Question regarding absolutism/absolute truth

[jmcrae]

Do you think there are moral situations with no correct answer, or does the absolute moral code always have a right solution? Are these all simple questions for those who claim to possess moral absolutes?

There are stories from WWII of parents having to make the horrible choice of having to strangle their own crying babies so the group they were in wouldn’t be found by the Nazis.

Is killing an innocent always wrong?

Yes; there were other ways to deal with crying babies (give them a small dose of cough syrup to make them go to sleep, for example - it would have been less harmful than killing them.)

Many Germans who hid Jews from the Nazis frequently lied about not having Jews hidden in their houses to protect them.

Is lying always wrong?

Lying is wrong, but so is sharing information that is none of the other person’s business. You can avoid both simply by changing the subject or keeping your mouth shut.

A friend confides to you that he has committed a particular crime and you promise never to tell. Discovering that an innocent person has been accused of the crime, you plead with your friend to give himself up. He refuses and reminds you of your promise. What should you do? In general, under what conditions should promises be broken?

You begin by following the rule that you only give your word or make promises to people who are worthy of your word and your promise. Criminals do not come under that category.

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain’s decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

Guilty of murder in the second degree.

You are an inmate in a concentration camp. A sadistic guard is about to hang your son who tried to escape and wants you to pull the chair from underneath him. He says that if you don’t he will not only kill your son but some other innocent inmate as well. You don’t have any doubt that he means what he says. What should you do?

Let him be responsible for his own sins before God. I will not help him to sin. My son will go to Heaven in either case; should I put myself on the path to Hell on the off chance that murdering my own son will save someone else? But since it is unlikely that the sadistic guard will honour any promise to not kill someone else, there would be little to gain by doing as he asks. Remember the Maccabean mother.

In the novel Sophie’s Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 – the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is “honored” for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?

Yes; she indirectly murdered her daughter. (But she could have dealt with it in some other way than by committing suicide.) If someone is going to be a murderer, they have made that free choice. I am not required to assist them or to become complicit in their actions, even if my non-compliance makes them more violent (or rather, allows them to pretend that they would have been less violent). They are responsible to God for their actions, and I am responsible to God for my actions. I am not responsible for trying to control someone else’s actions, beyond giving them appropriate instruction. I control me. I don’t control anyone else.

 

[Ender]

If you see no difference, then we have no disagreement. This whole thread is about whether absolutes exist, and I’ve argued that the question has no pragmatic value. At this point it sounds like you are agreeing.

We haven’t been making very much progress but, at the risk of going around the block again, I have to disagree.

If absolutes do not exist then neither does morality. I cannot think of many more pragmatic issues.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Do you think there are moral situations with no correct answer, or does the absolute moral code always have a right solution?

I accept the possibility that there are situations where all choices are morally equivalent, but in general I believe that the choices will be either correct or incorrect. So, I might add, do you or you wouldn’t waste time trying to determine what is right. Saying that a correct answer exists is not the same as saying that one can determine what it is.

Are these all simple questions for those who claim to possess moral absolutes?

I think this is where you get hung up: assuming that because someone believes in moral absolutes means he believes he is omniscient and suffers no difficulty in answering these questions. This is really no different than assuming that someone with a Ph.D. in science will have no difficulty in answering any question in his field. The scientist is the ultimate believer in absolutes yet there are any number of problems he cannot solve. The fact that you have rules to apply does not mean that this alone is sufficient to guarantee you can solve a problem - physical or moral.

Without laws, however, you can find the right answer - physical or moral - only by accident.

Ender

 

[Leela]

I accept the possibility that there are situations where all choices are morally equivalent, but in general I believe that the choices will be either correct or incorrect. So, I might add, do you or you wouldn’t waste time trying to determine what is right. Saying that a correct answer exists is not the same as saying that one can determine what it is.

But this is exactly where we keep getting hung up: I can’t see how it profits you to say that there is a right answer if you don’t know what that answer is. I can’t imagine how someone who says “there is a correct answer, but I’m not sure what that answer is. But, I think it is this, and here’s why…” in any better position than someone who says “I don’t know if there is a single correct answer, but I think this is the best anyone’s come up with, and here’s why…”

Since neither of these people is in any better position, I can’t see why anyone needs to take sides on whether absolutes exist.

Best,
leela

 

[jmcrae]

But this is exactly where we keep getting hung up: I can’t see how it profits you to say that there is a right answer if you don’t know what that answer is.

It gives you the hope that you can ultimately find the correct answer.

I can’t imagine how someone who says “there is a correct answer, but I’m not sure what that answer is. But, I think it is this, and here’s why…” in any better position than someone who says “I don’t know if there is a single correct answer, but I think this is the best anyone’s come up with, and here’s why…”

Okay, apply this logic to a six year old who is studying Arithmetic for the first time in his life. He has the ability to count to 100, and the teacher wants to teach him how to add and subtract.

Should she go about it by telling the child to pick a number out of the air and say that he thinks it is the correct answer, and, because he thinks it is the correct answer, therefore it is?

Or, should she teach him how to analyze his answers and determine whether they are correct or not, by using the counting method that he has already learned?

Since neither of these people is in any better position, I can’t see why anyone needs to take sides on whether absolutes exist.

If there are no absolutes, then our six year old can say that 2+2=10, and no one can tell him he is wrong, and then when he goes to the store to buy 2 penny licorice and two penny mojos, the clerk can go ahead and charge him 10 cents.

But if 2+2=4 all the time (that is, it is an absolute) then our six year old can get 6 cents change from his dime when he goes to buy penny candy at the store, every time he buys 4 cents worth of candy. It’s not different prices depending on what he wants 2+2 to be.

 

[chevalier]

A friend writes:

My question (I think this is where he goes wrong/he’s weak) does belief in absolutism/absolute truth depend on whether you’re all knowing?

Something is either true or false objectively, regardless of our belief in it. Our belief has no bearing on the matter. Belief doesn’t shape matter.

One needs to see the difference between the possibility of being mistaken and the absurd idea that the trueness or falsehood of something may change if the “thing” itself doesn’t change.

Relativism is less defensible than absolutism, but when calling Christian philosophy absolute, one needs to remember God is all-knowing but we are not. We are capable of arriving at the conclusion that the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it.

By the way, when you know everything, you don’t need to believe anything.

 

[Ender]

I can’t see how it profits you to say that there is a right answer …

I agree with what jmcrae wrote but I’ll put my own spin on the answer. If we don’t believe there is a right answer we won’t look for one. It’s the reason we don’t look for unicorns: we don’t believe one exists. There are people, however, who look for Bigfoot but only because they believe he might exist. If there is no right answer then morality itself simply does not exist and we are as foolish to believe we can act morally as we would be to believe we could find a unicorn.

… if you don’t know what that answer is.

The better I understand moral laws the more likely I am to be able to determine the right answer to moral question. Even if in a particular case I cannot determine the correct answer it is only the belief that one exists that causes me to look for one in the first place. I’ll repeat something I said earlier: it is immoral not to try to find the right answer but it is not immoral to fail.

I can’t imagine how someone who says “there is a correct answer, but I’m not sure what that answer is. But, I think it is this, and here’s why…” in any better position than someone who says “I don’t know if there is a single correct answer, but I think this is the best anyone’s come up with, and here’s why…”

Since neither of these people is in any better position, I can’t see why anyone needs to take sides on whether absolutes exist.

For you to say “this is the best anyone’s come up with” means that you must have way of determining what “the best” refers to. How do you measure “the best” without having some sort of moral yardstick? Then ask yourself if you can really measure anything if your yardstick is of arbitrary length.

Two Catholics can reasonably argue about the morality of certain actions because they have a shared set of rules; that they don’t always come to the same conclusion (e.g. voting for Obama) means that one side isn’t applying the rules properly, not that the rules are useless. A Catholic and an atheist (or even two atheists) cannot profitably argue this point as they have no shared definition of “good”.

Ender

 

[Leela]

I agree with what jmcrae wrote but I’ll put my own spin on the answer. If we don’t believe there is a right answer we won’t look for one. It’s the reason we don’t look for unicorns: we don’t believe one exists. There are people, however, who look for Bigfoot but only because they believe he might exist. If there is no right answer then morality itself simply does not exist and we are as foolish to believe we can act morally as we would be to believe we could find a unicorn.

There is no reason that we would stop looking for “better” regardless of whether or not we believe there is a best.

For you to say “this is the best anyone’s come up with” means that you must have way of determining what “the best” refers to. How do you measure “the best” without having some sort of moral yardstick? Then ask yourself if you can really measure anything if your yardstick is of arbitrary length.

Yardsticks actually are of arbitrary length.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

There is no reason that we would stop looking for “better” regardless of whether or not we believe there is a best.

Yardsticks actually are of arbitrary length.

Best,
Leela

I think not. Every one I’ve ever seen - plus, I just asked a couple of nearby people - was almost absolutely 36".

jd

 

[Leela]

I think not. Every one I’ve ever seen - plus, I just asked a couple of nearby people - was almost absolutely 36".

The point is that the choice of 36" is completely arbitrary.

 

[JDaniel]

The point is that the choice of 36" is completely arbitrary.

No. It’s the definition of a “yard” and a “yardstick”! A “rock” is not arbitrarily a “rock”. It is one per definitionem.

No wonder you “think” as you do!

jd

 

[Detales]

You guys are not giving each other a lot of room here in terms of terms, and are therefore precipitationg unnecesary argumentation.

Certainly, if we are dealing with "measure* and are dealing in the imperial system, we have definitions of inch, foot, yard, etc that are necessarily inflexible* within that system*. If we have a foreign car, we might be dealing with metric units. One can be to some extent be translated to the other. Or we can deal in cubits, or we can pick up a string or a stick and make equivalencies. That is arbitrary. Once we have chosen a system, we are then bound by its rules and those are an ad hoc absolute.

You guys look to me like you are whacking each other because you are using different marks on different sticks, or one of you wants to use a string. So what? Decide on some basic terms and have a decent exchange. It feels like some on here are two year olds yelling “mine!” 'mine!"

Even if you look at a rock, it is an arbitrary yet practical definition. Everyone will agree it is a rock, even if they call it something else in their language. But even a lingiusitic definition will have the same object different in some subtle sense. “Idem non idem,” as the Romans said. Yet we can say it has certain properties, including size, composition, etc. But what if it is a lodestone? It is “bigger” than it appears. If it has an inclusion, it might actually be two rocks of one kind split by a second looking like it was one thing.

You are parsing things so finely to prove your points that you all look like absolute sillys. Oh yes, and originally, someone arbitrarily decided on what an inch or centimeter might be.

*Indeed, Western thought is based on "measure" as distinct from the Eastern idea of "wholeness." Indeed one of their systems is based on an entirely different concept of God and Creation that within itself is completely valid and useful. But its "proof" is based on an entirley different mode of knowing than what is used on these pages. One of its names, by the way, is "*The Way of the Absolute*." How about finding some of those guys and getting them in on this?

 

[JDaniel]

You guys are not giving each other a lot of room here in terms of terms, and are therefore precipitationg unnecesary argumentation.

Certainly, if we are dealing with "measure* and are dealing in the imperial system, we have definitions of inch, foot, yard, etc that are necessarily inflexible* within that system*. If we have a foreign car, we might be dealing with metric units. One can be to some extent be translated to the other. Or we can deal in cubits, or we can pick up a string or a stick and make equivalencies. That is arbitrary. Once we have chosen a system, we are then bound by its rules and those are an ad hoc absolute.

You guys look to me like you are whacking each other because you are using different marks on different sticks, or one of you wants to use a string. So what? Decide on some basic terms and have a decent exchange. It feels like some on here are two year olds yelling “mine!” 'mine!"

Even if you look at a rock, it is an arbitrary yet practical definition. Everyone will agree it is a rock, even if they call it something else in their language. But even a lingiusitic definition will have the same object different in some subtle sense. “Idem non idem,” as the Romans said. Yet we can say it has certain properties, including size, composition, etc. But what if it is a lodestone? It is “bigger” than it appears. If it has an inclusion, it might actually be two rocks of one kind split by a second looking like it was one thing.

You are parsing things so finely to prove your points that you all look like absolute sillys.

*Indeed, Western thought is based on "measure" as distinct from the Eastern idea of "wholeness." Indeed one of their systems is based on an entirely different concept of God and Creation that within itself is completely valid and useful. But its "proof" is based on an entirley different mode of knowing than what is used on these pages. One of its names, by the way, is "*The Way of the Absolute*." How about finding some of those guys and getting them in on this?

You just don’t understand what love causes!

jd

 

[Detales]

“You just don’t understand what love causes!” ???

What the heck does that mean?

 

[Ender]

"Leela:

There is no reason that we would stop looking for “better” regardless of whether or not we believe there is a best.

It is not just that (without moral absolutes) we don’t know what the best is, we don’t even know what constitutes better because we have no way of comparing two choices. It would be no more accurate to claim that murder was worse than jaywalking than it would be to say that blue suits are worse than brown ones.

We cannot make moral choices where morality itself is arbitrary.

Once we have chosen a system, we are then bound by its rules and those are an ad hoc absolute.
…
Decide on some basic terms and have a decent exchange.

If we get to invent the rules, the up side is that we can at least draw logically correct conclusions. The down side is that we have no particular reason to believe they are actually right, as opposed to being merely logically consistent. The points I’ve been trying to make to Leela are these: first - as you said - without an agreed to set of rules there can be no rational debate and second, unless those rules are correct (moral absolutes exist) the debate is entirely academic.

Ender

 

[Detales]

That, Ender, is exactly the point. Any one of us is a temporary speck on a planet that is a speck in a solar system that is a speck in a galaxy that is a speck in a universe that is a spck in infinity. Yet you dare to presume on the grounds of a religion that is a speck in time, despite our protestations as to its truth, that you have the absolute right answer based on your interpretation of a book and a tradition. Sorry Ender, that is the end for me with that argument. It is too common with too many other logics to haave a universal bearing. Even as a Catholic I can’t swallow that. That is why we call it a fatih. We believe. WE cannot say we “know” even on the basis pf Bible and tradition. Again, go ask the Absolutists, and see what they have to say. Again, have your agreed premises and have your academic debate. It will only be that utill God arrives and says “Ender is my true voice and autho0rized representative.” In the mean time, go study some epistemology and General Semantics, etc. I don’t agree with Leela completely either, but I do think that we can have an acedemic debate on these things.

 

[Ender]

Yet you dare to presume on the grounds of a religion that is a speck in time, despite our protestations as to its truth, that you have the absolute right answer based on your interpretation of a book and a tradition.

Read me more carefully; I have never made anything approaching such a claim. My entire argument so far has been that morality can only exist if there are absolute moral truths. Until that point is resolved it makes no sense to discuss what that may imply.

I don’t agree with Leela completely either, but I do think that we can have an acedemic debate on these things.

I’d be interested in how you would hold such a debate. There would have to be a set of premises to start from - how do you propose to choose them? I think one obvious fact would immediately emerge: moral guidelines are completely arbitrary, which would lead (me) to the obvious question: why bother?

Ender

 

[Leela]

I think one obvious fact would immediately emerge: moral guidelines are completely arbitrary, which would lead (me) to the obvious question: why bother?

What prevents morality from being arbitrary is reality.

If morality is a word we use to describe our concerns for human flourishing within a social setting, then if reality is real, then some moral positions really are better than others. The question of absolutes is a question of (not just somethings are better than others but) whether some particular moral code really is best of all. Where we disagree is that I don’t think the question about absolutes needs to be answered (especially since it probably never will be answered) before working on the issue of how we can improve our lives in real ways.

For example, clearly we can agree that a society where people do not murder one another is better than one where they do, but we don’t need to be able to say that a prohibition of murder is part of some absolute moral code that could never be improved upon to say that.

Best,
Leela

 

[jmcrae]

What prevents morality from being arbitrary is reality.

If morality is a word we use to describe our concerns for human flourishing within a social setting, then if reality is real, then some moral positions really are better than others. The question of absolutes is a question of (not just somethings are better than others but) whether some particular moral code really is best of all. Where we disagree is that I don’t think the question about absolutes needs to be answered (especially since it probably never will be answered) before working on the issue of how we can improve our lives in real ways.

For example, clearly we can agree that a society where people do not murder one another is better than one where they do, but we don’t need to be able to say that a prohibition of murder is part of some absolute moral code that could never be improved upon to say that.

Best,
Leela

But the commandment not to murder would be an absolute prohibition, in and of itself, don’t you think?

 

[Leela]

But the commandment not to murder would be an absolute prohibition, in and of itself, don’t you think?

It would be if murder had a specific definition. Murder basically means “wrong killing.” Giving static definitions of what sorts of killing are to be considered wrong now, in all of history, and forever would be dealing in moral absolutes.

Best,
Leela