NationStates Jolt Archive

Simple question - is there such a thing as a moral absolute or are all morals situational? Is rape always rape, or does it depend on the circumstances? Is murder always murder, or does it depend on the circumstances? Is racism always racism, or does it depend on the circumstances? etc.

For purposes of this thread, Ethics and Morality are synonymous and right/wrong are synonymous with moral/ethical and Immoral/unethical repsectively

Absolutely not. There's a way to justify any kind of behavior.

Simple question - is there such a thing as a moral absolute or are all morals situational? Is rape always rape, or does it depend on the circumstances? Is murder always murder, or does it depend on the circumstances? Is racism always racism, or does it depend on the circumstances? etc.

For purposes of this thread, Ethics and Morality are synonymous and right/wrong are synonymous with moral/ethical and Immoral/unethical repsectively

I take the view that there are certain absolute moral principles that should be adhered to. Those moral principles might apply differently in different situations, though, and determining the morality of an act can be complicated given that there are often many morally relevant factors in any social situation.

Ream,
Justify child molsetation.

Justify child molsetation.

good question.

Justify child molsetation.

Thought thief. That's exactly what I thought when I read the option that "some things are always wrong". That's why I chose it. ;)

Justify child molsetation.
Actually the phrase 'child molestation' already presupposes that the act/s referred to are not morally justifible.

Absolutely not. There's a way to justify any kind of behavior.

"...you might want to consider this example from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov:

One day a serf boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favorite hound. 'Why is my favorite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take hm.' He was taken - taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependent, the dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy cold, foggy autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror not daring to cry...'make him run' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs...the hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!"
-- Like A Splinter In Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind The Matrix Trilogy by Matt Lawrence

Is the general morally justified?

its not rape if they wanted it.
its not murder if they asked you to kill them
its not racism if... well you got me on this one.

It's all relative, if you were brought up to think child molestation is good, then in your eyes it would be, and anyone thinking different would be stupid to think so.

Physically restraining a child who is throwing a tantrum, slapping a child's hand when they try to touch an oven element, circumcision, a doctor performing intimate surgery on a child... take these things out of context and they become abuse. Some would even argue that a few of these things are abuse in these contexts, while others would disagree.

It's all relative, if you were brought up to think child molestation is good, then in your eyes it would be, and anyone thinking different would be stupid to think so.

So, everything is OK as long as you we're brought up to think it's OK?

It's all relative, if you were brought up to think child molestation is good, then in your eyes it would be, and anyone thinking different would be stupid to think so.

Lying, or being lied to, about the nature of an objective fact does not remove the objectivity of said fact. Convincing someone that "2+2=5" does not make it so.

Lying, or being lied to, about the nature of an objective fact does not remove the objectivity of said fact. Convincing someone that "2+2=5" does not make it so.

And I would add that convincing someone it is OK to have sexual intercourse with a 3 year old child doesn't make it so either. Some things are always wrong.

Lying, or being lied to, about the nature of an objective fact does not remove the objectivity of said fact. Convincing someone that "2+2=5" does not make it so.

I'd argue that morals are subjective, not objective. Murder is a natural, integral part of nature, but somehow now that we have evolved sentience murder is immoral. Also, different people have different standards for when it is right to kill, such as self-defence or when they have committed a certain crime. Which definition is objectively correct, and what's the source of that objectivity?

its not rape if they wanted it.
its not murder if they asked you to kill them
its not racism if... well you got me on this one.
You miss the point. The fact that you use the words "rape" and "murder" implies a belief that these things are wrong, absolutely. The only point of difference is the definition of those words.

Rape is defined as forcing sex on someone without their consent.
Murder is taking someone's life for personal gain without their consent.

Both wrong, no matter how you slice it.

"...you might want to consider this example from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov:

One day a serf boy, a little child of eight, threw a stone in play and hurt the paw of the general's favorite hound. 'Why is my favorite dog lame?' He is told that the boy threw a stone that hurt the dog's paw. 'So you did it.' The general looked the child up and down. 'Take hm.' He was taken - taken from his mother and kept shut up all night. Early that morning the general comes out on horseback, with the hounds, his dependent, the dog-boys, and huntsmen, all mounted around him in full parade. The servants are summoned for their edification, and in front of them all stands the mother of the child. The child is brought from the lock-up. It's a gloomy cold, foggy autumn day, a capital day for hunting. The general orders the child to be undressed; the child is stripped naked. He shivers, numb with terror not daring to cry...'make him run' commands the general. 'Run! run!' shout the dog-boys. The boy runs...the hounds catch him, and tear him to pieces before his mother's eyes!"
-- Like A Splinter In Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind The Matrix Trilogy by Matt Lawrence

Is the general morally justified?

If he can get away with it. What you CAN do is all the justification you need for an act. Social retribution is another thing entirely from moral justification.

Edit: Took me two and half years to hit a thousand posts. W00t.

Physically restraining a child who is throwing a tantrum, slapping a child's hand when they try to touch an oven element, circumcision, a doctor performing intimate surgery on a child... take these things out of context and they become abuse. Some would even argue that a few of these things are abuse in these contexts, while others would disagree.
But everyone agrees that there is a point where physical violence towards a child is ABUSE. The only point of disagreement is where that line is.

The use of the word abuse gives it away. Abuse is wrong. People just disagree on exactly what constitutes abuse.

You miss the point. The fact that you use the words "rape" and "murder" implies a belief that these things are wrong, absolutely. The only point of difference is the definition of those words.

Rape is defined as forcing sex on someone without their consent.
Murder is taking someone's life for personal gain without their consent.

Both wrong, no matter how you slice it.

Your definition of murder would fit the death penalty, and killing for self-defence. The fact that there are so many different ideas about when killing is justified makes it a subjective judgement. All you can really say is that very few people would agree with killing someone who posed no threat.

Additionally, we need to distinguish between what qualifies as objective truth, and what that objective truth is. Take, for instance, the number of individual particles of sand on a beach. Of course, all sorts of different people are going to come up with all sorts of different answers. But varying opinion, or outright lack of knowledge, in reguard to the exact number of particles of sand on a beach does not mean that there isn't a specific objective answer. The exact number of particles of sand on the beach is an objective fact, even if we have no idea what it is.

Thus, just as disagreement or varying opinion as described above does not disprove the existance of non-moral objective fact, disagreement or varying opinion over moral values does not disprove the existance of objective moral fact. Sure, we can (and should) argue to great length over the nature of moral truth. This argument, however, does not indicate or prove that objective moral truth does not exist.

If he can get away with it. What you CAN do is all the justification you need for an act. Social retribution is another thing entirely from moral justification.

Edit: Took me two and half years to hit a thousand posts. W00t.
You can't be serious?

Something's not wrong if nobody catches you doing it? Or something's not wrong if you can get away with it?

Wrong is wrong, whether either of the above two statements is true. Just because nobody sees the crime, or is able to punish someone for the crime, doesn't change the fact that a grave moral wrong was committed.

The use of the word abuse gives it away. Abuse is wrong. People just disagree on exactly what constitutes abuse.
Well that's why it is circular to say 'is abuse morally justifiable'. The term abuse has such a meaning that whatever it is used to describe is (simply by use the word) being defined as 'bad/immoral/wrong'. It's like asking if there is a moral justification for immorality...

But everyone agrees that there is a point where physical violence towards a child is ABUSE. The only point of disagreement is where that line is.

The use of the word abuse gives it away. Abuse is wrong. People just disagree on exactly what constitutes abuse.

I guess the problems we have in this discussion is because language is not independent of morality. There's no point debating the morality of murder, abuse and rape as they are alreay defined as immoral. What is subjective is when an act can be termed abuse etc.

Your definition of murder would fit the death penalty, and killing for self-defence. The fact that there are so many different ideas about when killing is justified makes it a subjective judgement. All you can really say is that very few people would agree with killing someone who posed no threat.
The reason I included the words "for personal gain" was to exclude the death penalty from that definition.

Regardless, the arguement is not whether murder is wrong, but exactly what constitutes murder.

You can't be serious?

Something's not wrong if nobody catches you doing it? Or something's not wrong if you can get away with it?

Wrong is wrong, whether either of the above two statements is true. Just because nobody sees the crime, or is able to punish someone for the crime, doesn't change the fact that a grave moral wrong was committed.


Why can't I be serious? Wrong is a subjective delusion of society. Society invents right and wrong in order to protect itself. It punishes murderers because they threaten it. It punishes child molesters because child molesting threatens the society.

Take away the society, and there is no moral compass. There is no inherent moral guide to the world. You feel revulsion when you see a dead body because it's an instinct designed to keep yourself, and ultimately the species alive. You translate this revulsion into the mistaken assumption of morals.

In the same way, if a society decides that it's alright to kill the firstborn of every woman born in June, there is no objective moral that this is wrong. It's what the society needs.

Additionally, we need to distinguish between what qualifies as objective truth, and what that objective truth is. Take, for instance, the number of individual particles of sand on a beach. Of course, all sorts of different people are going to come up with all sorts of different answers. But varying opinion, or outright lack of knowledge, in reguard to the exact number of particles of sand on a beach does not mean that there isn't a specific objective answer. The exact number of particles of sand on the beach is an objective fact, even if we have no idea what it is.

Thus, just as disagreement or varying opinion as described above does not disprove the existance of non-moral objective fact, disagreement or varying opinion over moral values does not disprove the existance of objective moral fact. Sure, we can (and should) argue to great length over the nature of moral truth. This argument, however, does not indicate or prove that objective moral truth does not exist.
Well-stated! :cool:

Why can't I be serious? Wrong is a subjective delusion of society. Society invents right and wrong in order to protect itself. It punishes murderers because they threaten it. It punishes child molesters because child molesting threatens the society.

Take away the society, and there is no moral compass. There is no inherent moral guide to the world. You feel revulsion when you see a dead body because it's an instinct designed to keep yourself, and ultimately the species alive. You translate this revulsion into the mistaken assumption of morals.
I guess you would have felt right at home in New Orleans with the looters.
No society around, do whatever you want - rape, murder, pillage - it's ok, no one to stop you, no one to see you.

What you CAN do is all the justification you need for an act.

Do you advocate moral nihilism?

We hold contrary opinions, so we cannot both be correct. Which of us, then, is correct?

Also, different people have different standards for when it is right to kill, such as self-defence or when they have committed a certain crime.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621401&postcount=20

I guess you would have felt right at home in New Orleans with the looters.
No society around, do whatever you want - rape, murder, pillage - it's ok, no one to stop you, no one to see you.

My point is that it's only society's views of right and wrong that impose right and wrong. If someone decided to rape a flood victim and then shoot her five times, there is absolutely no objective force that would stop him. The fear of society's retribution is the only thing that stands between that woman and a horrific fate. This is what makes morals subjective. It's not some universal sense, it's the decision handed down by those with the power to carry it out.

You mistake my opinions for heartlessness. I aknowledge that things are bad, horrific, terrible, but I do not aknowledge that this makes them wrong.

Do you advocate moral nihilism?

We hold contrary opinions, so we cannot both be correct. Which of us, then, is correct?

I doubt I advocate this, I've yet to find any moral code that agrees with mine.

Edit: Someone please translate this into English:

Moral nihilism holds that ethical judgments do assert cognitive claims, so that emotivists and other noncognitivsts are wrong to think that ethical utterances merely express feelings or commitments.

I guess you would have felt right at home in New Orleans with the looters.


Take care to avoid straw-man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man) and ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominum) attacks. They weaken/destroy one's argument and may also trigger flames.

Ok. Found a definition of moral nihilism that still makes sense by the end of the sentence: Usually, moral nihilism is defined as meaning nothing has value. From this site: http://www.qsmithwmu.com/moral_realism_and_infinte_spacetime_imply_moral_nihilism_by_quentin_smith.htm

I disagree with this, as I tend to disagree with most objective absolutes. I hold that nothing has inherent value beyond the needs of those who rely upon it. I agree more with the above's second definition of moral nihilism:
it does not morally matter what we do.

I doubt I advocate this, I've yet to find any moral code that agrees with mine.

Edit: Someone please translate this into English:

Moral nihilism holds that ethical judgments do assert cognitive claims, so that emotivists and other noncognitivsts are wrong to think that ethical utterances merely express feelings or commitments.

"...moral nihilism - the view that moral claims and judgements are simply never true. O this view, moral claims cannot be true, for they ultimately don't make any sense - they're 'nonsense.' ...Moral nihilists believe that moral claims always invoke category mistakes. According to the nihilist, murder can be bloody, motivated by greed ... but it cannot be wrong. ...On this account, right and wrong and good and evil are not real properties of actions, events, or persons. Muct of the rationale behind this analysis stems from the fact that properties or predicates like 'goodness' and 'wrongness' cannot be verified through our senses. ...As the eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume famously argued, our sense experience can only verify how things are, yet moral judgements involve claims about how things ought to be."
-- Like A Splinter In Your Mind: The Philosophy Behind The Matrix Trilogy By Matt Lawrence

Additionally, we need to distinguish between what qualifies as objective truth, and what that objective truth is. Take, for instance, the number of individual particles of sand on a beach. Of course, all sorts of different people are going to come up with all sorts of different answers. But varying opinion, or outright lack of knowledge, in reguard to the exact number of particles of sand on a beach does not mean that there isn't a specific objective answer. The exact number of particles of sand on the beach is an objective fact, even if we have no idea what it is.

Thus, just as disagreement or varying opinion as described above does not disprove the existance of non-moral objective fact, disagreement or varying opinion over moral values does not disprove the existance of objective moral fact. Sure, we can (and should) argue to great length over the nature of moral truth. This argument, however, does not indicate or prove that objective moral truth does not exist.

Nor does it, for that matter, prove that moral truths do exist, also I think it would be quite impossible to find any kind of evidence either for or against it that everybody could agree on.

Nor does it, for that matter, prove that moral truths do exist, also I think it would be quite impossible to find any kind of evidence either for or against it that everybody could agree on.

Well, people seem to believe that to be "objective" is to crush opposition or reject debate, while to be "subjective" is to be tolerant. This, of course, is simply untrue, as it is entirely possible to value debate and varied ideas and options while supporting the existance of objective moral truth. How many people out there who claim to be moral subjectivists are really just afraid of being labeled "intolerant?"

The question is highly dependent on any given individual's own point of view.
On the largest scale, the Universe itself does not have any morals at all; so no, moral absolutes do not exist.
Paradoxical Alert!!!!!
The very fact that we are discussing the nature of absolute morals makes them exist in some capacity, even though we can't seem to agree on what they should be.
So they exist, but they don't exist also.
:headbang:

Do moral absolutes exist?... No, next question!

Ream,
Justify child molsetation.
Does a 23 year-old man marrying a 13 year-old girl qualify as child molestation? If so, I have a cousin who's daddy was a molester.

The question is highly dependent on any given individual's own point of view.


One individual puts a gun to the head of another, and is confident in complete moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, and is not convinced that the first enjoys any moral justification. Each individual has a contrary point of view, and as such, both points of view cannot be correct at the same time. Which, then, is correct?

One individual puts a gun to the head of another, and is confident in complete moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, and is not convinced that the first enjoys any moral justification. Each individual has a contrary point of view, and as such, both points of view cannot be correct at the same time. Which, then, is correct?


Why can't they both be true? In the absence of objective moral truth, subjective moral truth applies. Both are equally correct, but only the one with the force to carry out his moral truth will end up being right.

Why can't they both be true? In the absence of objective moral truth, subjective moral truth applies.

They can't both be true, as their assertions as to the nature of moral justification are diametrically opposed. Completely perpendicular. I may as well assert that x=2, y=5, therefore x=y.


Both are equally correct, but only the one with the force to carry out his moral truth will end up being right.


Might makes right, then? Somehow I doubt that most who are answering "subjective" really want to live in such a state of society.

One individual puts a gun to the head of another, and is confident in complete moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, and is not convinced that the first enjoys any moral justification. Each individual has a contrary point of view, and as such, both points of view cannot be correct at the same time. Which, then, is correct?

This is a good example. Thank you for helping me to clarify.
For the person about to be executed, being shot in the head is Absolutely Wrong; but in the reality of the other individual, shooting someone else in the head is Absolutley Right.
The lesson here? Multiple opinions that at first appear to conflict can all be correct, if the following two conditions are met: 1)the number of conflicting opinions is equal to the number of different points of view involved, and 2)each point of view is convinced of its own correctness.

They can't both be true, as their assertions as to the nature of moral truth are diametrically opposed. Completely perpendicular. I may as well assert that x=2, y=5, therefore x=y.

Only true when you're dealing with objective truth, when true is true from every point of view. When you are dealing in subjective terms, you can't apply the same standards.


Might makes right, then? Somehow I doubt that most who are answering "subjective" really want to live in such a state of society.
Might DOES make right. The government says that I can't kill people. If I do, I will be arrested and jailed or killed in turn. Why? Because a peice of paper says so? No. "Right" is found at the business end of a weapon. It is the only way to enforce the morals of the society.

Well, people seem to believe that to be "objective" is to crush opposition or reject debate, while to be "subjective" is to be tolerant. This, of course, is simply untrue, as it is entirely possible to value debate and varied ideas and options while supporting the existance of objective moral truth. How many people out there who claim to be moral subjectivists are really just afraid of being labeled "intolerant?"

True. I was just saying that since there seems to be no way either of proving or disproving objective moral truth, it can, for all – eh- objective purposes neither be thought of as existent nor non-existent.
Of course I value different opinions as there is nothing more boring than a discussion where everybody agrees.

Also, even if moral might be baseless (wich yet remains to be proved), there is absolutely nothing (in lack of a better word) wrong with it. Kindness, compassion and solidarity are all very nice things; even should they have no objective foundation.

Multiple opinions that at first appear to conflict can all be correct, if the following two conditions are met: 1)the number of conflicting opinions is equal to the number of different points of view involved, and 2)each point of view is convinced of its own correctness.

The above proves nothing more than the existance of conflict. I fail to see how you have shown that all points of view are correct, given those two conditions. Again, being convinced that one is correct does not mean that one actually is correct.

Might DOES make right. The government says that I can't kill people. If I do, I will be arrested and jailed or killed in turn. Why? Because a peice of paper says so? No. "Right" is found at the business end of a weapon. It is the only way to enforce the morals of the society.


Personally, I choose to not murder people becuase I believe that it is wrong to murder people, and I base this belief on objective moral truth. Thus, I do not need a government to force me to not murder. I am not so mindless that if the government went away I would suddenly go out on a killing spree. :)

If you consider for a second ancient Greece. A lot of people today would consider it the peak of human cultural enlightenment. They developed beautiful art, poetry, philosophy even democracy.

Yet it was perfectly acceptable, for a man to take a young boy as his sexual partner. Infact, if you wouldn't do this, there was something wrong with you, you were not fullfilling your moral obligation to society. Again even for the boy if you could not find yourself an older man you would consider your devlopment to be somewhat incomplete. Sort of like a right of passage.

Personally, I choose to not murder people becuase I believe that it is wrong to murder people, and I base this belief on objective moral truth. Thus, I do not need a government to force me to not murder. I am not so mindless that if the government went away I would suddenly go out on a killing spree. :)


But how did you come to believe these things? You were taught that they are wrong, and that you would be punished if you did them. This doesn't make it objectively wrong to do them, it makes them a projection of society onto your values. Society backs this up with a gun.

But how did you come to believe these things? You were taught that they are wrong, and that you would be punished if you did them. This doesn't make it objectively wrong to do them, it makes them a projection of society onto your values. Society backs this up with a gun.

My beliefs are informed by reason. If a person is not attacking or harming me in any way, I have no rational justification to take his life. It would be wrong for someone else to take my life without reason, so it is also wrong for me to do the same to another. The threat of punishment is not even a factor in my reasoning process.

They can't both be true, as their assertions as to the nature of moral justification are diametrically opposed. Completely perpendicular. I may as well assert that x=2, y=5, therefore x=y.

Well, if morals are baseless, it might look something like this:

x=2*0 y=5*0, thus x=y.

Finally, even in mathematics, when dealing with second or third grade equations, there may in fact be more than one "true" answer.

Finally, even in mathematics, when dealing with second or third grade equations, there may in fact be more than one "true" answer.

Wrong. There is one true answer which happens to be a set. :)

Personally, I choose to not murder people becuase I believe that it is wrong to murder people, and I base this belief on objective moral truth. Thus, I do not need a government to force me to not murder. I am not so mindless that if the government went away I would suddenly go out on a killing spree. :)


Maybe that is so with you but the thing is that every single person has their own mind and therefore their own conscience, because of this everyone has their own morals. Did the criminal in jail think what he was doing was wrong? no I dont think so other wise he wouldnt of done it, the way people act is due to their morals therefore anything that anyone does they think they have a justified reason for doing it. this reson may not be good enough for others but it is for them. Because of this nothing can be wrong in everybody in the worlds mind as there will always be someone who thinks a little diffrently (PS: sorry about any bad spelling)

My beliefs are informed by reason. If a person is not attacking or harming me in any way, I have no rational justification to take his life. It would be wrong for someone else to take my life without reason, so it is also wrong for me to do the same to another. The threat of punishment is not even a factor in my reasoning process.


So this is the reasoning behind all moral decisions? No one out there is swayed by the indoctrination of society or its threat of force? The reasons people have for doing something change based on who you're talking to. That's subjectivity.

Wrong. There is one true answer which happens to be a set. :)
OK, I might not be as good at mathematics as I ought to be, but consider: if x squared is 25, then x can be either 5 or -5.

This discussion seems to be a little of topic ;)

The reasons people have for doing something change based on who you're talking to. That's subjectivity.


No, that's variance of opinion. Subjectivism is not a simple difference of opinion, as a simple difference of opinion does not resolve the fact that opinions can be wrong.

OK, I might not be as good at mathematics as I ought to be, but consider: if x squared is 25, then x can be either 5 or -5.

This discussion seems to be a little of topic ;)


Hes right there many equations in maths have two answers... take this for example.
x^2+3x+2=0
Goes to (x+1)(x+2)=0
for this to work one of the two has to be 0 so the answer can be -1 or -2

many equations work like this

...but consider: if x squared is 25, then x can be either 5 or -5.


Again, there is only one objectively true answer: "5 or -5" :)

Hes right there many equations in maths have two answers... take this for example.
x^2+3x+2=0
Goes to (x+1)(x+2)=0
for this to work one of the two has to be 0 so the answer can be -1 or -2

many equations work like this

There is only one answer: {-1, -2}

The above proves nothing more than the existance of conflict. I fail to see how you have shown that all points of view are correct, given those two conditions. Again, being convinced that one is correct does not mean that one actually is correct.

I'll try to spell it out for you before I go to bed.
The Universe, as a whole, does not have any moral sense.
Therefore, morals can only exist within the mind.
Since wvery mind in the Universe is different, every convept of morality is different.
Thus, morality depends entirely on the mind's conception of morals.
So being convinced that something is right makes it right.
Someone else can be convinced that it isn't right, and they're right too.

So actually, you're right, from your point of view.
And I'm right too, from mine.

Good night.

Thanks, Hortania :)

The Universe, as a whole, does not have any moral sense.


Please provide evidence for this premise.

Objective and universal ethics exist. The difference between rape and sex, murder and assisted suicide, and theft and a loan is consent. Consent makes all the difference.

The killing of an innocent person who hasn't given his or her consent to die is always objectively wrong. Just because killing is permitted in certain circumstances--for example, self-defense--doesn't mean there aren't specific kinds of killing that are always wrong. The violation of an individual's life or liberty without provocation or consent is always, always, always unethical. Unless an individual has initiated force on you, there's no right to infringe upon his liberty without consent.

Please provide evidence for this premise.

Personally I'd like to see your counter-evidence.

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it sure isn't evidence of presence either.

Objective and universal ethics exist. The difference between rape and sex, murder and assisted suicide, and theft and a loan is consent. Consent makes all the difference.

The killing of an innocent person who hasn't given his or her consent to die is always objectively wrong. Just because killing is permitted in certain circumstances--for example, self-defense--doesn't mean there aren't specific kinds of killing that are always wrong. The violation of an individual's life or liberty without provocation or consent is always, always, always unethical. Unless an individual has initiated force on you, there's no right to infringe upon his liberty without consent.

What about a mother taking her frightend, unwilling child to the dentist, would that be considered a violation of universial ethics? Sometimes you just cant please everybody.

Personally I'd like to see your counter-evidence.

Although absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it sure isn't evidence of presence either.

Of course the absence of evidence is the evidence of the absence of present evidence otherwise why would the president be absent of evidence of the absence of troops that are present in iraq.......lol :D

What about a mother taking her frightend, unwilling child to the dentist, would that be considered a violation of universial ethics? Sometimes you just cant please everybody.

A child isn't at the age of consent.

A child isn't at the age of consent.


Does that mean the child cant not consent to having sex.

Personally I'd like to see your counter-evidence.


Holowan is the one asserting the premise, that "The Universe, as a whole, does not have any moral sense." The burden of proof is on Holowan, not me.

Does that mean the child cant not consent to having sex.

A child can't consent to having sex. You can only have sex with an individual who can and does consent.

I see it thus; Each person holds certain moral principles which they will hold above any situation*,only the morally retarded have no moral principles.


A moral code, like me :) which i hold under any circumstance.

A child can't consent to having sex. You can only have sex with an individual who can and does consent.



I think you missed the cant NOT bit.....
Making it so that the child automatically consents to it.
So that theory disintergrates.

I think you missed the cant NOT bit.....
Making it so that the child automatically consents to it.
So that theory disintergrates.

I saw your double "not." Rather than respond to it, I gave you an affirmative response: a child can't consent to having sex.

Any other questions?

I see it thus; Each person holds certain moral principles which they will hold above any situation*,only the morally retarded have no moral principles.


A moral code, like me :) which i hold under any circumstance.



Well done blackadder thats how it works every one has morals of their own and everyone abides by them. I agree with you fully. I have morals they are my own and I will hold them dearly. good work.

Well done blackadder thats how it works every one has morals of their own and everyone abides by them. I agree with you fully. I have morals they are my own and I will hold them dearly. good work.

oh..thankue :)

I saw your double "not." Rather than respond to it, I gave you an affirmative response: a child can't consent to having sex.

Any other questions?

I suppose that works

( dont mock the double not, its when i get into quadrouples that it gets good)

I suppose that works

( dont mock the double not, its when i get into quadrouples that it gets good)



So it is not that the child cant not disconsent not having sex... is that what you saying?

One individual puts a gun to the head of another, and is confident in complete moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, and is not convinced that the first enjoys any moral justification. Each individual has a contrary point of view, and as such, both points of view cannot be correct at the same time. Which, then, is correct?

Well now, of course it depends on who the two individuals are. If the person with the gun is Claus von Stauffenberg and the person pointed at is Adolf Hitler, then the answer is very different to the reverse situation. A moral absolute just from the stark declaration? Absolutely not.

Well now, of course it depends on who the two individuals are. If the person with the gun is Claus von Stauffenberg and the person pointed at is Adolf Hitler, then the answer is very different to the reverse situation. A moral absolute just from the stark declaration? Absolutely not.

I agree. I'd need to know more than what each individual thinks of his situation. Obviously, an individual's self-interest tends to blind his objectivity.

Well now, of course it depends on who the two individuals are. If the person with the gun is Claus von Stauffenberg and the person pointed at is Adolf Hitler, then the answer is very different to the reverse situation. A moral absolute just from the stark declaration? Absolutely not.

All you've shown is that one situation may allow the use of violent force, while another does not. The rule that dictates when each situation occurs may very well be based in objective moral truth.

All you've shown is that one situation may allow the use of violent force, while another does not. The rule that dictates when each situation occurs may very well be based in objective moral truth.

I also agree. :)

All you've shown is that one situation may allow the use of violent force, while another does not. The rule that dictates when each situation occurs may very well be based in objective moral truth.

No, I think that what I have shown is that the statement "it is wrong to point a gun at someone's head and shoot them dead", as a moral absolute, is wrong.

No, I think that what I have shown is that the statement "it is wrong to point a gun at someone's head and shoot them dead", as a moral absolute, is wrong.

I don't recall making that statement, nor do I recall declaring that statement a moral absolute. :)

(EDIT: the purpose of my illustration was to demonstrate that people who hold opposite views on a particular moral truth/justification cannot both be correct at the same time. One of them was correct, and one of them was incorrect. I did not intend to argue which of them was correct, as that wasn't the point of the exercise.)

No, I think that what I have shown is that the statement "it is wrong to point a gun at someone's head and shoot them dead", as a moral absolute, is wrong. Correct. It could be said that intentions decide the morality of an act, although that could again lead to some tricky dilemmas.
Notice, relativists, how you automatically feel some things are wrong?

I don't recall making that statement, nor do I recall declaring that statement a moral absolute. :)

(EDIT: the purpose of my illustration was to demonstrate that people who hold opposite views on a particular moral truth/justification cannot both be correct at the same time. One of them was correct, and one of them was incorrect. I did not intend to argue which of them was correct, as that wasn't the point of the exercise.)


Exactly. I was agreeing with you. :fluffle:

Exactly. I was agreeing with you. :fluffle:

Explain what it is you agree with. What is my position? What would I argue in regard to moral objectivism/subjectivism?

I work in a grocery store and I pack chips right. Well the chips are in a room in which there are no cameras and no one ever goes there as its only chips. If I were to steal something, no one but me would know, and it would not affect anyone ($1-$5 thing). Is it wrong? I don't think it is because essentially we are taught stealing is wrong if it hurts someone is it not?

A child isn't at the age of consent.

A child is at the age of consent.

At least, i'd like to consider myself at the age of consent. I sure know what i'm getting myself into everytime I get myself into something. That's a lot more than can be said about a lot of adults.

Besides, when is a child a child? 13? 14? 16? 18? 21?

There could exist an objective truth about when a child is a child, but every society, having regarded children differently, have had subjective views.

Whether or not objective moral values exist, every society has had to be based on subjective values. Even if they were 'right' and had hit an objective moral value, then it was still based on a subjective value.

So, it doesn't matter if objective values do/don't exist.

A child is at the age of consent.

At least, i'd like to consider myself at the age of consent. I sure know what i'm getting myself into everytime I get myself into something. That's a lot more than can be said about a lot of adults.

Besides, when is a child a child? 13? 14? 16? 18? 21?

There could exist an objective truth about when a child is a child, but every society, having regarded children differently, have had subjective views.

Whether or not objective moral values exist, every society has had to be based on subjective values. Even if they were 'right' and had hit an objective moral value, then it was still based on a subjective value.

So, it doesn't matter if objective values do/don't exist.
The question isn't really "what is the age of consent?" but "what constitutes taking advantage of a child?" Most people have an inbuilt feeling that taking advantage of others - in any way - is wrong.

The world is black AND white WITH shades of grey

Just to go on about the mathematical proof of nonabsolutism, as it seems nobody could do it, there is this:

sinx = 1/2
x = pi/6 radians and 5pi/6 radians.

Or, better yet, look at relations that are not functions. You input X, and there are many outputs for Y, all occurring and being correct at the same time.

Not saying I really agree one way or another. Just throwing that out there.

Simple question - is there such a thing as a moral absolute or are all morals situational? Is rape always rape, or does it depend on the circumstances? Is murder always murder, or does it depend on the circumstances? Is racism always racism, or does it depend on the circumstances? etc.

For purposes of this thread, Ethics and Morality are synonymous and right/wrong are synonymous with moral/ethical and Immoral/unethical repsectively
It seems to me you are asking if crimes (what constitutes a crime), not morals, are situational. Yes, they are.

I don't see how ethics and morality can be the same thing. One defines what is right and wrong, and the other how we react or behave in terms of right and wrong. That is two different things.

The world is black AND white WITH shades of greyThe world is in infinite amount of shades of infinite amounts of colors.

The world is in infinite amount of shades of infinite amounts of colors.
That's stretching an analogy. ;)

That's stretching an analogy. ;)

In the name of humor I'll allow it.

Every truth has some error in it, and every error has some truth in it.

Whether soemthing is considered to be morally "good" or "bad" - it can only be defined as such internally within a system where those definitions are regarded to carry any meaning.

"Good" and "bad" are bounded by whatever system that encompasses them and if all planes of existence harbour both qualities; then neither can be absolute.
Even if you could create a region/plane of existence that did only allow one of these extremes to exist, it wouldn't become an absolute/universal moral truth, as that region/plane would not be all encompassing. If it is bounded then it is not infinite and certainly not absolute.

...........and lets not forget that these premisses are only reasonable should you prove the ontological status of said "good" and "bad", which is impossible. Unless you have a jar full of "good" on you?

One individual puts a gun to the head of another, and is confident in complete moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, and is not convinced that the first enjoys any moral justification. Each individual has a contrary point of view, and as such, both points of view cannot be correct at the same time. Which, then, is correct?

The problem with this is that you are already assuming that there is an absolute moral standard. Your using circular logic here. There are absolute morals because if two people think they are right only one can because there are absolute morals. You cant argue that way. You need to prove that the moral absolutes exist. If morals are not absolute then in fact they both could be right at the same time according to their own set of morals.

The problem with this thread is that you're looking at it from your own (Western) standards but asking if every single being adheres to those standards. There are cultures that exist and have existed throughout time that don't see things your way. There are people who believe that for a man to be able to produce sperm, he must ingest it as a child. There are people who believe that adultery is not only moral but necessary.

Are there any moral absolutes? NO! There are no moral absolutes because morals are developed within a certain culture. Since cultures are different, so are their views of right and wrong.

I don't believe moral absolutes exist. It's like saying absolute rights exist. There's no reason what so ever to suspect either's the case.

I personally hold political beliefs that the vast majority of my society believe are wrong and regard as amoral. Obviously I think I'm right and they're the amoral ones. So who's has the moral high ground here?

Ignoring psychopaths for a moment, plenty of people either think they're right to kill other human beings, or can at least justify doing it to the extent where they no longer feel it's an amoral act. Actually, if my personal experiences are anything to judge by, the vast majority of the planet's population feel killing eachother can be justified, even when they aren't forced to do so to survive themselves.

Right & wrong has always been in the eyes of the beholder. I'm sure Saddam doesn't get a kick out of being an evil bastard. In fact, I'm certain he thinks he's a really decent guy. The same goes for Dubya. Hitler probably thought he was doing the world a favour too. I know I'd classify all three of them as raving psychos, but medically speaking, I'm not quite sure they are/were.

So if all of them thought/thinks they hold the moral high ground, how can any of us objectively say they don't? All of them would call me amoral & probably evil.. Just like I think they are/were.

Moral absolutes require at least one god to work. Even a evolution-psychological argument doesn't work. Because it's not in our best interest to act moral all the time, thus there's no reason to speculate that bad conscience/guilt can be attributed to that.

Morals and ethics are not something that can be judged as being right or wrong on an absolute standpoint.

Think of principles as being the foundation of why one would or wouldn't accept something done or possibly done. They are the guides of what someone believes are acceptable and what are not, so for example: the act of rape or murder is absolute (it can be literally defined) but the act itself is not a moral.

I say this because it was opened that the concept of child molestation should be justified. What should have been asked here is 'how can a moral be accepted by everyone AND be applied to this situation?'

The fact is morals are absolute in themselves but they are not what matter. When debating or judging an issue, the PERCEPTION of morals is what matters. Hence, we attempt to persuade others to see the same VIEWPOINT of a case as we do (or we would like them to see depending on the purpose of the manipulation, per se).

To expand the conversation, consider the following:

Free will is always a debated subject and cannot be understood until death (religiously, you would find out upon judgement; secularly, you would exist with a floating will dispersed somehow into the natural universe). Some neuroscientists studying the situation consider the human brain as an undeveloped picture that can allows free will to the extent of developing the details of parts of the picture to a potentially infinite degree (hence the concept of skills, abilities, talents, and gifts).

Given this, what are your opinions on morals being predefined in all conscious and sentinent beings? The morals are already defined at a predetermined benchmark throughout the universe, but our perceptions of them as human beings are theoretically predefined as well.

How can you call something an absolute when it only applies to humans?

The problem with this is that you are already assuming that there is an absolute moral standard. Your using circular logic here. There are absolute morals because if two people think they are right only one can because there are absolute morals. You cant argue that way. You need to prove that the moral absolutes exist. If morals are not absolute then in fact they both could be right at the same time according to their own set of morals.

Allow me to repaint the situation:

There are three individuals. One individual holds a gun upto the head of another, and asserts full moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, rejecting that moral justification. The third individual is a police officer, and each of the first two individuals make appeals to this officer. The officer cannot side with both, as then the conflict isn't actually resolved. With whom, then, does the officer side?

The problem with this thread is that you're looking at it from your own (Western) standards but asking if every single being adheres to those standards. There are cultures that exist and have existed throughout time that don't see things your way. There are people who believe that for a man to be able to produce sperm, he must ingest it as a child. There are people who believe that adultery is not only moral but necessary.

Are there any moral absolutes? NO! There are no moral absolutes because morals are developed within a certain culture. Since cultures are different, so are their views of right and wrong.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621401&postcount=20

The only one not situational is rape. That's just not right.

Murder, if to protect someone else (innocent), or to protect a large group is fine, actually heroic. As long as it is defensive.

Stealing, if you're stealing something to help someone, medicine and the such, or because of other important reasons like that, is okay.

Other than that sort of stuff, there is no excuse for rape.

Allow me to repaint the situation:

There are three individuals. One individual holds a gun upto the head of another, and asserts full moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, rejecting that moral justification. The third individual is a police officer, and each of the first two individuals make appeals to this officer. The officer cannot side with both, as then the conflict isn't actually resolved. With whom, then, does the officer side?

Which ever one he feels is right. However this doesn't mean its because of an absolute standard. He could be raised a certain way and side with one person over the other. In the end it comes down to the police officer's judgment which could be either. Just because the police officer has to chose one does not mean the other is wrong or that there is an absolute moral standard. This arguement only will point towards that if you already presupose there is one and we cant do that because we are trying to prove if there is said standard. Also you make an example that is moraly ambiguous. How are we to judge who's right if we don't know all the details. Perhaps the person holding the gun was just attacked by the other person and brought it out for defense?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621401&postcount=20
We can see sand. We can measure sand. We can compare counts from people to the actual sand count. Tell me can we see morals? Can we measure morals? Can we compare one persons morals to an absolute standard that we know of? Your arguement fails because we can always observe sand if we want to. We can't pluck a moral out of thin air and compare it to a persons. We can compare someone's conception of sand to actual sand or we can go out and find sand and show it to the person if they have never seen it.. The differing of opinons and lack of knowledge of morals is legitimate evidence against an absolute moral standard.

The only one not situational is rape. That's just not right.

Murder, if to protect someone else (innocent), or to protect a large group is fine, actually heroic. As long as it is defensive.

Stealing, if you're stealing something to help someone, medicine and the such, or because of other important reasons like that, is okay.

Other than that sort of stuff, there is no excuse for rape.


There's absolutely no excuse for rape, ever?
Hypothetical joyride: There are no more than fifty humans left in any one place anywhere on the face of the planet. Whether humans will be extinct in a few generations or not depends on birth rates. Some of the people left are unwilling to participate, and so are raped. This is wrong?

I understand that this is a pretty far-fetched scenario. Extreme acts require extreme justification.

Ream,
Justify child molsetation.

In earlier times, marriage and sexual relations were, due to a lower life expectancy, inaugerated at a much earlier age without anyone thinking such behaviour is wrong. In these liberalised days we have no right to criticse others for their behaviour in earlier times if that behaviour was understandable and the norm for such an age, if only because in years to come we will no doubt be thought of as backward or morally corrupt due to normal patterns of behaviour that we have.

Therefore there are NO definitive moral absolutes, only absolutes created by the society wherein they are conformed to.

A child is at the age of consent.

At least, i'd like to consider myself at the age of consent. I sure know what i'm getting myself into everytime I get myself into something. That's a lot more than can be said about a lot of adults.

Besides, when is a child a child? 13? 14? 16? 18? 21?

There could exist an objective truth about when a child is a child, but every society, having regarded children differently, have had subjective views.

Whether or not objective moral values exist, every society has had to be based on subjective values. Even if they were 'right' and had hit an objective moral value, then it was still based on a subjective value.

So, it doesn't matter if objective values do/don't exist.

It doesn't matter what the age of consent is, does it? You're missing the point. The law determines the age of consent, so, until you reach that age, you're still a ward of your parents. But if you want a more direct answer, I'll tell you that consent means you're able to understand the contract before you, as well as its implications and consequences, all to a reasonable degree. Every person reaches 'consent' at a different age, but the law just applies one simple standard to every individual.

Objective values matter for their own sake. It's irrelevant whether anybody recognizes or follows them.

No, I think that what I have shown is that the statement "it is wrong to point a gun at someone's head and shoot them dead", as a moral absolute, is wrong.

Nobody's debating that ending an individual's life is intrinsically wrong. We're arguing that absolute morals exist. If I say, "It's always wrong to kill an individual who hasn't initiated force upon you and hasn't consented to his or her death," that can be an absolute, objective, and universal moral statement even though the act of killing itself isn't. The act of penetrating a woman's vagina isn't intrinsically wrong, either. If you don't ask her consent, though, that's rape. If you ask her consent and she agrees, that's sexual intercourse. Just because an act that's removed its actors isn't inherently unethical doesn't mean absolute morals don't exist in relation to those acts. I don't know if you're trying to argue otherwise, but your post inspired me.

In earlier times, marriage and sexual relations were, due to a lower life expectancy, inaugerated at a much earlier age without anyone thinking such behaviour is wrong. In these liberalised days we have no right to criticse others for their behaviour in earlier times if that behaviour was understandable and the norm for such an age, if only because in years to come we will no doubt be thought of as backward or morally corrupt due to normal patterns of behaviour that we have.

Therefore there are NO definitive moral absolutes, only absolutes created by the society wherein they are conformed to.

Let's say that the sky is blue. Now let's also say that every creature on Earth--hell, in the UNIVERSE--can't see. Does the sky stop being blue because nobody acknowledges its existence? No. You're only pointing out what certain people during a certain period of time thought about the world and how we don't think that way now. That's not an argument that there are no universal ethics; that's just an argument that people have different OPINIONS about right and wrong. I can have an opinion that gravity doesn't exist or that the Earth is flat and my opinion might change depending on society in which I live or the access to information I have within my reach. My opinions of truth, though, don't actually change the truth. My perceptions aren't reality.

Now, I'm not claiming universal ethics exist. I'm only saying that what you've pointed out isn't a successful refutation of metaphysical theory.

Let's say that the sky is blue. Now let's also say that every creature on Earth--hell, in the UNIVERSE--can't see. Does the sky stop being blue because nobody acknowledges its existence? No. You're only pointing out what certain people during a certain period of time thought about the world and how we don't think that way now. That's not an argument that there are no universal ethics; that's just an argument that people have different OPINIONS about right and wrong. I can have an opinion that gravity doesn't exist or that the Earth is flat and my opinion might change depending on society in which I live or the access to information I have within my reach. My opinions of truth, though, don't actually change the truth. My perceptions aren't reality.

Now, I'm not claiming universal ethics exist. I'm only saying that what you've pointed out isn't a successful refutation of metaphysical theory.

Morals remain a social conception, as are moral absolutes. It doesn't mean I do not have moral absolutes as there are certain things I would NEVER countenance. But they remain a moral fabrication created by socio-cultural factors, not a biological design. That is the essence of my point.

I'm sorry I missed out on this thread when it was created: this kind of shit is my bread and butter.

Unfortunately, I'm rather disgusted by the poll options: Yes there are moral absolutes, however it's somewhat of a ridiculous and wholly untenable moral position to claim in the course of this that the 'situation doesn't matter,' because moral facts, just like physical facts, depend entirely upon the context in which they are being evaluated. It's wrong to steal, for example, but if a hurricane puts your city under 20 feet of water I wouldn't guess that ganking some tomato soup from an abandoned grocery store would be a morally reprehensible act.

If there were no moral absolutes, the very concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' wouldn't even exist, because they would be impossible to define. Without a moral absolute, you have no benchmark from which to say "such and such an action is wrong" or "such and such an action is right."

Generally, I've found that the people who make such sweeping condemnations of moral absolutism are usually the same people who tell me that being selfish is 'wrong,' which is a moral absolute whether you care to call it one or not.

So yes, there are moral absolutes, but they also depend on the situation. Unfortunately, I was not able to answer this poll as the correct option was not presented.

I'm sorry I missed out on this thread when it was created: this kind of shit is my bread and butter.

Unfortunately, I'm rather disgusted by the poll options: Yes there are moral absolutes, however it's somewhat of a ridiculous and wholly untenable moral position to claim in the course of this that the 'situation doesn't matter,' because moral facts, just like physical facts, depend entirely upon the context in which they are being evaluated. It's wrong to steal, for example, but if a hurricane puts your city under 20 feet of water I wouldn't guess that ganking some tomato soup from an abandoned grocery store would be a morally reprehensible act.

If there were no moral absolutes, the very concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' wouldn't even exist, because they would be impossible to define. Without a moral absolute, you have no benchmark from which to say "such and such an action is wrong" or "such and such an action is right."

Generally, I've found that the people who make such sweeping condemnations of moral absolutism are usually the same people who tell me that being selfish is 'wrong,' which is a moral absolute whether you care to call it one or not.

So yes, there are moral absolutes, but they also depend on the situation. Unfortunately, I was not able to answer this poll as the correct option was not presented.

Would you say that murder in cold blood fits into your definition?

If there were no moral absolutes, the very concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' wouldn't even exist, because they would be impossible to define. Without a moral absolute, you have no benchmark from which to say "such and such an action is wrong" or "such and such an action is right."

Generally, I've found that the people who make such sweeping condemnations of moral absolutism are usually the same people who tell me that being selfish is 'wrong,' which is a moral absolute whether you care to call it one or not.

So yes, there are moral absolutes, but they also depend on the situation. Unfortunately, I was not able to answer this poll as the correct option was not presented.

Couldn't you just define your own benchmarks? I mean, that's what people tend to do anyway. I would think if there were moral absolutes, there would be no disagreements about whether certain actions are wrong or right. I mean if I say being selfish is wrong, that says more about myself than any real 'absolute,' no?

the delusion of white supremacy is quite obviously

absolutely immoral

Would you say that murder in cold blood fits into your definition?
Pardon me, but this query seems a little vague. I have no idea what you're getting at, and seeing as how I didn't define any moral absolutes, I'm having a tough time wrapping my head around this. I didn't define them, I just said that they exist.

Couldn't you just define your own benchmarks?
There really isn't all that much I have to say about morality that hasn't already been said. A thorough examination of just what these benchmarks are can be found in most of the works of Rand, Kelley, or Peikoff, although there are probably minor variations here and there. I haven't read anything by Kelley, but I'm told he interprets Objectivism slightly differently than, say Peikoff.

I mean, that's what people tend to do anyway. I would think if there were moral absolutes, there would be no disagreements about whether certain actions are wrong or right.
This assumes that everyone is automatically capable of [i]acknowledging said absolutes in the first place. The prevalance of socialism, for example, is manifest proof that this capability is not very common. People can and often do argue against facts on a day-to-day basis.

I mean if I say being selfish is wrong, that says more about myself than any real 'absolute,' no?
I suppose, but that doesn't in and of itself mean that the absolute doesn't still exist. It just means that you're choosing to ignore it. So yeah, a statement like that would be more of a personal reflection than an epistemic one.

Allow me to repaint the situation:

There are three individuals. One individual holds a gun upto the head of another, and asserts full moral justification in doing so. The individual at whom the gun is pointed objects, rejecting that moral justification. The third individual is a police officer, and each of the first two individuals make appeals to this officer. The officer cannot side with both, as then the conflict isn't actually resolved. With whom, then, does the officer side?

The one with the most money.

Which ever one he feels is right. However this doesn't mean its because of an absolute standard. He could be raised a certain way and side with one person over the other. In the end it comes down to the police officer's judgment which could be either. Just because the police officer has to chose one does not mean the other is wrong or that there is an absolute moral standard. This arguement only will point towards that if you already presupose there is one and we cant do that because we are trying to prove if there is said standard. Also you make an example that is moraly ambiguous. How are we to judge who's right if we don't know all the details. Perhaps the person holding the gun was just attacked by the other person and brought it out for defense?


As I've explained before, the point of the illustration isn't to say anything in particular about what is or isn't moral. The point of the illustration is to demonstrate that one of the individuals is wrong and one of the individuals is right. They cannot both be right because then the conflict could not be resolved. Thus, the assertion by the subjectivists that "everyone is right" is clearly wrong.


We can see sand. We can measure sand. We can compare counts from people to the actual sand count. Tell me can we see morals? Can we measure morals? Can we compare one persons morals to an absolute standard that we know of? Your arguement fails because we can always observe sand if we want to. We can't pluck a moral out of thin air and compare it to a persons. We can compare someone's conception of sand to actual sand or we can go out and find sand and show it to the person if they have never seen it.. The differing of opinons and lack of knowledge of morals is legitimate evidence against an absolute moral standard.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621528&postcount=50

Reason is the tool by which we "see" morals.


Generally, I've found that the people who make such sweeping condemnations of moral absolutism are usually the same people who tell me that being selfish is 'wrong,' which is a moral absolute whether you care to call it one or not.


Yeah. It seems to me that the declaration that "there is no moral absolute" is a declaration of absolute objective moral truth. How can one declare the reality of moral truth without making an objective statement?

I think that Kant's first formulation comes close to being a moral absolute.

At least the Perfect Duty part of it.

Yeah. It seems to me that the declaration that "there is no moral absolute" is a declaration of absolute objective moral truth. How can one declare the reality of moral truth without making an objective statement?

Because "moral truths" are subjective, not objective.

Because "moral truths" are subjective, not objective.

If one believes that moral truth is "subjective," then one cannot assert anything about the nature of said moral truth, including the idea that moral truth is "subjective." The assertion/belief is self-defeating.

There really isn't all that much I have to say about morality that hasn't already been said. A thorough examination of just what these benchmarks are can be found in most [if not all] of the works of Rand, Kelley, or Peikoff, although there are probably minor variations here and there. I haven't read anything by Kelley, but I'm told he interprets Objectivism slightly differently than, say Peikoff.


Just to clarify, moral objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_objectivism) and Objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy) to two seperate things. Support for moral objectivism does not necessarily indicate support for Objectivism.

As I've explained before, the point of the illustration isn't to say anything in particular about what is or isn't moral. The point of the illustration is to demonstrate that one of the individuals is wrong and one of the individuals is right. They cannot both be right because then the conflict could not be resolved. Thus, the assertion by the subjectivists that "everyone is right" is clearly wrong.
Circular logic here. Absolute morals exist because if two people come in conflict only one can be right because there are absolute morals.



http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621528&postcount=50

Reason is the tool by which we "see" morals.
But still this is a metaphysical concept. You can reason something any way you want to. It could be right it could be wrong. You equated morals to sand and that isnt an adequate comparison. When we are dealing with a metaphysical concept here reason works but once again you can reason anything. Lets take murder for instance. At one point in American history murder was legal under the name of duels. There you could legaly take a gun/sword/other weapon and kill someone with it and not be punished. That was reasoned to be right.

It's all relative, if you were brought up to think child molestation is good, then in your eyes it would be, and anyone thinking different would be stupid to think so.

Exactly!!!!!!!! Morals are simply points of views. If one is raised in a community where killing is applauded or racism is the norm one thinks that those things are good. If one is raised in a community where killing is frowned apon racism is non-exsistent then one thinks that those are bad.

Yeah I know, I was just directing SB and anyone else who might be interested to just where my 'moral benchmarks' can be found, since I'm not in the mood to discuss them quite yet and he seemed to be asking for some sort of definition. I wasn't trying to equate Objectivism proper with moral objectivism, since I realize that religion is also a form of moral objectivism. Just the wrong one. ;)

A study of the geneology of morality should be in order here (beyond my pathetically brief comment below):

Although morals may come from society, society was created by humans. Many of our morals I see as deriving from natural and survival functions. If humans felt murder was always exceptable, we would not have survived to write this discussion. So although society says "don't murder" this notion derived out of human necessity for survival.

Many other morals can be evaluated similarly:
If we did not hold this as a moral standard, would we have survived?

I propose, therefore, that yes, humans have moral absolutes written within their genes. Any other morals derive from these, and can vary from society to society as long as it supports the survival of that society.

Ironically, morality itself under this has no choice, and therefore cannot be considered good or evil, only necessary.

Define absolutism
Define subjectivism
Note: they do not always conflicting

If one believes that moral truth is "subjective," then one cannot assert anything about the nature of said moral truth, including the idea that moral truth is "subjective." The assertion/belief is self-defeating.

Wrong because the truth about morals and moral truth are two seperate things. One says that the truth of morals is that it subjective does not mean that one cannot say that the truth of morals is subjective it means that one cannot give moral truths. Moral truths such as killing is wrong etc. etc.

Circular logic here. Absolute morals exist because if two people come in conflict only one can be right because there are absolute morals.


If two people come into conflict only one can be right because otherwise they would be locked in conflict forever. Therefore, If we are to resolve human conflict in any meaningful or convienient way, absolute morals must exist.

Exactly!!!!!!!! Morals are simply points of views.
No, morals are conclusions drawn from an incident or example based upon one's value structure. Since it's entirely possible to be brought up with reprehensible values (through any number of factors) the corresponding moral conclusions one comes to based on said values are invalid.

If one is raised in a community where killing is applauded or racism is the norm one thinks that those things are good. If one is raised in a community where killing is frowned apon racism is non-exsistent then one thinks that those are bad.
And if I'm raised in one that tells me the sky is really orange and we're all just colorblind, it's my responsibility to look around and notice that they're all out of their minds. Large groups of people are very capable of doing some very very dumb things; the perpetuation of such things does not guarantee their legitimacy in any sort of moral context. If anything, it's a reactionary way of thinking [which is humorous when it comes from the left]: the idea that because so many people have done something for so long, no one can really be held accountable for it. Not only that, but this argument is tantamount to the belief that large groups of people dictate reality: i.e., they tell us what's right and wrong; what's up and down.

In short, society can still be wrong. It's happened many times.

If one believes that moral truth is "subjective," then one cannot assert anything about the nature of said moral truth, including the idea that moral truth is "subjective." The assertion is self-defeating.

No, one can not prove anything "about the nature of said moral truth, including the idea that moral truth is "subjective"". I can assert whatever I want because it is subjective and therefore you can not prove me wrong. However, inturn you can assert anything you wish. Hence it's subjectivity. If it was objective then you could prove me wrong or maybe I could prove you wrong.

But I use the proof of ''proof' being unattainable' as a basis for believing that "moral truth" (the word 'truth' shouldn't be used, 'position' is far more suitable) is undefinable or quantifiable.

If two people come into conflict only one can be right because otherwise they would be locked in conflict forever. Therefore, If we are to resolve human conflict in any meaningful or convienient way, absolute morals must exist.

Just because someone is right does not mean there is an absolute moral standard though. In ancient Greece/Rome having sex with underage boys was okay. Now someone gets thrown in jail for doing it. In the early days of America if someone offends my honor I challenge them to a duel and kill them. I would not be prosecuted. Now I would be thrown in jail for murder. I fail to see how if one person is proved right on an issue that it proves a absolute moral standard. Right does not mean moral.

Wrong because the truth about morals and moral truth are two seperate things. One says that the truth of morals is that it subjective does not mean that one cannot say that the truth of morals is subjective it means that one cannot give moral truths. Moral truths such as killing is wrong etc. etc.

The assumption that morality is subjective leads to the conclusion that "everyone's moral assumptions are right." If everyone is right, then my assertion that morality is not subjective must be right. Since I'm right, morality, then, cannot be subjective. Therefore, the assertion that morality is subjective leads to the conclusion that morality is not subjective. Self-defeating. :)

And again, difference of opinion does not demonstrate subjectivity.


No, one can not prove anything "about the nature of said moral truth, including the idea that moral truth is "subjective"". I can assert whatever I want because it is subjective and therefore you can not prove me wrong. However, inturn you can assert anything you wish. Hence it's subjectivity. If it was objective then you could prove me wrong or maybe I could prove you wrong


Simple question: if the argument is irresolvable, why are you arguing with me? :D

Just because someone is right does not mean there is an absolute moral standard though. In ancient Greece/Rome having sex with underage boys was okay. Now someone gets thrown in jail for doing it. In the early days of America if someone offends my honor I challenge them to a duel and kill them. I would not be prosecuted. Now I would be thrown in jail for murder. I fail to see how if one person is proved right on an issue that it proves a absolute moral standard. Right does not mean moral.

It disproves the idea of moral subjectivity, however. Moral subjectivity cannot resolve the conflict in any meaningful or useful way. :D

EDIT: So allow me to rephrase; if we are to solve human conflict in any meaningful or useful way, we must assume objective morality, even if we cannot prove it's existance absolutely.

EDIT: Although I still insist that this necessary assumption serves as pretty damning evidence that objective morality does in fact exist.

The demonstration that one person is right while the other is wrong does not prove the existance of an absolute moral standard. It disproves the idea of moral subjectivity, however. Moral subjectivity cannot resolve the conflict in any meaningful or useful way. :D

Not really. Whoever's got the majority will have their morals accepted or legislated. You may be right but there are more people who think that my standard is right hence we go with what I've got. Majority rules is a way that moral subjectivity can be used and have a concept resolved in a meaningful way. I'd love to talk more but I've got class early tommorrow and I have one hell of a head cold so I'm hitting the sack.

Wrong because the truth about morals and moral truth are two seperate things. One says that the truth of morals is that it subjective does not mean that one cannot say that the truth of morals is subjective it means that one cannot give moral truths. Moral truths such as killing is wrong etc. etc.



Giving your opponent a headache from trying to decipher your statement and therefore disabling her ability to challenge it....is not a valid form of debate. :mad:

Not really. Whoever's got the majority will have their morals accepted or legislated. You may be right but there are more people who think that my standard is right hence we go with what I've got. Majority rules is a way that moral subjectivity can be used and have a concept resolved in a meaningful way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy :D

Giving your opponent a headache from trying to decipher your statement and therefore disabling her ability to challenge it....is not a valid form of debate. :mad:
I'm glad I wasn't the only one that had some trouble getting to the bottom of that.

A study of the geneology of morality should be in order here (beyond my pathetically brief comment below):

Although morals may come from society, society was created by humans. Many of our morals I see as deriving from natural and survival functions. If humans felt murder was always exceptable, we would not have survived to write this discussion. So although society says "don't murder" this notion derived out of human necessity for survival.

Many other morals can be evaluated similarly:
If we did not hold this as a moral standard, would we have survived?

I propose, therefore, that yes, humans have moral absolutes written within their genes. Any other morals derive from these, and can vary from society to society as long as it supports the survival of that society.

Ironically, morality itself under this has no choice, and therefore cannot be considered good or evil, only necessary.

Define absolutism
Define subjectivism
Note: they do not always conflicting

Now that's an interesting idea - there are "absolutes" but they have nothing to do with "morality" but are rather hardwired into our genetic nature as a method of ensuring the preservation of the species. I need to cogitate on that premise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwagon_fallacy :D

I'm not trying to prove something is right here. Only you said that if you are morally subjective there is no way that two people can resolve a situation. Well I offered the situation where people will side with one person because more of them agree with that persons morals. Situation solved.

Ream,
Justify child molsetation.
Justify it by your morals or thoes of the child molester?

Just by the fact that you wish it justified to YOUR morals SHOWS that there is moral relivitism out there
Thank you for proving my point

I'm not trying to prove something is right here. Only you said that if you are morally subjective there is no way that two people can resolve a situation. Well I offered the situation where people will side with one person because more of them agree with that persons morals. Situation solved.
....and he's pointing out that that's a Bandwagon Fallacy.

Did you even read the link?

I'm not trying to prove something is right here. Only you said that if you are morally subjective there is no way that two people can resolve a situation. Well I offered the situation where people will side with one person because more of them agree with that persons morals. Situation solved.

So a bunch of people side with individual A, and a bunch of people side with individual B. Just replace "individual" with "group" and the problem remains. Nothing is resolved.

(EDIT: and besides, your exact statement was that "we go with what [you've] got" because more people take your side. That is, in fact, a bandwagon fallacy.)

The assumption that morality is subjective leads to the conclusion that "everyone's moral assumptions are right." If everyone is right, then my assertion that morality is not subjective must be right. Since I'm right, morality, then, cannot be subjective. Therefore, the assertion that morality is subjective leads to the conclusion that morality is not subjective. Self-defeating. :)

That's a false premiss. Everyone isn't right - it's equal, we all have a position. Therefore your assertion isn't right and certainly doesn't override my own opinion and therefore can't be absolute.



Simple question: if the argument is irresolvable, why are you arguing with me? :D

I'm not argueing a 'moral position' we both take, and I would only do so on a factual basis where the subjective reasoning is minimal. I'm argueing the ontological basis of said 'moral truth'. All metaphysical knowledge must be supported with some kind of acceptence of it's conceivability.

I believe you are thinking within 'the box' to be honest with you.
No one subjective supposition can be supported or refuted externally from subjective reasoning. So I can not prove that your subjective reasoning is wrong with a piece of my subjective reasoning. But I'm not saying anything subjective. I'm saying objectively that moral truth is subjective, and then any further suppositions using subjective reasoning can not be proven to be wrong or right. Which can only be objectively proven by making record of the subjective arguements that can not be proven to be either true or false........ so far it's all of them.

But there is no contingency needed within subjective reasoning apart from that which internally justified. The opposite for objective reasoning. When you transcend from one to the other you can not maintain any contingecy what-so-ever.

Everyone takes their own position on moral right and wrong; I have observed this and I objectively say that 'it as all subjective'.

Duality is a tricky thing I know.

Everyone takes their own position on moral right and wrong; I have observed this and I objectively say that 'it as all subjective'.
Read the first quote in my signature. After you're done with that, I'll think about letting that enormous boot out of your mouth. To say nothing about the remainder of this post [which I assume DC will answer], this is a monstrous contradiction in every conceivable sense of the word.

Read the first quote in my signature. After you're done with that, I'll think about letting that enormous boot out of your mouth. To say nothing about the remainder of this post [which I assume DC will answer], this is a monstrous contradiction in every conceivable sense of the word.

:D

I have made the physical observation that everyone seems to construct their own definition of moral right and wrong. I objectively say that how one creates their own definitions is subjectively.

That is not an internally justified nor subjective statement.

Also consider that right and wrong changes with the situation, the situation changes with the people involved.

Greetings one and all.
Is there an absolute good and evil? More importantly, is there an absolute? The question of subjectivity and absolute nature is one that has been debated for eons. Now then, onto the topic at hand. Is murder always wrong? Absolutely not, in times it is completely needed. Is rape always a crime? In some hypothetical situation it could also be considered a necessity of highest importance. An act is not inherently evil nor good, rather, the intent behind the action is what denotes it's morality. If someone commits an act knowing it to be evil, then the act is evil for them. Likewise, if someone commits an act to be good, then it is good for them. The question is who's subjective judgement overrules. I would state that truly no person's judgement is above anothers. To truly deem an act moral or immoral is impossible due to our subjective nature. However, you can say an act is moral in light of a common goal, which is how our current system works.
So is there absolute morality? Perhaps, actually there probably is. Will we ever be able to understand it? Not until we shed our subjective ideas and become truly objective creatures, which may never come.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

You know, moral subjectivism disproves itself. If moral subjectivism is correct, then that would mean that my point of view is correct simply becasue I believe it is. Because I believe the there are objective moral truths, and that moral subjectiveness says that I'm right for believing that, then the moral subjectivism itself PROVES that there are objective moral truths.

:D

I have made the physical observation that everyone seems to construct their own definition of moral right and wrong. I objectively say that how one creates their own definitions is subjectively.

That is not an internally justified nor subjective statement.

Also consider that right and wrong changes with the situation, the situation changes with the people involved.
But you still haven't demonstrated why anyone should trust their own perceptions about reality in spite of all this. I agree that right and wrong are dependent on the situation, but that doesn't mean the values that lead to those decisions need to change.

Of course people form their observations via their own means, and often come to completely different conclusions about the same data or occurance. This merely proves that we are capable of independent thought, and it does nothing to answer to the greater moral question underlying these observations and conclusions.

Like DC has already said here several times, this is tantamount to the belief that 'everyone is right,' which is completely impossible. If everyone is right, for example, then why do any of us waste our time reading or typing these very messages? If everyone is right, why doesn't this eludicated moral principle tell you to just smile and nod whenever other people say or do things? What compunction for justice can even exist with an "everyone is right" attitude?

You know, moral subjectivism disproves itself. If moral subjectivism is correct, then that would mean that my point of view is correct simply becasue I believe it is. Because I believe the there are objective moral truths, and that moral subjectiveness says that I'm right for believing that, then the moral subjectivism itself PROVES that there are objective moral truths.
No moral subjectivism does not mean your OPINION on the existance of moral objectivism is right

You are geting opinions and morals confused

You know, moral subjectivism disproves itself. If moral subjectivism is correct, then that would mean that my point of view is correct simply becasue I believe it is. Because I believe the there are objective moral truths, and that moral subjectiveness says that I'm right for believing that, then the moral subjectivism itself PROVES that there are objective moral truths.

#f3465y8ht 697 wq8e qr534 5y3 r84w5 w3h53nd3 2qw d9443d5.

I think the set-up of this debate is wrong. I don't believe you can equate the terms good/bad, moral/immoral, ethical/unethical. In certain functional, *objective* ways they are not the same.

For instance, murdering Hitler. Morals say murder is bad because it destroys something that can never be replaced against the will of the person who owns that thing (i.e., Hitler's life). However, Hitler is morally bad -- a mass murderer in his own right who has done tremendous harm to others and doesn't intend to stop. His bad outweighs his murderer's bad (by volume, not necessarily by morals). Murdering him is a good for society and, therefore, the right thing to do. However, I submit that this does not change the nature of the act of murdering him, which following its own definition, remains a bad thing to do.

So is murdering Hitler good or bad, moral or immoral? I say it depends not on the morals of society but on the ethics of the individual. My ethics say that murder is wrong, but they also say that to do nothing nothing to help others if I have the chance and the ability is also wrong. Therefore I would probably take a shot at Hitler. But I would not try to kid myself that I had not done a bad thing. It might be the right thing under the circumstances but a bad thing in general. I would have to go through my life conscious of having committed murder.

Conversely, if a person's ethics dictate that they can never take a human life, then that person would probably not take the shot at Hitler and leave him to continue his reign of terror. But is it wrong to choose not to be a murderer?

I've seen morals defined as sets of rules that establish societal ideas of right and wrong. They are subjective, changeable, arrived at by generations of committees, and often nonsensical (such as dietary and clothing restrictions, etc.).

I've seen ethics defined as a code of rules/conduct devised by individuals to express their own ideas of right and wrong and guide their future decisions. It is possible even for immoral people to be ethical -- such as a thief (immoral) who espouses non-violence (ethical).

By these definitions, I prefer ethics to morals.

Or, as Disraeli so aptly put it, "Where men have good manners, laws are unnecessary. Where men have bad manners, laws are broken."

Sorry about that. My fingers weren't on home row, and I wasn't watching what I was typing. What I meant was: "Everything you said after the first sentence was correct."

If two people come into conflict only one can be right because otherwise they would be locked in conflict forever. Therefore, If we are to resolve human conflict in any meaningful or convienient way, absolute morals must exist.

This is an argument for the necessity of a system of laws, not an argument for the existence of absolute morals.

I can't help noticing that moral subjectivism seems to allow everyone to disavow any responsibility for the results of their actions -- you know, because they thought it was a good idea at the time.

Convenient.

This is an argument for the necessity of a system of laws, not an argument for the existence of absolute morals.
And what should laws be based upon?

This is an argument for the necessity of a system of laws, not an argument for the existence of absolute morals.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9624925&postcount=133

This discussion is ultimately pointless because it tends to lead people to conduct their arguments based on compositional fallacies, i.e. murder is wrong, murder is killing another person, therefore killing another person is wrong. Murder may be one of the ways to kill another person, but not all the ways to kill people are considered murder.

Moral absolutes exist in theory. In practice, no.

I can't help noticing that moral subjectivism seems to allow everyone to disavow any responsibility for the results of their actions -- you know, because they thought it was a good idea at the time.

Convenient.
How so? Just because they find it moraly right does not mean it is correct to act in such a mannor in society

How so? Just because they find it moraly right does not mean it is correct to act in such a mannor in society
That's what I meant. I was being sarcastic.

How so? Just because they find it moraly right does not mean it is correct to act in such a mannor in society
I'm going to have to raise a red flag here. If something is morally right, then there is no reason why it should have a detrimental effect when applied to a person or society as a whole. To put it simply, right works, and wrong either defeats itself, corrupts the right, or both.

If something is morally right there is no reason why one should be compelled or forced to act otherwise.

But you still haven't demonstrated why anyone should trust their own perceptions about reality in spite of all this.

Because that is the basis for all supposition. You can not be subjective at all without being objective.

This is the key.

Perhaps, actually there probably is. Will we ever be able to understand it? Not until we shed our subjective ideas and become truly objective creatures, which may never come.
- Rachel Stremp
Head of Philosophy, Tyslan

Brilliant!

I was meditating recently and figured this out.

I was thinking about the table near where I was sat. I supposed that subjectively I defined a table, and objectively I saw 1 of them.
I then supposed that if I could mentally relax my mind so that I didn't define a table at all, as in I made no mental cognition of it, I would not only not have any conception of the table as a definable object; but as it is no longer a definable object that it can no longer be assigned the objective designation of existing as a 1 or whole of anything in and of itself. It became a part of everything and everything became part of nothing.

If you say this 1 situation is 'wrong', when does the situation start? and where does it end? How do you define a changing situation where multiple positions of 'good' and 'bad' blend into one another? Do you wait to see how a situation ends to define it? Is it defined before any change occurs? Maybe what is defined as 'bad' is only necessary to bring about a situation that can be definable as 'good'.

Definition is about segregation not unification. Absolutes need unification to occur.

Like DC has already said here several times, this is tantamount to the belief that 'everyone is right,' which is completely impossible. If everyone is right, for example, then why do any of us waste our time reading or typing these very messages? If everyone is right, why doesn't this eludicated moral principle tell you to just smile and nod whenever other people say or do things? What compunction for justice can even exist with an "everyone is right" attitude?

And Like I have said, I'm not saying "everyone is right" at all.
The reason why everyone types their messages is because they believe in absolute moral truth. Essentially their own.

What's funny is, as long as everyone doesn't agree, there is no absolute.

And what should laws be based upon?

The will of the people as expressed through voting and representatives.

And Like I have said, I not saying "everyone is right" at all.
Then what are you saying? If not everyone is right, then some people must be wrong, don't they? That requires a defining line, i.e. an absolute.

The reason why everyone types their messages is because they believe in absolute moral truth. Essentially their own.
The forest for the trees...

What's funny is, as long as everyone doesn't agree, there is no absolute.
Nonsense. For centuries scientists were in constant disagreement about the nature and relative position of stars, and for a time giant rocks falling out of the sky was thought to be an impossibility until an entire science was creatd to deal with the study of meteorites.

This logic is exasperating at best. People are just as capable at disagreeing over facts as they are capable of disagreeing over opinions. To use a crude example, if my pants are blue, do 20 [or any other number of] people who think they're not blue actually make my pants red or purple or whatver other color they want? In a moral context, does this mean that 20 [or any other number of] people who think me opening a business is wrong actually make it wrong?

Do I have to just live with it if they happen to have guns?

The will of the people as expressed through voting and representatives.
And that premise is a.....?

I would like to put my bit in here, though I did not have time to read the entire thread.

From a Christian standpoint, there is no "absolute morality". There are some things that are considered "evil", but not everything is placed in categories of "good" and "bad". For example, the early Church feuded over whether it was sinful to eat meat sacrificed to false gods. They asked Paul about it, some saying "It's just meat!" and others saying "We cannot support the false gods by eating this defiled meat!" So, Paul told them it was not about the meat:

1 Corinthians, Chapter 8

8 Food will not commend us to God. We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. 9 Only take care lest this liberty of yours somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. 10 For if any one sees you, a man of knowledge, at table in an idol's temple, might he not be encouraged, if his conscience is weak, to eat food offered to idols? 11 And so by your knowledge this weak man is destroyed, the brother for whom Christ died. 12 Thus, sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. 13 Therefore, if food is a cause of my brother's falling, I will never eat meat, lest I cause my brother to fall.

Basically, he says go ahead, eat the meat. It's food, there's nothing wrong with it because you, as Christians, know it cannot be defiled by a false god that doesn't exist. However, if someone who does not understand this sees you doing this, he might think it's ok to worship idols through eating the meat sacrificed to them, commiting a sin against God by assuming there is power in the idol. By causing him to fall, you would be sinning, for it is said in the gospels that it would be better to have a millstone hung round your neck and to be cast into the sea than to cause another to sin.

In short, everything is permissable, not everything is constructive. You can do what you want, but if you cause another to fall, you have sinned. Also, if you feel a conviction not to do something but do it anyway, you have sinned, "...for that which is not faith is sin" (Romans 14:23).

As an example for this, take the life of John the Baptist. Though drinking alcohol is not sinful, as long as you don't get drunk, which is listed as a sin, his mother Elizabeth was told not to drink any alcohol while pregnant by God. Had she done so, it would have been a sin, because she knew she wasn't supposed to.

Well, I hope I explained my points well enough. I'm always open to anyone who wants to leave me a message with a question, especially if I confused anyone.

Since my first argument was mostly ignored:

I've noticed some people consider rape "ok" at times: one of them being if the fate of our race depends on it, to which I reply:

If a race such as ours is only maintianalbe thrugh rapists, it does not deserve to exist. If it comes to that point, It would not be justifiable to have the re-founders of a race being rapists. Imagine what the outcome would be.

ARGHHH! Another thing, morality can be viewed from not only the intent, but also the outcome. We can judge the morality of an action from intent, means, and ends.

And I'd like to post Nietzsche's view, although it is not mine it could help:

There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.

Which seems to be what others are saying, but in perhaps better wording.

And we seem to forget justice now and then, punishment goes along with morality, giving to people what they deserve.

EDIT: Although I still insist that this necessary assumption serves as pretty damning evidence that objective morality does in fact exist.

Why wouldn't the fact that we must assume that objective morality exists be damning evidence that it doesn't exist?

I don't particularly want to argue against the existence of an objective morality, only that the determination of this objective morality and its application is probably impossible to accomplish.

And that premise is a.....?

Are you wanting me to say "a moral", because it obviously is that. But I don't think that it is an objective moral.

Are you wanting me to say "a moral", because it obviously is that. But I don't think that it is an objective moral.
You don't think self-rule is an objective moral?

Regardless, justice as a concept cannot exist without an objective moral judgement. This means that DC's original statement was both "An argument for the necessity of a system of laws" and "an argument for the existence of absolute [i.e. objective] morals," since once conept clearly relies upon the other.

Melkor Unchained, I do wish to continue this debate, but it's rather late here and I'm up in the moring for a lecture.

I will adress your analogy about your pants tomorrow once I return home. Though I will add that what I meant by saying 'everyone isn't right' isn't to say that some people are 'wrong' in juxtaposition. Simply that an opinion is undefinable as either and those designations carry no qualitive meaning when attached to such arguements.

I will respond tomorrow.

Melkor Unchained, I do wish to continue this debate, but it's rather late here and I'm up in the moring for a lecture.

I will adress your analogy about your pants tomorrow once I return home. Though I will add that what I meant by saying 'everyone isn't right' isn't to say that some people are 'wrong' in juxtaposition. Simply that an opinion is undefinable as either and those designations carry no qualitive meaning when attached to such arguements.

I will respond tomorrow.
I'm leaving for a week long vacation tomorrow morning, and I anticipate that by the time I get around to checking, this thread will either be much larger, losing the present context of our debate, or behind 5 pages of other stuff.

But still, feel free to go ahead if you'd like. This ought to be good.

You don't think self-rule is an objective moral?

I cannot positively say that self-rule can be applied with universal morality. Many societies would be free to carry out atrocities if given complete self-rule, while many societies would recoil from the idea of self-rule.

Regardless, justice as a concept cannot exist without an objective moral judgement. This means that DC's original statement was both "An argument for the necessity of a system of laws" and "an argument for the existence of absolute [i.e. objective] morals," since once conept clearly relies upon the other.

Name one system of laws that has ever been objectively derived.

Objective morals would not be changeable, yet any system of laws that is not changeable would be oppressive.

And I'd like to post Nietzsche's view, although it is not mine it could help:

There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena.

Which seems to be what others are saying, but in perhaps better wording.


Nietzsche seems to have expressed it better than I could have. Thank you for posting this.

Perhaps it is not that morals themselves that are objective, but instead from whence morals derive that is objective.

I cannot positively say that self-rule can be applied with universal morality. Many societies would be free to carry out atrocities if given complete self-rule, while many societies would recoil from the idea of self-rule.
Good. That's why I prefer Republics. I meant to apply 'self rule' in a broader sense anyway; like how we should act day-to-day.

Name one system of laws that has ever been objectively derived.
Unfortunately, we've come close a couple of times but haven't really pulled it off [at least, not consistently] just yet. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

Objective morals would not be changeable, yet any system of laws that is not changeable would be oppressive.
:headbang:

The very formulation of objective morals requires an examination of the appropriate context to begin with. This means that every infraction would be viewed objectively i.e. against the backdrop of the pertinent facts surrounding the moral infraction. This defeats any sort of 'oppression' by allowing for each conflict to be judged on its own merits.

It's a common mistake to equate other [slightly different] forms of moral objectivism [like mine] with the ten commandments-eque mentality, which couldn't be farther from the truth.

Rape, murder, genocide and other things will always be wrong in my eyes not matter how you attempt to justify them.

There are certain situations where killing and other awful things may be justified however in my opinion there is a distinct difference between killing and murder.

e.g. Hitler was killed while the Jews were murdered

Uh, Hitler committed suicide.

Unfortunately, we've come close a couple of times but haven't really pulled it off [at least, not consistently] just yet. That doesn't mean it can't be done.

I am not sure that it can be done.

:headbang:

The very formulation of objective morals requires an examination of the appropriate context to begin with. This means that every infraction would be viewed objectively i.e. against the backdrop of the pertinent facts surrounding the moral infraction. This defeats any sort of 'oppression' by allowing for each conflict to be judged on its own merits.

1. Even if the morality accounts for all of the facts and events surrounding the action does not mean that the underlying morality is changeable. The morality you are discribing adapts, but does not change.

2. For an truly objective morality to actually be imposed, a person or group of persons must be able to remove all subjectivity all the while having infinite wisdom concerning the circumstances of the action. Neither of those requirements are going to happen.

Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.

Objective morals would not be changeable, yet any system of laws that is not changeable would be oppressive.


http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621401&postcount=20

Moral objectivism does not necessitate the repression of debate, dissent, or change. (EDIT: Indeed, debate and argument are vital tools for determining what is objective truth.)

Subjectivity and objectivity are not mutually exclusive.

I figured that moral subjectivity is the opposite of moral objectivity. They can lead to the same moral conclusion, butthey cannot be applied in unison.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621401&postcount=20

Moral objectivism does not necessitate the repression of debate, dissent, or change. (EDIT: Indeed, debate and argument are vital tools for determining what is objective truth.)

Once an objective moral is reached there is no need for further change. So for this objective moral to be imposed, debate and dissent, if allowed, will be fruitless in changing policy or law.

Once an objective moral is reached there is no need for further change. So for this objective moral to be imposed, debate and dissent, if allowed, will be fruitless in changing policy or law.

Am I being oppressed when I fail to convince anyone that 2+2=5?

Am I being oppressed when I fail to convince anyone that 2+2=5?

Point taken.

Yes, of course to think relativism is true is to say is that if someone kills your entire family it's totatlly justified because relativism would say whatever floats your boat is okay even though murdering someones family is clearly wrong. Also relativism breaks down to something being entirely blue and red at the exact same time. Something clearly impossible!!! The relativist would say that there is no truth. I would ask is that true? So hopefully I have briefly shown that relativism is clearly an absurd position and should be avoided like the plague!!!!!!!! If you don't understand this arguement you are illogical and should avoid intelligent people. To put it as kindly as possible.

Yes, of course to think relativism is true is to say is that if someone kills your entire family it's totatlly justified because relativism would say whatever floats your boat is okay even though murdering someones family is clearly wrong.


This is a straw-man fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw-man#Rhetorical_use

I am not sure that it can be done.
Why not?

1. Even if the morality accounts for all of the facts and events surrounding the action does not mean that the underlying morality is changeable. The morality you are discribing adapts, but does not change.
"Adapt" and "change" are synonyms. You just contradicted yourself.

2. For an truly objective morality to actually be imposed, a person or group of persons must be able to remove all subjectivity all the while having infinite wisdom concerning the circumstances of the action. Neither of those requirements are going to happen.
So judgement is impossible, then? Nonsense. When I moderate this site, or when a judge makes a call on a bench, we're expected to reach a conclusion based on objective reasoning, giving facts prevalance over emotions or superstitions. Interestingly, when one attempts to apply this line of thinking towards morality [which, ironically, is a conpcet upon which judgement relies in the first place], we end up with threads like these damning 'moral absolutes' from ten thousand different [but equally worthless] angles.

Thus, just as disagreement or varying opinion as described above does not disprove the existance of non-moral objective fact, disagreement or varying opinion over moral values does not disprove the existance of objective moral fact. Sure, we can (and should) argue to great length over the nature of moral truth. This argument, however, does not indicate or prove that objective moral truth does not exist.

Hmm....

We can't prove or disprove objective morality through discussion.

Just like we can't prove or disprove the existence of a god through discussion.

And so, I wonder if you are an atheist or not. Do we just take objective morality on faith? Is that the most reasonable position?

Anyway, I'm not quite sure that your position is intellectually honest. You are giving objective morality an unsealable out; even if we "defeat" it, it can still be out there. Oh that's a fine, conservative, position to take but it doesn't get us anywhere does it?

Besides, aren't you presupposing that morality is it's own entity, like a car or a bird or a person? What if morality is purely a social construct?

I hope I didn't repeat anything already argued, I will have to take a deeper look at this thread tomorrow.

Hmm....

We can't prove or disprove objective morality through discussion.

Actually, we can. In fact, this isn't the first time its been done either.

"It is important to know that the process [logic] must be grounded in observed fact. To derive a conclusion from arbitrary premises, which represent subjective whims, is not a process of logic. If I declare: "Apples are razors and oranges are blades, therefore one can shave with fruit salad," this is not a process of cognition at all; it is merely an imitation of the form of logic while dropping its essence. If logic is to be the means of objectivity, a logical conclusion must be derived from reality; it must be warranted by antecedent knowledge, which itselfmay rest on earlier knowledge, and so on back, until one reaches the self-evident, the data of sense. This kind of chain and nothing less is what Objectivism requires as "proof" of an idea.

"Proof" is the process of establishing the truth by reducing a proposition of axioms, i.e., ultimately, to sensory evidence. Such reduction is the only means man has of discovering the relationship between nonaxiomatic propositions and the facts of reality.

Many people regard logic not as a cognitive function, but as a social one; they regard it as a means of forcing other men to accept their arbitray ideas. For oneself, according to this viewpoint, a farrago of unproved assertions would be satisfactory; logic, however, is necesary of polemics; it is necessaryas a means of trapping opponents in internal inconsistencies and thereby battering down one's enemy.

Objectivism rejects this approach. Proof is not a social ritual, nor is it an otherworldly pursuit, a means of constructing rationalistic castles in the air. It is a personal, practical, selfish necessity of earthly cognition. Just as a man would need concepts (including language) on a desert island, so he would need logic there too. Otherwise, by the nature of human consciousness, he would be directionless and cognitively helpless..

If man knew everything about reality in a single insight, logic would be needless. If man reached conceptual truth as he does perceptual fact, in a succession of unconnected self-evidences, logic woul dbe needless. This, however, is not the nature of a conceptual being. We organize sense data in steps and in a definate order, building new integrations on earlier ones. It is for this reason that a method of moving from one step to the next is required. That is what logic provides.

The method of logic, therefore, does reflect the nature and needs of man's consioucness. It also reflects the other factor essential to a proper method: the facts of external reality. The principle which logic provides to guide man's mental steps is the fundamental law of reality.

This brings us to two large topics. One is necessary to clarify the idea of noncontradictory knowledge; the other, to clarify the concept of "proof." Both topics are indispensable if we are to grasp fully the nature of logic and thus of objectivity.

These two topics are context and hierarchy."

--Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 119-121, "Objectivity"

In short: in order to prove something, one needs only to boil down the pertinent concepts to a sensory level. Since morality is basically the study of how we choose to interact with reality [and society], it is perfectly possible to 'distill,' if you will, the moral essence behind various actions down to their sensory level.

God, as a concept, is entirely different because the belief in his existence contends that certain of the elements contributing to his existence are supposedly beyond the cognitive faculties of man.

Morality, on the other hand [[i]real morality], is not.

It has been asked whether killing Hitler would've been right or wrong.

As stated earlier, specific acts are not morals. It wasn't discussed though whether the MOTIVATION for given acts is following or rejecting a defined principle.

For historical reference, Hitler was poisoned by himself, not killed.

Killing someone in itself does not dispute a moral unless the concept of eliminating another conscious sentinent being is addressed. The simplest applicable arguments here for moral and immoral vindications are as follows:

It never right to eliminate a conscious sentinent being although it may be stress-relieving to commit a vengeful act and/or prevent a destructive force from remaing an active one in a society/system.

A society/system has every right to review and repair itself in any circumstances and it should follow its natural techniques in order to provide the best efficiency and effectiveness for its future.

Both of these arguments are recognized to have disputable elements, but for now, retain a common-sensical perception and accept the given statements.

Both of the given arguments represent MORALS that are likewise applicable to the situation. Because of this, any active or passive action would be conflicting with at least one part of either argument. Hence, the given assassination would've been both moral and immoral. For example, a pacifist who was against the whole war effort could suggest that Hitler be captured and re-educated following a world court trial. Such a solution though may conflict with the first argument since it suggests eliminating Hitler through purging his thought process and what could be considered (on the most radical scales) as cultural imperialism. The act also conflicts with the second argument because it is not the most efficient and effective use of resources for our future as there is an extreme possibility that Hitler's thoughts may not be swayed in the intended way for a sufficient amount of time.

Morals are not things that define correctness. They only define how an action will have results on a society/system. In this example, loyal German citizens in WW2 would view betraying and assassinating Hitler as an incorrect (and possibly immoral act since PERCEPTIONS matter and not the morals themselves) action. Correctness here is disputable because we are not talking about a case with one and only one answer (and motivation).

'Case your wondering about my opinion, [Hitler] :sniper: would've been a good solution.

Please view the following for clarification (about halfway down the page):
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=443470&page=7&pp=15

No. (Don't even bother teasing out the irony there...) :rolleyes:

Now that's an interesting idea - there are "absolutes" but they have nothing to do with "morality" but are rather hardwired into our genetic nature as a method of ensuring the preservation of the species. I need to cogitate on that premise.

IIRC experiments concerning this have been done on apes - involving giving rewards of different value to different apes while all deserved the same. After a while the apes started to refuse the lesser rewards, even though they would then get nothing.
However, this is from memory.

And for contemplation the following exchange between Death (who speaks in capital letters) and his "granddaughter":


'All right,' said Susan. 'I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable.'

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

'Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little - '

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

'So we can believe the big ones?'

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

'They're not the same at all!'

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET - Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

'Yes, but people have got to believe that,or what's the point - '

MY POINT EXACTLY.

She tried to assemble her thoughts.

THERE IS A PLACE WHERE TWO GALAXIES HAVE BEEN COLLIDING FOR A MILLION YEARS, said Death, apropos of nothing, DON'T TRY TO TELL ME THAT'S RIGHT.

'Yes, but people don't think about that,' said Susan. Somewhere there was a bed...

CORRECT. STARS EXPLODE, WORLDS COLLIDE, THERE'S HARDLY ANYWHERE IN THE UNIVERSE WHERE HUMANS CAN LIVE WITHOUT BEING FROZEN OR FRIED, AND YET YOU BELIEVE THAT A... A BED IS A NORMAL THING. IT IS THE MOST AMAZING TALENT.

'Talent?'

OH, YES. A VERY SPECIAL KIND OF STUPIDITY. YOU THINK THE WHOLE UNIVERSE IS INSIDE YOUR HEADS.

'You make us sound mad,' said Susan. A nice warm bed...

NO. YOU NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?

Terry Pratchett, 1996, Hogfather

Ream,
Justify child molsetation.


please - define child.

now define molestation.

Within those parameters you just supplied it is quite possible that it is morally wrong, but there are other places where the definitions supplied are different, and they dont see what just happened to that 12 yo as wrong as they were not a child in their eyes...

You miss the point. The fact that you use the words "rape" and "murder" implies a belief that these things are wrong, absolutely. The only point of difference is the definition of those words.

Rape is defined as forcing sex on someone without their consent.
Murder is taking someone's life for personal gain without their consent.

Both wrong, no matter how you slice it.


is it justifiable to kill someone without their consent, if doing so is guarenteed to save the lives of 1000 other people?

In a society where women have no rights other than as property of their husbands is rape immoral? if so why?

Objective and universal ethics exist. The difference between rape and sex, murder and assisted suicide, and theft and a loan is consent. Consent makes all the difference.

The killing of an innocent person who hasn't given his or her consent to die is always objectively wrong. Just because killing is permitted in certain circumstances--for example, self-defense--doesn't mean there aren't specific kinds of killing that are always wrong. The violation of an individual's life or liberty without provocation or consent is always, always, always unethical. Unless an individual has initiated force on you, there's no right to infringe upon his liberty without consent.


ok - define innocent... innocent of what??

Good and evil (thus morality) are socially defined. There are no absolutes. Rape in some cultures is fine. Murder can be ok. Cannibalism can be ok. And so on.

Rape, murder, genocide and other things will always be wrong in my eyes not matter how you attempt to justify them.

There are certain situations where killing and other awful things may be justified however in my opinion there is a distinct difference between killing and murder.

e.g. Hitler was killed while the Jews were murdered


was it ok to commit genocide on Variola vera ?
or attempted genocide of Glossina longipalpis ?

or for a human variety - extremists who beleive the USA should be destroyed, is it ok to commit genocide on their way of life/belief structure?

[QUOTE=Dissonant Cognition]
Reason is the tool by which we "see" morals.


Who gets to decide what 'reason' is? Again, you're asssuming that everyone sees everything the same way and that assumption is not correct.

It has been asked whether killing Hitler would've been right or wrong.

As stated earlier, specific acts are not morals. It wasn't discussed though whether the MOTIVATION for given acts is following or rejecting a defined principle.

For historical reference, Hitler was poisoned by himself, not killed.

Killing someone in itself does not dispute a moral unless the concept of eliminating another conscious sentinent being is addressed. The simplest applicable arguments here for moral and immoral vindications are as follows:

It never right to eliminate a conscious sentinent being although it may be stress-relieving to commit a vengeful act and/or prevent a destructive force from remaing an active one in a society/system.

A society/system has every right to review and repair itself in any circumstances and it should follow its natural techniques in order to provide the best efficiency and effectiveness for its future.

Both of these arguments are recognized to have disputable elements, but for now, retain a common-sensical perception and accept the given statements.

Both of the given arguments represent MORALS that are likewise applicable to the situation. Because of this, any active or passive action would be conflicting with at least one part of either argument. Hence, the given assassination would've been both moral and immoral. For example, a pacifist who was against the whole war effort could suggest that Hitler be captured and re-educated following a world court trial. Such a solution though may conflict with the first argument since it suggests eliminating Hitler through purging his thought process and what could be considered (on the most radical scales) as cultural imperialism. The act also conflicts with the second argument because it is not the most efficient and effective use of resources for our future as there is an extreme possibility that Hitler's thoughts may not be swayed in the intended way for a sufficient amount of time.

Morals are not things that define correctness. They only define how an action will have results on a society/system. In this example, loyal German citizens in WW2 would view betraying and assassinating Hitler as an incorrect (and possibly immoral act since PERCEPTIONS matter and not the morals themselves) action. Correctness here is disputable because we are not talking about a case with one and only one answer (and motivation).

You're essentially repeating my point (and comparing the two posts, it seems there is no more succinct way to say this <sigh>).

Yes, we all know Hitler committed suicide, but I was thinking of the very famous failed attempt to assassinate him at -- was it Wansee?

The officers who attempted to kill Hitler all thought of themselves as loyal *Germans*. They saw Hitler as a traitor to the *principles* they believed defined Germany and (perhaps more to the point) civilization. They believed they were doing the right thing. Germans who supported the Nazi government saw the assassins as the traitors who deserved the punishments they got. Who was right?

Obviously, under the legal and moral social code of Nazi Germany, the assassins were wrong. But under the legal and moral social code of the Allied Forces, the assassins were right, and today that is the general opinion of the world. This just points up the fact that history is written by the victors. So to argue moral or ethical absolutes in terms of history or law is pointless because, as I said earlier, social morals are situational, changeable, and the product of group-think.

Ethics, on the other hand, are entirely owned by the individual. Philosophers compile codes of ethics that are taught to others, but I know of no instance in which an individual *successfully* lived by a code of ethics he or she did not sincerely believe in. By *successfully* I mean that they did not fall into hypocrisy by trying to force themselves into behaviours they privately considered false.

So an ethical person may be defined as one who lives according to rules he or she fully believes in, by which he/she defines right and wrong, and from which he/she never waivers, regardless of the morals of the surrounding society. Thus, if my ethics dictate vegetarianism, it does not matter if I live in a cannibal society. I will not eat meat. And if I will be punished for it, so be it. I will not compromise my ethics because they are mine and mean more to me than the moral expectations of society.

Some people will consider such people to be dangerously antisocial and self-centered, but I say that doesn't follow at all.

Both ethics and morals are about our relationships and interactions with others. Therefore, no moral and/or ethical person can be considered entirely self-centered or antisocial.

Is moral absolutes and the fact that morals are dependant on the situation contradictory? I don't think so. First morals deffinately deppend on the situation: A womman walks in, drugs a man, and begins to cut him open. Is this situation moral or immoral? Clearly it is moral is the woman is a doctor and performing surgery on the man, clearly it is immoral if the woman is a psychopath who wants to harvest organs or the like. However, once the whole situtation is considered many things become clearly right or wrong (like the above situtation) An example with math: 2+2 = 4, (base 10) right? but 2+2 = 11 (base 3) or 2+2 = 10 (base 4) All of those are different but aboslute answers, all I changed was the situation.

"Adapt" and "change" are synonyms. You just contradicted yourself.

Not really, an adapting moral viewpoint, when given different circumstances, will change its conclusion but will always arrive at the same conclusion whenever the circumstances are the same. A changing moral viewpoint, when given the same circumstances, can arrive at different conclusions.

However, I guess that if an objective moral is reached, then there is no reason to change as all people are treated fairly.

So judgement is impossible, then? Nonsense. When I moderate this site, or when a judge makes a call on a bench, we're expected to reach a conclusion based on objective reasoning, giving facts prevalance over emotions or superstitions. Interestingly, when one attempts to apply this line of thinking towards morality [which, ironically, is a conpcet upon which judgement relies in the first place], we end up with threads like these damning 'moral absolutes' from ten thousand different [but equally worthless] angles.

It is impossible for anyone to know all circumstances and to remove all subjective morality from his or her rationality.

The poll itself contains a flaw.Yes,moral absolutes exist,but each and every person holding a moral absolute must decide for him or herself what exactly this absolute is or if he still chooses to hold it.Moral absolutes exist,but the only apply on a personal basis.

I'm leaving for a week long vacation tomorrow morning, and I anticipate that by the time I get around to checking, this thread will either be much larger, losing the present context of our debate, or behind 5 pages of other stuff.

But still, feel free to go ahead if you'd like. This ought to be good.

That's unfortunate, but I will respond in kind anyway......... also, I will decide if it's 'good' or not... :D


Then what are you saying? If not everyone is right, then some people must be wrong, don't they? That requires a defining line, i.e. an absolute.

No. I didn't say some people were correct or speaking the truth at all. So in result I created nobody that should be 'wrong' either.
One truth about morals does not lie in what can be claimed by the moral itself, but simply that if you create a defining line then someone/something (as an act) will always be on the other side. But that doesn't mean that what is supposed is the truth, only that there are truths in how you can construct your moral judgements and the conclusions that come from such assertions. But if the supposition was unfounded, then so is the conclusion even if it is internally consistent to the first supposition.

Externally it transcend onto that which is totally random and can have any designation attached to it you want. Crazy people do this at constant intervals.
But your own pants analogy shows the holes in what your saying.


Nonsense. For centuries scientists were in constant disagreement about the nature and relative position of stars, and for a time giant rocks falling out of the sky was thought to be an impossibility until an entire science was creatd to deal with the study of meteorites.

I'll just address this.
Disagreement about soemthing that had actual existence in reality before being objectively acknowledged. The positions that some astronomers claimed the stars and planets took was based on subjective reasoning, such as the belief that God would make the Earth the centre of the solar system or even the cosmos itself. Other people such as Copernicus used objective reasoning to find the true position of the stars and planets. Because of this he then could judge the relative movements of each body. But they were always on those tracks of movement and had the same relative movements that could be acknowledged if observed properly.

But morals do not have any basis in reality other than how you apply them. Like the laws of physics are not as apparent should everything in existence just simply stop moving.
You can judge what some else's morals are from their behaviour, but you must be objective and being moralistic (subjective) about their morals will not bring you to any further awareness to what morals that other person has. Simply, all you will do is create your own morals and then instaneously designate them as being on the opposite side or same side (depending on your judgement and how that person correlates to your own moral judgement) of your defining line.

Morals create sides and defining lines. That is a truth about morals which is absolute. But you will never assertain any supposition that can be internally supported or refuted by a subjective comment. Any belief can be held, doesn't make them ontologically correct or socially compatable.

This logic is exasperating at best. People are just as capable at disagreeing over facts as they are capable of disagreeing over opinions. To use a crude example, if my pants are blue, do 20 [or any other number of] people who think they're not blue actually make my pants red or purple or whatver other color they want? In a moral context, does this mean that 20 [or any other number of] people who think me opening a business is wrong actually make it wrong?

Do I have to just live with it if they happen to have guns?

Well, the colour of the pants, as in the composition of the substance that creates the the phenomena of colour will not change..... well not unless you do something to it.

However, if I use the letters 'blue' and designated noise that acompanies those collection of letters, then in time should all people agree that 'that' is an adequate designation, then that colour will be 'blue'.
But what if there were some colour designation fascists? WHat if they wanted to change and swap about all the designation to colours? What if they swapped 'red' and 'blue' about? Would the actual colours people see change? No.

How about this for an example. Lets say there are only three colours in the spectrum - a)black, b)grey and c)white.
Now I see colour 'a' as black, 'b' as grey, and then 'c' white as, just as displayed. Now lets suppose you see 'a' as white, 'b' as grey, and 'c' as black.

Wouldn't this cause a lot of confusion and arguement over designation?........ Nope none what-so-ever.
We are only born with a predisposition for seeing those colours as those colours, but we have no innate knowledge of their designations. So we would always see the opposite colours as each other, but in reference always use the same designation to refer to one colour or the other.
For instance if we just used 'colour 1', 'colour 2' and 'colour 3' as their names. If I said look at 'colour 1' then you would, and I would, but we would see the opposite colours.

We would still be able to speak of truths about these colours though, such as we could make the assertion that 'colour 2' is merely a mixture of the other colours. But supposing that we had an innate emotional reaction to each colour we saw which was a mutual experience, then that would cause arguements.
What if me seeing white made me 'happy' and seeing black made me 'sad'. Then lets suppose it was the same for you; we would start to disagree about which 'colour 1-3' was the most uplifting even though in reality having the exact same response, just in our own relative position to how we experience reality.

Again, you're asssuming that everyone sees everything the same way and that assumption is not correct.

I have assumed no such thing, and have already explained why moral objectivism does not necessitate said assumption.

I have assumed no such thing, and have already explained why moral objectivism does not necessitate said assumption.

You have assumed it. Whether or not you realize that assumption is something you'll have to deal with on your own. You said reason helps us see morals. Who's reason choses those morals? Your reason? My reason? Not everyone reasons the same just like not everyone sees the same acts as moral or immoral.

I'll just address this.
Disagreement about soemthing that had actual existence in reality before being objectively acknowledged. The positions that some astronomers claimed the stars and planets took was based on subjective reasoning, such as the belief that God would make the Earth the centre of the solar system or even the cosmos itself. Other people such as Copernicus used objective reasoning to find the true position of the stars and planets. Because of this he then could judge the relative movements of each body. But they were always on those tracks of movement and had the same relative movements that could be acknowledged if observed properly.

But morals do not have any basis in reality other than how you apply them. Like the laws of physics are not as apparent should everything in existence just simply stop moving.

Really? I find that odd because physicists use concepts that "do not have any basis in reality other than how you apply them" all the time. For example, you couldn't make sense of Keppler's laws of planetary motion without a "center of gravity", yet you'd be hard-pressed to find a physical center of gravity if you were to disect a planet or a star. Same with the "center of mass" in engineering, or "gene" in genetics, as there has never been a precise linking in the definition of gene to X number of base pairs in the chromosome. Yet we not only talk about centers of gravity and genes; we base complex equations on them. So in a very real way, empirical science would have a very hard time describing empirical reality without resorting to the very same tactics you inveigh against in moral theory, and the use of those "imaginary" or "subjective" things allows for a greater understanding of the real world. So I fail to understand your objection to the notion of an external moral law.


You can judge what some else's morals are from their behaviour, but you must be objective and being moralistic (subjective) about their morals will not bring you to any further awareness to what morals that other person has. Simply, all you will do is create your own morals and then instaneously designate them as being on the opposite side or same side (depending on your judgement and how that person correlates to your own moral judgement) of your defining line.

How many self-described Catholics have you met who nevertheless use birth control? I know I've met quite a few. So behavior is not a very good standard even for the determination of what someone else's moral code is, much less what the moral law ought to be.


Morals create sides and defining lines. That is a truth about morals which is absolute. But you will never assertain any supposition that can be internally supported or refuted by a subjective comment. Any belief can be held, doesn't make them ontoligcally correct or socially compatable.

Aside from being truistic, I believe this is exactly what Melkor was trying to claim.



Well, the colour of the pants, as in the composition of the substance that creates the the phenomena of colour will not change..... well not unless you do something to it.

However, if I use the letters 'blue' and designated noise that acompanies those collection of letters, then in time should all people agree that 'that' is an adequate designation, then that colour will be 'blue'.
But what if there were some colour designation fascists? WHat if they wanted to change and swap about all the designation to colours? What if they swapped 'red' and 'blue' about? Would the actual colours people see change? No.

How about this for an example. Lets say there are only three colours in the spectrum - a)black, b)grey and c)white.
Now I see colour 'a' as black, 'b' as grey, and then 'c' white as, just as displayed. Now lets suppose you see 'a' as white, 'b' as grey, and 'c' as black.

Wouldn't this cause a lot of confusion and arguement over designation?........ Nope none what-so-ever.
We are only born with a predisposition for seeing those colours as those colours, but we have no innate knowledge of their designations. So we would always see the opposite colours as each other, but in reference always use the same designation to refer to one colour or the other.
For instance if we just used 'colour 1', 'colour 2' and 'colour 3' as their names. If I said look at 'colour 1' then you would, and I would, but we would see the opposite colours.

We would still be able to speak of truths about these colours though, such as we could make the assertion that 'colour 2' is merely a mixture of the other colours. But supposing that we had an innate emotional reaction to each colour we saw which was a mutual experience, then that would cause arguements.
What if me seeing white made me 'happy' and seeing black made me 'sad'. Then lets suppose it was the same for you; we would start to disagree about which 'colour 1-3' was the most uplifting even though in reality having the exact same response, just in our own relative position to how we experience reality.

This is a bit of a strawman. Supposing that naming conventions were purely a matter of linguistic contrivance, or more simply, that a color is whatever the hell I happen to come up with at any moment, then yes, I suppose you could say that there is a subjective component to experience. This claim alone, however, is another truism, because there is always a subjective component to experience (namely the "what its like" phenomenological component), and moreover doesn't prove a damn thing when it comes to the subjectivity or objectivity of morality.

The deeper point, however, is that we don't name colors based on whatever the hell we happen to come up with at the moment. We name them based on objective considerations: blue is always blue because blue is always designated as the series of colors that results when EM energy is emitted at a certain narrow set of frequencies. As such, it doesn't matter how subjective the experience of seeing blue is, because you and I will always ultimately agree that a certain color is blue or not because we can test whether or not it fits the definition. Same thing with morality: given that man has a rational faculty, only a fool would argue that reason does not dictate a certain moral law, and that this moral law provides a definition against which actions can be tested.

Anarchy, I think we need to agree to disagree. It seems your moral paradigm is a bit more well thought out [but precisely as worthless] as I had originally anticipated. Reading through your post casually, I am forced to admit that the vast majority of your ideas and conjectures are so completely abhorrent to me that I don't really even consider most of them to be debatable issues. It's clear to me you're still in some manner of education [college?]; so there's nothing I can really tell you that life won't get around to telling you for me sometime within the next few years.

If it's a more extensive reply you're interested in, you need only direct yourself to one of the many philosophical works which I claim as my 'canon,' so to speak: i.e., just about any of Rand's work [fiction or non], or Peikoff's. Barring that, you can examine my posting history: if memory serves I've already touched upon this issue a number of times. I'm hesitant to point to someone else's prose and claim it as some sort of axiomatic truth, but I've explained this shit dozens of times and I don't imagine you're any more willing to listen to most of it than anyone else on this site has been so far.

The existence of a moral absolute is just like the existence of any other facet of reality; just like any other benchmark, comparative statement or occurance you care to name: it's there, but you're free to ignore it because you have an independently functioning mind.

Yes, I know this sounds like a cop out of incredible proportions, given my general propensity to respond almost sentence for sentence with my moral adversaries here [and you certainly are one of them], and yes, I am quite aware of the fact that none of the above serves as true proof of my position. But, like I said last night, I'm on vacation dammit!

You have assumed it. Whether or not you realize that assumption is something you'll have to deal with on your own. You said reason helps us see morals. Who's reason choses those morals? Your reason? My reason? Not everyone reasons the same just like not everyone sees the same acts as moral or immoral.

The differences in reason that you are claiming exist aren't actually differences in reason, they are differences in viewpoint. All people have different viewpoints, and because of this they gather and percieve varying information that lead to differing rational conclusions. If any two people had all-incompassing viewpoints, they would reach the same rational conclusions every time.

Wouldn't it all depend on the way you were raised. Imean, "good" and "evil" are really just a state of mind. If someone were raised in a socioty where killing is justified (great famines, wartime etc.) then killing could be considered "good". Take Al-Quida for instance, they have been taught all their lives that killing americans is "good". While here in america, killin is also justified in wartime. So, how can their be any absolutes? It can all be justifie in certain situations. :mp5:

Wouldn't it all depend on the way you were raised. Imean, "good" and "evil" are really just a state of mind. If someone were raised in a socioty where killing is justified (great famines, wartime etc.) then killing could be considered "good". Take Al-Quida for instance, they have been taught all their lives that killing americans is "good". While here in america, killin is also justified in wartime. So, how can their be any absolutes? It can all be justifie in certain situations. :mp5:

If something is wrongly justified, then it isn't moral.

Ream,
Justify child molsetation.


That was the only one I couldn't justify in my Human Nature class in high school. I justified rape, and murder and several others, but that one stumped me. . .

I guess the answer to the first post is: It depends on the beliefs of the person or persons involved. if there is some religion in which child molestation is practiced, than who's more morally right? it is disgusting to most people (me included), and if one person does it for some sick reason, it's wrong. but if he or she does it for some religious purpose, and truly believes in the religion, who's wrong then?

life is full of gray areas. to write things off as 'right' or 'wrong' seems a bit closed minded. what about the tribes in south america that used to kill and eat prisoners of war? were they wrong? by our modern, so-called civilized standards, yes, but by their standards, they weren't.

by the way:
Rape- if both parties are intoxicated in such a way that their judgment is impaired, and sexual activity takes place, it can still be considered rape if the 'victim' (the word used loosely in this case) claims it was against her/his will. however, since the 'rapist' was intoxincated as well, there is no way to know if he/she intended to 'rape' anyone.

Murder- this one is a little harder, because it's based on opinions. In my opinion, if someone is in mortal danger (for example, being attacked by someone else who intends to kill them), and the only way to help them is to kill the person who is try to kill the first person (following me so far), then you are justified.
- Another example is if a person is in a persistant vegitative state (Terry Shivo anyone?) is pulling the plug murder?

Raceism- the only thing I can come up with at the moment is if your hatred of a particular race is based on solid facts.

hope this helped

this has nothing to do with the thread, but can some one tell me how to make a new thread???

That was the only one I couldn't justify in my Human Nature class in high school. I justified rape, and murder and several others, but that one stumped me. . .

I guess the answer to the first post is: It depends on the beliefs of the person or persons involved. if there is some religion in which child molestation is practiced, than who's more morally right? it is disgusting to most people (me included), and if one person does it for some sick reason, it's wrong. but if he or she does it for some religious purpose, and truly believes in the religion, who's wrong then?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the religion is wrong.

What do I win, Alex?

thanks guys you have been very helpfull...

Just click new post on the thread title page

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the religion is wrong.

What do I win, Alex?


Wrong by your standards, and those of the majority of humans, but are we really right?

I'm not supporting the act of child molestation, but I find in necessary to debate both sides

Beliefs held by any person are bound to be somewhat wrong. But I think belief in absolute morals are necessary to some extent to have a functioning republic or democracy.

You said reason helps us see morals. Who's reason choses those morals? Your reason? My reason? Not everyone reasons the same just like not everyone sees the same acts as moral or immoral.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621401&postcount=20

Moral objectivism and diversity of opinon are not mutually exclusive. Diversity of opinion, as well as the debate and argument that results, is vital to the process of finding truth.

Wrong by your standards, and those of the majority of humans, but are we really right?

I'm not supporting the act of child molestation, but I find in necessary to debate both sides

Can you for any logical reason find it okay to molest a child? The obvious answer is no. As such, the standards any human might impose are irrelevant: they are contrary to the moral law.

but are we really right?


Really right:

This to me seems to be a problem when approaching morality, we associate what is real with what is right, and so we have to go through a two part process of determining wether something is real first, and secondly if it is right.

What if we instead, put the morality, wither something, is right or wrong, before the truth, wither something is real or not. We usually say, really right, but what if we said rightfully true?

A weird way to approach, just a suggestion.

Can you for any logical reason find it okay to molest a child? The obvious answer is no. As such, the standards any human might impose are irrelevant: they are contrary to the moral law.


Logically, no, I cannot, but since when is religion logical? I don't know that any religion actually exists to molest children, it was just an example, but that remains a gray area in the child molestation argument, so it cannot be written off as absolutely morally wrong. it IS morally wrong, I agree, but the question is: is child molestation ABSOLULTY morally wrong, and, because of that one gray area, the answer is no. the answere will always be 'no' until the gray area is resolved

I must also raise the question: how do we, as humans, know the moral law is correct in the way we interpret it?

someone give me a good example when rape is good, and not until then will i say that there are circumstances.
and saying "if they wanted you to rape them" then you have no arguement, becuase you have consent therefore its no longer considered rape

Really right:

This to me seems to be a problem when approaching morality, we associate what is real with what is right, and so we have to go through a two part process of determining wether something is real first, and secondly if it is right.

What if we instead, put the morality, wither something, is right or wrong, before the truth, wither something is real or not. We usually say, really right, but what if we said rightfully true?

A weird way to approach, just a suggestion.

Good suggestion. that is actually what I ment when I wrote 'really right' but you put it better

someone give me a good example when rape is good, and not until then will i say that there are circumstances.
and saying "if they wanted you to rape them" then you have no arguement, becuase you have consent therefore its no longer considered rape

The question is not whether rape is good or not, but 'is there moral justification' I believe I answered that fairly well in a previous post

Good and evil (thus morality) are socially defined. There are no absolutes. Rape in some cultures is fine. Murder can be ok. Cannibalism can be ok. And so on.

YES!! THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYNG!! only put much simpler

Logically, no, I cannot, but since when is religion logical? I don't know that any religion actually exists to molest children, it was just an example, but that remains a gray area in the child molestation argument, so it cannot be written off as absolutely morally wrong. it IS morally wrong, I agree, but the question is: is child molestation ABSOLULTY morally wrong, and, because of that one gray area, the answer is no. the answere will always be 'no' until the gray area is resolved

If a religion is illogical, then to the extent that it deviates from logic, then it is incorrect, and moreover, absolutely so. You seem to be pussyfooting around the naturalistic fallacy with your argument: unquestionably people do try and justify goofy things, whether by invoking God, their own will, the advice of their miniature giant space hamster, or whatever. But what people do has no bearing on what they ought to do.


I must also raise the question: how do we, as humans, know the moral law is correct in the way we interpret it?

Not always; I've never heard a formulation of the moral law that worked perfectly in every single instance. In that instance, we do have to rely on our own practical wisdom, and sometimes we will err in doing so. But child molestation is not one of those iffy situations; it's generally pretty frappin' clear-cut. As such, I see a measure of continued disappointment in your near future if you try and argue that because there are some possible scenario's when any existing formulation of the moral law doesn't work, then it means that there is no moral law.

Has anyone listened to my advice and tried to make how we derive morals absolute, rather than the morals themselves?

Has anyone listened to my advice and tried to make how we derive morals absolute, rather than the morals themselves?
Yeah, actually that's pretty much Objectivism in a nutshell.

Yeah, actually that's pretty much Objectivism in a nutshell.

Well this would be different from normal moral objectivism:

Where moral objectivism would say something like:
Murder is always wrong

There could be a system in which this moral could change, but the change is derived from an absolute.
Let's say for example we derive morals from what a majority of the people believe is right or wrong (which is in NO way my POV, just a simple example)

The morals would change with the swaying of public opinion, but the way we derived morals; from the beliefs of a majority of the people, would remain constant, absolute.

Note: this is not subjectivism. This argument would state that absolute morals are acheived by a majority of the people, whereas subjectivist would say "morals differ from one individual to another and from one society to another, and since everything is relative, and humaniy only interprets what is real instead of knowing what is real, real morals can never be known (or don't exist)"

I suggested earlier that morality derives from instinct and overall natural longing for survival. It was a pretty good argument, but no-one ran with it, so I guess I'll re-propose it.

Yeah, its different; a bit at least. I'm thankful to see you contend that the popularity of an idea does not in and of itself validate said idea. When people make the argument that 'morals change from society to society' and that morals are a 'social contruct' and so forth, this is pretty much what they're saying. As I mentioned earlier, it's a school of thought that has a lot more in common with reactionaries than with liberals, which is amusing because it is so frequently deployed by the latter. This is the unholy birthing zone of the 'well some society might think it's OK to kill' argument.

It might be considered acceptable and you may not even be punished for it, but that does nothing to answer to the larger question: Is it really right?

Basically, any moral construct exists because it was expedient to the person who created it and/or to its followers as well. This means that the values which lead to moral decisions any other value] are ultimately objective. Since people are all too capable of cognitive errors, it doesn't always follow that their devised morals really live up to this standard or even that they do a very good job of embodying said values.

Basically, any moral construct exists because it was expedient to the person who created it and/or to its followers as well. This means that the values which lead to moral decisions any other value] are ultimately objective. Since people are all too capable of cognitive errors, it doesn't always follow that their devised morals really live up to this standard or even that they do a very good job of embodying said values.

Are you saying that there are some type of "perfect" morals that we are trying to live up to, or are you saying that there is a perfectly expedient set for any given case that we are failing to reach?

Perhaps someone has already touched upon this, but I don't feel like checking the hundreds of responses.
Anyway, your poll options are incomplete. There ARE indeed moral absolutes, but not in the sense that you can look at one general kind of "wrong" deed, such as killing, and say that it is always wrong.
For example, killing someone because you feel like it is just wrong. However, a police officer shooting a hostage-taker to save the lives of several individuals is right.
The reason is that this is incompletely summed up in the option of judging each action by the situation is that the former action, killing for the heck of it, is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
Where's the distinction?
I believe in God. As such, I do believe that there is an absolute good, and therefore an absolute evil. I don't think that we always necessarily know which is which, but if we could take each individual case to God, He could tell us whether it's right or wrong. There is a definite truth.
People who claim to believe in God or a "life force" (a laughable idea) and yet still claim relativism, that there is no absolute good or evil, are merely deluding themselves.
Of course, any atheist (to avoid any confusion, that means someone who believes that there is NOTHING over, beyond, above, below, or outside of our natural world) has to acknowledge that there is no absolute good or evil in any situation. It is potentially alright for a man to randomly gun people down.
Right now, all atheists are howling that that's ridiculous, that of course all reasonable and sane people find that to be abhorrent. That they personally find it a repulsive idea.
That's all well and good. They can feel that way if they want, as can every single atheist in existence. More power to them; I pray to God that they do feel that way.
However, if they are prepared to be intellectually honest, they must admit that it doesn't matter whether or not someone finds senseless murder to be wrong. Not in an existence with nothing supernatural to dictate that. There's nothing to give one moral judgement weight over the other.
The reason for this is simple. To say that something is "good" requires that there is something ABOVE it, higher than it, beyond it, to relate it to and be found good by. With nothing but the natural world, as atheists believe, nothing can be good and nothing can be bad.
For example, animals killing animals is not wrong or good. A starving lion killing prey for its own survival is not good or bad. It just is. A cat "cruelly" playing with its prey for its own enjoyment is neither good nor bad. It just is. Perhaps most depressing, penguins aren't good. They just are.(?)
If human beings truly are the products of natural causes, and there's nothing supernatural, then we are held to the same natural moral code: none.
Many atheists would nonetheless claim a basic moral code, such as "treat others as you would be treated," or "do no harm" (a code that I personally have problems with, as it says nothing about actively doing good, and we all know what happens when good men do nothing).
However, even these basics have NOTHING to support them, other than your own opinion. It doesn't matter how many people agree with you. The only thing that you can do is do what you want. If that includes being kind and considerate to others, very well. If that means belting people in the face with a socket wrench, so be it.
All that said, I'm glad that there is indeed an absolute right and wrong, for God certainly does exist. Mankind may tend to disagree and debate about what that absolute right and wrong is (understatement of the century), but it exists nonetheless.
Congrats to any who bothered reading this all.

Are you saying that there are some type of "perfect" morals that we are trying to live up to, or are you saying that there is a perfectly expedient set for any given case that we are failing to reach?

A subtle combination of both, in essence. In a nutshell, that statement says that life is the root of all value, even though many "values" [falsely designed ones; values that rest on contradictory premises] actually defeat life. Basically, everyone's looking our for number one even if they don't happen to be doing a very good job of it.

Of course, any atheist (to avoid any confusion, that means someone who believes that there is NOTHING over, beyond, above, below, or outside of our natural world) has to acknowledge that there is no absolute good or evil in any situation. It is potentially alright for a man to randomly gun people down.

I call bullshit. I'm an atheist and a moral objective does most certainly exist. In a word, it's 'life.'

EDIT: to clarify, Im not exactly an atheist, but I am more or less as far as you're concerned. I recognize that creation requires a catalyst, but the idea of an interventionist God is laugable at best. Given the incredible size of our universe, I cant imagine He would care too much about what my penis happens to be doing at any particular point in time. It's not like I get laid anyway, but hey....

I call bullshit. I'm an atheist and a moral objective does most certainly exist. In a word, it's 'life.'
Did you bother reading the rest? Be honest with yourself. Why is 'life' sacred? Why is murder wrong? What, besides your own personal feelings on the matter, can you bring to the table to back up that moral judgement? The answer? Nothing.
Don't get me wrong. It's a very good thing that you find life to sacred, or however you want to describe it. But look at it honestly, and you'll see that there's nothing that you could say to someone with a differing view on right and wrong except, "I disagree with your opinion."

A subtle combination of both, in essence. In a nutshell, that statement says that life is the root of all value, even though many "values" [falsely designed ones; values that rest on contradictory premises] actually defeat life. Basically, everyone's looking our for number one even if they don't happen to be doing a very good job of it.

Hmm. I think I was proabably less than clear then. (Obviously). Simply put, in your opinion, is there a constant set of unchanging moral values, regardless of the circumstances you find yourself in, or are moral values governed by the system which is most expedient for any given condition?

I understand that there exists a solution which says they are both the same, of course. But, if that is your position, then are the obvious disparities between widely different groups - say for example the Spartans and Hippie communes in Vermont - simply due to imperfect knowledge?

EDIT: to clarify, Im not exactly an atheist, but I am more or less as far as you're concerned. I recognize that creation requires a catalyst, but the idea of an interventionist God is laugable at best. Given the incredible size of our universe, I cant imagine He would care too much about what my penis happens to be doing at any particular point in time. It's not like I get laid anyway, but hey....
The only thing that I find laughable is your attempts to impose your own limitations and fallability on God Almighty. You simply can't understand infinity, and no wonder; no one can. You can't think of a God infinitely loving and caring, with infinite knowledge and abilities. It's not as if time and space would actually mean anything to Him. He could spend an eternity in every single moment in every single one of our lives.
You can't fathom this, and so it scares you, and so you refuse it.
You instead take refuge in a god who made us, but then backed off (why would he have made us if he doesn't care?)
Whenever life or existence seems meaningless because we're all going to die someday, or for any other reason, or you're feeling discouraged, you comfort yourself with a self-assurance that there is something else "out there."
However, you've got a better deal going on than all these religious nuts. Your god doesn't really care what you do. He thinks that one thing is right, but if it isn't terribly cruel, it's ok if you do it. And hey, even if it is cruel, he'll forgive right away if you feel bad. Or probably even if you don't. It's all good, right? All the benefits of religion, and none of the costs.
What a deal. What a convenience.
What a joke.

Did you bother reading the rest?
Yes. I didn't happen to think it was worth responding to.

Be honest with yourself. Why is 'life' sacred?
Because without it, no manne of value [therefore, no 'right' or 'wrong' or any motion at all is impossible.

Why is murder wrong?
Broadly speaking, because it reprsents a failure on the part of the murderer to consistently apply any values to other people at all. We can assume in most cases that the murderer doesn't actually have a death wish himself [some do], so effectively what this is is dishonesty and inconsistency at its worst: it's a failure to provide the same standard for others that you would apply to yourself.

What, besides your own personal feelings on the matter, can you bring to the table to back up that moral judgement? The answer? Nothing.
Is turnabout fair play? What, besides your own personal feelings on the matter, can you bring to the table to back up your moral judgement? The asnwer? Nothing.

Beleif in God is a personal opinion just like any other. It is a feeling--a personal one--based on the conclusions you've come to about reality, and that's OK. I'm offering you my conclusions [which have been derived from sensory and cognitive data rather than 'faith' or 'feeling,' by the way] on the exact same subject matter. These questions [your first one any my identical response] are completely worthless.

Don't get me wrong. It's a very good thing that you find life to sacred, or however you want to describe it. But look at it honestly, and you'll see that there's nothing that you could say to someone with a differing view on right and wrong except, "I disagree with your opinion."
Yeah? What if I have the balls to say "I'm right because I know I'm right, rather than I feel I'm right?"

I'm not trying to say I'm right all the time, and in a general sense, you're right too: ultimately, there's not much else we can say. You know how the saying goes; 'You can lead a horse to water...'

First: Split up your post

Second: You still have problem of how this "supernatural" world can interact with our quasi-determinists "natural" world. (Don't discuss here, there are 3 other threads for that)

Third: Atheists can derive some sense of morality from natural world. There is a hierarchy within nature, those above can perform the typical functions of the theist God. (not my approach)

Fourth: How do you know your God is right? Is it because God says it is right that it is so? Or is something right, and then God can confirm "Yes it is correct"
If it is the former, than religious morality is merely through the subjective thoughts of God.

Fifth: (for another thread) What are the implimincations of stating there is a world "above" this? If that world is perfect, and this world is some horrible, worthless shit-hole and we are a bunch of worthless shits who can only redeem ourselves through subservience to a being from another realm of existence, what does that do to all of this? Mind you, this was the spirit of the church a while back, the "will to nothingness."

Be honest with yourself. Why is 'life' sacred? Why is murder wrong? What, besides your own personal feelings on the matter, can you bring to the table to back up that moral judgement? The answer?


Reason.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621513&postcount=47
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621522&postcount=49
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621528&postcount=50

Aha! We could judge morality itself. What an irony.

If a moral system is set up under a certain will, we could judge wither or not the system was acceptable by the will in which it was created.

We could dwelve on what the circumstances weere under which a said morality came into existence. Most of these moralities have either a will to nothingness, or a will to truth behind them. We could try building a morality with the will to power!

Then we could try something else.

Another suggestion.

Why is life sacred? You're using religious wording. Ask "Why is life precious, why is it valuable" and it is easily answerable from an atheistic POV.

Because without it, no manne of value [therefore, no 'right' or 'wrong' or any motion at all is impossible.
So it must be true because if it isn't, no other values can exist? That's logical only if values MUST exist, which you can only think if you believe there to be something supernatural. Which you, after viewing your edit, do believe. However, pointed at an atheist, all my statements hold up.

Is turnabout fair play? What, besides your own personal feelings on the matter, can you bring to the table to back up your moral judgement? The asnwer? Nothing.

Beleif in God is a personal opinion just like any other. It is a feeling--a personal one--based on the conclusions you've come to about reality, and that's OK. I'm offering you my conclusions [which have been derived from sensory and cognitive data rather than 'faith' or 'feeling,' by the way] on the exact same subject matter. These questions [your first one any my identical response] are completely worthless.
That's kinda the point, isn't it? I bring God to the table. Yes, my belief in Him is my personal feeling, but that's irrelevant to the subject at hand now. An atheist asks me "Why is killing wrong?" I respond, "Because I feel it to be so, and God tells me so." I ask the atheist the same question, and all he can respond with is, "Because I feel it to be so."

The only thing that I find laughable is your attempts to impose your own limitations and fallability on God Almighty. You simply can't understand infinity, and no wonder; no one can. You can't think of a God infinitely loving and caring, with infinite knowledge and abilities.


If God is comprised of "infinite" characteristics, and no one can understand "infinity," then neither are you in any position to make any particular claim about the nature or existance of God. Right? Seems to me you just refuted your own argument.

(EDIT: and the rest of that post is pretty much a variety of straw-men and ad hominems)

The only thing that I find laughable is your attempts to impose your own limitations and fallability on God Almighty. You simply can't understand infinity, and no wonder; no one can.
Uh... yeah I can. Infinity, as a concept, is not particularly difficult to denote if you're willing to think about it for more than ten seconds. If something is infinite that means it goes on forever. Whoop de doo.

You can't think of a God infinitely loving and caring, with infinite knowledge and abilities. It's not as if time and space would actually mean anything to Him. He could spend an eternity in every single moment in every single one of our lives.
You can't fathom this, and so it scares you, and so you refuse it.
Don't tell me what I can and can't fathom; I find it incredibly insulting that you should claim to be aware of the contents of my brain and its ability to understand reality. You don't see me going around telling my opponents 'you can't fathom objectivism because it frightens you,' do you? It's not a legitimate tactic in any sort of intelligent debate.

Furthermore, 'supernatural' is a blatant contradiction. Things cant exist 'above' existence because if they are to exist in the first place, that makes said entity a part of this universe rather than an exemption to it. Not only that, but an infinite entity or an infinite number of things would have no identity. Identity can only be denoted when the thing being identified has boundaries--physical ones--that you can point to in order to distinguish said entity from everything else. If God is infinite, and ainfinity is supposedly 'beyond our understanding' [or, at least, beyond the Law of Identity], how to we even begin to form opinions of the subject. If God is infinite, how do we define Him without reference to anything else?

You instead take refuge in a god who made us, but then backed off (why would he have made us if he doesn't care?)
I didn't say it made us, I'm saying it was the catalyst for whatever created the universe, whether it was an energy reaction, a wierd looking nebula from Futurama, or my neighbor's cat.

The fact that God supposedly has very particular political beliefs is just a little bit too convenient for me to ignore. In the course of human history, there have been man, many people interested in directing the lives of others. Religion is a wonderful way to do just that.

Whenever life or existence seems meaningless because we're all going to die someday, or for any other reason, or you're feeling discouraged, you comfort yourself with a self-assurance that there is something else "out there."
I do? Funny, I seem to remember holding the belief that life is what we make of it, which precludes it being 'meaningless' in any sense of the word. One's life always has a purpose as long as s/he chooses to continue living it.

However, you've got a better deal going on than all these religious nuts. Your god doesn't really care what you do. He thinks that one thing is right, but if it isn't terribly cruel, it's ok if you do it. And hey, even if it is cruel, he'll forgive right away if you feel bad. Or probably even if you don't. It's all good, right? All the benefits of religion, and none of the costs.
What a deal. What a convenience.
What a joke.
You're really testing my patience here, particularly with all these wild assumptions about my 'spiritual' beleifs that don't actually happen to exist. Tell me, are you clairvoyant? Because if you are, you could really use some work. I made one general statement about my opinions of a creator entity and you've lept to about 20 different conclusions about my morality based on that one tiny paragraph alone.

I don't consider my beliefs about the creation of the universe to be a 'religion' at all. I do not beleive that the creator entity would even bother to leave us a moral code: hell, if it still [i]exists I'd doubt it would know where Earth even is. I am the arbiter of my own moral action: not your God, not my Creator, not Buddha, not Yahweh or Allah [yes, I know, before you ask]. My mind is my church, and the responsibility to make sure that I come to proper moral decisions is also my perogative.

If our only difference is that you say "because God says so," then you're following orders or being coerced. Is doing the right thing so you can get the rewards of eternal life and the comfort from God that you're doing the right thing, really the right thing? You're thinking of your ends!

If God is comprised of "infinite" characteristics, and no one can understand "infinity," then neither are you in any position to make any particular claim about the nature or existance of God. Right? Seems to me you just refuted your own argument.

Concurred, in which case I do have a chance of figuring out right and wrong by myself.

So it must be true because if it isn't, no other values can exist? That's logical only if values MUST exist, which you can only think if you believe there to be something supernatural.
He's kidding, right? You honestly think that value is impossible without God?

That's kinda the point, isn't it? I bring God to the table. Yes, my belief in Him is my personal feeling, but that's irrelevant to the subject at hand now. An atheist asks me "Why is killing wrong?" I respond, "Because I feel it to be so, and God tells me so." I ask the atheist the same question, and all he can respond with is, "Because I feel it to be so."
Both appear to be equally legitimate points of view, from where I sit. God, since he supposdly exists beynd the realm of logic and reason, cannot therefore be used interchangeably with these concepts. God cannot both be reason and 'above' reason any more than he can exist 'above' and within' nature at the same time.

First: Split up your post
Deal with it.
Second: You still have problem of how this "supernatural" world can interact with our quasi-determinists "natural" world. (Don't discuss here, there are 3 other threads for that)
I find it odd that you would bring something up to prove a point, but then insist that it not be discussed. However, I'll go easy and not discuss it.
Third: Atheists can derive some sense of morality from natural world. There is a hierarchy within nature, those above can perform the typical functions of the theist God. (not my approach)
Sure, we could impose our thoughts of right and wrong on animals (assuming you hold us higher in the hierarchy). However, where do we get our ideas of right and wrong if there's nothing above us? Majority rules? Might be hard to poll everyone. In any case, it was the majority's fault for electing Bush (assuming you're anti-Bush; I'm relatively neutral on the matter). And this world has massacres and genocides, sponsored by the majority, to this day. That would only make sense if we ourselves were ultimate. It would only make sense if we were ourselves infallible. Sadly, we're not.

Reason.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621513&postcount=47
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621522&postcount=49
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9621528&postcount=50

I think I like this dude.