. Engineers just like everybody else have to account for their ethical philosophy using reason and laws of thought. How they go about doing it may be of some interest in understanding the end product, but their moral systems get judged by the same standards applied to everybody else. This thread at least in part is about how an atheist accounts for moral objectivity and absolutes. That is the only question I’m interested in.

 

[FuzzyBunny116]

Interesting post. I have, I hope, an interesting answer.

There is the truth, and there are facts. The fact is, the person you are looking to kill is hiding under my couch. The truth is, killing is wrong. By distorting the facts, I am helping you to the truth. I am saving you from your own moral confusion. By committing the act of murder you are losing yourself in a lie. The lie of your entitlement to take a life. The truth leads you to love and light and life.

Its not a bad idea, but I could see that justifying a number of sins, slowly drifting into utilitarianism.

I think I more or less have this lying stuff. I’m planning on going to a Catholic college (University of Dallas -pray for me, its gonna be expensive) next year, so any kinks I have I hope to get worked out .

 

[richardwy]

How does one discover the moral authority for objective values and morality, without reference to God (because referencing God is pointless to atheists or in a secular matter)?

One cannot.

 

[Mirdath]

One cannot.

You didn’t even read the thread, did you?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by **FuzzyBunny116 **
How does one discover the moral authority for objective values and morality, without reference to God (because referencing God is pointless to atheists or in a secular matter)?

One cannot.

You didn’t even read the thread, did you?

It does not matter, the answer is still correct. If he reads the thread he will see **ideas** as "let’s use Kant as an answer" or "let’s use the Golden Rule as a substitute" however none of that holds up under scrutiny, so his comment is correct. All atheists have the same problem which they cannot overcome, without God they have appointed themselves in charge of all things. And yet they must deny this very thing to their neighbor in order to obtain his trust