Can moral truths be known completely a priori?

Post Reply New Topic

For jnstance, could such taboos as cannibalism, incest, or, in Muslim cultures, drinking alcohol, be seen as immoral even when the society is all for it?

I don't see how you can compare drinking to eating someone or committing sexual acts with a family member.

One is fine, the other two are not (in any case, EVER).

There are a priori moral truths - anything that breaches the right to life is immoral.

Incest is only immoral for a posteriori reasons. The dangers of inbreeding are well known.

Cannibalism is only necessarily immoral if you are killing people for meat. Eating people who just happen to die is not obviously immoral.

Drinking alcohol, again, is not obviously immoral. You can make a case for it being immoral, sure, but you can't tell that a priori. For one thing, you don't know about the effects of alcohol a priori...

Many moral truths vary from culture to culture. What we would call incest didn't appear to be for the ancient Egyptian royalty nor for the Spanish Hapsburgs. Many Native American tribes practiced cannibalism either actively or ritualistically. Infanticide is still practiced and accepted in some cultures today.

Define incest? In some countries 1st cousin marriage is common. It is permitted in Islam and Christianity.

For single generation it isn't a problem genetically, but over many generations it can cause some horrible genetic conditions, as well as increase to illness/disability.

Yeah, I was reading lately about Spain, and one of the subjects was the Hapsburg royal family. In the last generation before they died out, one king had 8 ancestors in his bloodline when he should of had 32. He was both mad and impotent. No more Spanish Hapsburgs.

They are not innate. It's rigorous criticism from outside after witnessing suffering that causes people to change customs.

Take drinking alcohol. If enough drunks vomit on people and commit grievous acts that offend others, a faction will oppose drinking and gain momentum as others join it until the majority are in favor of banning alcohol. Let's say a culture finds eating the firstborn child as customary until one day, a young couple say they cannot bear the thought of losing their family member. Other members of the culture listen to them and begin to think, I don't like losing mine, either. This is something we shouldn't do.

No need going into the emotional and psychological pain incest in a family causes so it's obvious why a society wouldn't accept it as a norm.

It's society that determines morals based on what they find offensive. Generally, humans dislike loss and will make laws that prevent it whenever possible.

A moral code is a guide for living, but to what end? What is the goal, the purpose, the standard? You need to establish this before trying to ascertain the morality of a given action or behavior.

A person who believes that the highest moral purpose is 'to obey the will of Allah' is going to give different answers than the person who seeks 'to serve the masses.' And so on. There are many moral codes – specify.

By definition drinking is immoral within a specific Muslim sect's law. Is this a priori, though? Only from within that culture; therefore it is not universally immoral, nor a priori. The others vary by circumstance and so, also cannot be considered a priori. What most people would consider immoral incest was considered "proper" matchmaking among royal families, although it did prove to be quite detrimental in a fair number of cases. Keep in mind that "back-breeding" is also a crucial part of animal breeding (although in my opinion still rife with the same problems concerning recessive traits and epigenics). Likewise, cannibalism may not always be immoral (desert island, half the boat passengers wash up dead, the others eat them to survive until rescue).

I can't think of a single moral truth that can be completely a priori other than the most basic which is "do the least harm". And even that has certain relative assumptions about our place as humans in nature, etc..

Anything beyond "try to not be the cause of death for a tribe/family member" is a post-priori moral truth, and therefor can be (and has been) discussed and changed.

Truthfully, a moral "truth" isn't, these things do not exist barring culture, simply look at the different cultures in 'developed' countries today for the reasoning; there are so many differences...

This ^.

The only "a priori truths" are the physical constants, laws, and principles that govern the universe. Laws like causality, the gravitational constant, the speed of light in a vacuum, thermodynamics, orbital motion, and so forth.

Morality is a species-dependent concept - what practices most humans would consider "immoral" can be found commonly practiced in other species. Morality also depends on which culture is examined, when it is examined, and under what conditions.

The Rule of Law is the only "morality" needed. If you want to pretend that you adhere to a "Higher Morality", then have at it; but break one of the secular laws in the name of your morality, and be prepared to suffer the consequences.

For example, if your "moral" code dictates that anyone who insults your favorite "prophet" shall be put to death, and you act accordingly, then be prepared to pay for your actions with your own life.

im warning you, fnord.... STOP insulting my religion THIS INSTANT.... in fact, too late... im gonna ask the mods to lock this thread.... and p.s. the punishment for insulting muhammad is not death.... now, shut up!

Go for it.

i swear to god you little jerk, im going to have you BANNED FROM THIS SITE... now go away!! !

Censoring the truth is not something that the mods are in the habit of doing.