Spek,Absolute Truth is not “claimed”, not relative, not changing, not opinioned or it isn’t He who is Absolute and Truth. No one has to be “convinced” He is Truth – either He is revealed to them, not revealed to them or revealed and rejected. Anything outside Truth is Lies from The Liar, no matter how it might appeal to worldly “sensibilities”.
Not all transgressions are finite. Some transgressions change the world completely - infinitely - at least from one point of view.If you believe for one moment, that a human deserves a sort of infinite punishment for a finite transgresion…
Well…the athiest will reject it completely.They know, that this is not love.
Not all transgressions are finite. Some transgressions change the world completely - infinitely - at least from one point of view.Well…the athiest will reject it completely.They know, that this is not love.
Spek,
You can’t shout “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire” as often and as loud as you want, but such talk is not going to convince anyone that what you say is true. Claiming your beliefs are Truth from God and other’s beliefs are lies from the Liar doesn’t add any weight to anything you say. As far as I can tell, it’s just your opinion offered with no justifcation
Best,
Leela
I am mystified by your claim that absolute (moral values) don’t exist and that what you think about them is … true. How can what you believe be true if there is no ultimate truth? It seems a bit like saying “Logic does not exist, and I can logically prove it.”I’m not saying that nothing is gained in any way by claiming that absolutes exist. I’m just saying that claiming that absolutes exist is not useful in trying convince others of what you think is true.
I’ve never claimed that absolute moral values don’t exist. I just see the difference in practice between saying “this is the absolute truth…” and “here’s what I think and here’s why…” other than that the second statement can lead to conversation about your justification for your beliefs, and the first statement is just a conversation stopper. You and someone who disagrees with you have no way to try to reach agreement.I am mystified by your claim that absolute (moral values) don’t exist and that what you think about them is … true.
It’s a good thing I never made any of those claims. I also never said that ultimate truth does exist because I don’t think that I am in any position to say what is ultimately true and how we can know. What I’ve been talking about is the benefit of refusing to enter the discussion of whether or not absolutes exist.How can what you believe be true if there is no ultimate truth? It seems a bit like saying “Logic does not exist, and I can logically prove it.”
I didn’t realize that I hadn’t responded to something you asked. I thought I was the last one to write?Aside from that argument, you made no attempt to answer my question as to why I should behave morally. Dismissing the question is not the same as responding to it. What you are unwilling to accept is that your philosophy has no answer, in spite of which you continue to act as if morality made sense even though you have no rational basis for believing it.
If you don’t accept that absolute moral values exist then you have no basis for a conversation about morality. In the absence of values that exist apart from individual opinion all you have are preferences. In the absence of absolute values you not only can’t argue that Beethoven’s Ninth is better than Brahm’s First you can’t even argue that it’s better than Kumbaya. I understand that as a practical matter there may be times when it is advantageous to finesse this point, but I think it is fact that no serious debate can proceed unless the point about the existence of absolute moral truth is accepted.I’ve never claimed that absolute moral values don’t exist. I just see the difference in practice between saying “this is the absolute truth…” and “here’s what I think and here’s why…” other than that the second statement can lead to conversation about your justification for your beliefs, and the first statement is just a conversation stopper. You and someone who disagrees with you have no way to try to reach agreement.
This sounds very much like “I should do whatever is good for me” and although I suspect this is not what you meant I don’t know how it could mean otherwise.Moral behavior is what is good to do. You should behave morally because it is good to do so.
If you don’t accept that absolute moral values exist then you have no basis for a conversation about morality. In the absence of values that exist apart from individual opinion all you have are preferences.
\quote]
When you talk about a “basis” for morality I assume you are talking about God. I don’t believe in any gods. I think morality is concerned with human well-being.The only basis we need is that somethings are better and worse for people. I just don’t take a stand on whether there are things that are better for all people everywhere at all times or not.
Ender;4809009:
As a pragmatist, I always take the meaning of such questions to be viewed in practice. There are human purposes for which Beethoven is better than Kumbaya and human purposes for which kumbaya is better than Beethoven.In the absence of absolute values you not only can’t argue that Beethoven’s Ninth is better than Brahm’s First you can’t even argue that it’s better than Kumbaya. I understand that as a practical matter there may be times when it is advantageous to finesse this point, but I think it is fact that no serious debate can proceed unless the point about the existence of absolute moral truth is accepted.
Yes, do whatever is good for you so long as it really is good for you. Don’t give me any of that “eat, drink, and be merry” ****. We both know that will just leave you fat, drunk, and sad.I
This sounds very much like “I should do whatever is good for me” and although I suspect this is not what you meant I don’t know how it could mean otherwise.
Best,
Leela
And that’s a huge part of what Godly morality is about as well - things aren’t usually wrong just because they are, things are wrong because God who created us knows better than we do what is most conducive to human well-being.When you talk about a “basis” for morality I assume you are talking about God. I don’t believe in any gods. I think morality is concerned with human well-being.The only basis we need is that somethings are better and worse for people. I just don’t take a stand on whether there are things that are better for all people everywhere at all times or not.
Even within such a system, though, there are absolutes, although more specified absolutes - eg ‘for purposes of concerts by the Berlin Philharmonic, Beethoven would always be better than Kumbaya’, no?As a pragmatist, I always take the meaning of such questions to be viewed in practice. There are human purposes for which Beethoven is better than Kumbaya and human purposes for which kumbaya is better than Beethoven.
I’m trying to push on your belief to see whether it will stand up to scrutiny. We haven’t been discussing what I believe to let’s leave God out of it. The point I am making is that your position provides no reason to believe that morality exists or that you mean anything more by it than “what is moral is what is beneficial” - which is not at all what most of us mean by that term.When you talk about a “basis” for morality I assume you are talking about God.
As a practical matter I think this leaves the door open to a lot of “immoral” behavior (let alone rationalizations). For example: if I bet on a horse, is it a moral act if he wins and an immoral one if he loses? What I’m getting at is that is it seems with your definition we cannot know what is moral until we comprehend all the consequences; that is, we can only judge acts in hindsight.I think morality is concerned with human well-being.The only basis we need is that somethings are better and worse for people.
I think I understand this from your perspective. If morality is based on outcomes then clearly, as outcomes change, morality changes as well.I just don’t take a stand on whether there are things that are better for all people everywhere at all times or not.
Your system allows me to do what is good for me whether or not it is bad for others. A famous example of this is Richard Rich, whose perjured testimony led both to the execution of St. Thomas More and to Rich securing the position of Lord Chancellor of England. There is no doubt that his lies were really good for him so on what basis would you consider his action immoral?Yes, do whatever is good for you so long as it really is good for you.
Is it still an absolute if it only applies relative to a particular sort of situation?Even within such a system, though, there are absolutes, although more specified absolutes - eg ‘for purposes of concerts by the Berlin Philharmonic, Beethoven would always be better than Kumbaya’, no?
I mean morality in the usual dictionary defintion way. I can no reason to be skeptical about whether morality exists. Isn’t it enough to recognize that some things are better than others? I don’t think someone needs to justify that morality exists unless someone else wants to justify why they think it is something that we should be skeptical about.I’m trying to push on your belief to see whether it will stand up to scrutiny. We haven’t been discussing what I believe to let’s leave God out of it. The point I am making is that your position provides no reason to believe that morality exists or that you mean anything more by it than “what is moral is what is beneficial” - which is not at all what most of us mean by that term.
The human condition is such that we are forced to act with incomplete knowledge.As a practical matter I think this leaves the door open to a lot of “immoral” behavior (let alone rationalizations). For example: if I bet on a horse, is it a moral act if he wins and an immoral one if he loses? What I’m getting at is that is it seems with your definition we cannot know what is moral until we comprehend all the consequences; that is, we can only judge acts in hindsight.
I think I understand this from your perspective. If morality is based on outcomes then clearly, as outcomes change, morality changes as well.
I’ve never claimed to have a system that will end all conversation about what is right and wrong. I’m just suggesting that we can have better conversations when we think of morality in terms of human well-being instead of as being concerned with pleasing gods.Your system allows me to do what is good for me whether or not it is bad for others. A famous example of this is Richard Rich, whose perjured testimony led both to the execution of St. Thomas More and to Rich securing the position of Lord Chancellor of England. There is no doubt that his lies were really good for him so on what basis would you consider his action immoral?
To recognize that some things lead to better results is not at all the same as having a moral standard. That, in fact, is an “ends justifies the means” ethical system. Is this what you mean; is this your test for the morality of an action?I can see no reason to be skeptical about whether morality exists. Isn’t it enough to recognize that some things are better than others?
This refers to the consequences of an act but it is not true if your moral system is not based on outcomes.The human condition is such that we are forced to act with incomplete knowledge.
It’s not clear that this is so as you keep evading the questions I ask. If the moral action is the one that leads to well-being, is not the most moral action I can take the one that improves my well-being? On what basis should I ever put a stranger’s well-being above my own?I’m just suggesting that we can have better conversations when we think of morality in terms of human well-being instead of as being concerned with pleasing gods.
To recognize that some things lead to better results is not at all the same as having a moral standard.
[/quotes]
I never claimed to be in possession of an absolute moral standard, and I doubt that anyone’s claims of having one could provide knowckdown arguments for their moral positions.
Ender;4823708:
I don’t know what you mean. You asked how I can prove that morality exists, and I explaied why I don’t think that that is something that anyone needs to prove to you until you convince them that the existence of morality is something that is reasonable to be skeptical about. I don’t know where “the ends justifies the means” comes from in my “ethical system.” As I said, I don’t have an ethical system. I don’t think systems work.That, in fact, is an “ends justifies the means” ethical system. Is this what you mean; is this your test for the morality of an action?
I think I see. You are equating the existence of morality with the existence of a single correct moral system. No, I don’t think such a system exists that will end all conversations about moral decisions. Do you?You claim there is no reason to be skeptical about the existence of morality yet you surely recognize that there are any number of different ethical beliefs. In the end there are only two choices: all of them are wrong because morality no more exists for us than for animals or one system is right and all the others are wrong. (I recognize that lots of people and systems may be partially right but two beliefs cannot both be right where they contradict one another.)
Maybe you can explain a moral system for which our incomplete knowledge is not a problem.This refers to the consequences of an act but it is not true if your moral system is not based on outcomes.
This conversation is not about any particular moral dilemma, but about whether there is an absolute moral standard that can solve all such dilemmas. I’m saying that we will have better conversations about what is right or wrong in particular situations if neither side claims to have an absolute standard. When that happens, all we can talk about is whether the person is justified in thinking that she has an absolute standard, which is the conversation we are having here. If you can suggest a moral system that works, I’d like to hear about it.It’s not clear that this is so as you keep evading the questions I ask.
When I say that I think of questions of morality as questions concerned with human well-being, I don’t mean to suggest that everyone should look after their own well-being and not others. I do think that it is a part of our own well-being to care about the well-being of others, but clearly some people are pathological in this regard like those cheering on 9/11.If the moral action is the one that leads to well-being, is not the most moral action I can take the one that improves my well-being? On what basis should I ever put a stranger’s well-being above my own?
Best,
Leela
You appear to be saying that if no moral system can be proven true there is no point in acting as if it was true. You don’t seem to realize that this criteria effectively means that there is no true moral system so one may as well do as he chooses.I never claimed to be in possession of an absolute moral standard, and I doubt that anyone’s claims of having one could provide knowckdown arguments for their moral positions.
I am pointing out a contradiction inherent in your position: you accept that morality exists but you reject the possibility of knowing what it is since you require proof that is impossible to provide - but if it cannot be known it might as well not exist.You asked how I can prove that morality exists, and I explaied why I don’t think that that is something that anyone needs to prove to you until you convince them that the existence of morality is something that is reasonable to be skeptical about.
This is the heart of our difference. You (appear to) believe that you can work out the moral option in a given situation by approaching it with sincerity and good intentions completely dissociated from any set of standards with which to judge the decision.As I said, I don’t have an ethical system. I don’t think systems work.
Of course not - but I do believe that one exists; the fact that not everyone accepts it is irrelevant to whether or not it is real.No, I don’t think such a system exists that will end all conversations about moral decisions. Do you?
Incomplete knowledge may lead one to an incorrect answer but being wrong is not necessarily being immoral.Maybe you can explain a moral system for which our incomplete knowledge is not a problem.
If your moral system doesn’t help you answer hypothetical questions it is of no use in helping you answer real world problems.This conversation is not about any particular moral dilemma, but about whether there is an absolute moral standard that can solve all such dilemmas.
I hesitate to answer this because I don’t want to change the conversation which is now on what you believe, but I’ll give you a hint … I’m Catholic.If you can suggest a moral system that works, I’d like to hear about it.
This is a good argment, and I’ve heard semblances of it before. I do think however that it kind of misses the point and is a bit circular.Not all transgressions are finite. Some transgressions change the world completely - infinitely - at least from one point of view.
The most obvious example would be that someone who is murdered is permanently (infinitely) deprived of his future. This is not something that can ever be restored to him. So, murder is an infinite transgression.
Indeed, any transgression that permanently changes someone’s experience of the world for the worse is an infinite transgression.
This is the issue that you keep coming back to.You appear to be saying that if no moral system can be proven true there is no point in acting as if it was true. You don’t seem to realize that this criteria effectively means that there is no true moral system so one may as well do as he chooses.
I’m not exactly sure what you’re referring to here so let me be plain about what I think the issue is: morality either exists or it doesn’t. We don’t, for example, believe that it exists for the other animals. If it exists for humans, what is its source? How do we know what moral behavior really is?This is the issue that you keep coming back to.