Absolute Morality/Natural Law?

Post Reply New Topic

Why it requires any reason to value anything? If you don't eat for a day, you feel hungry and you want to eat. That is how we work as a bio-chemical machine. Desire and preference is just biology and value is nothing but an abstract way to express desire and preference.

What you are doing is just repeating questions as silly as 'why do you like macbooks?' or 'why a figure with 3 sides is called a triangle?' Indeed NO reason would be sufficient. THAT is the nature of value.


What do they mean?


That is irrelevant to my argument. And what do you mean by 'right'?


What do you mean by 'right for me to harm myself'?


Nonsense gibberish. Does 'normal' mean moral or what?


Just because I like, as does many people. If you think you thrive completely alone, think about how many things around you are made by other people. Indeed it would be hard even for an expert to survive without a single metal tool.


More than enough to prove they thought about it.


Why not? Even many animals seem to do thing with a purpose in mind.


What do you mean by 'right'? People believe in delusions all time.


Just because they want.


From all people who comply by the law.


The problem is we are arguing whether there is really such a thing as 'wrong'. Saying people believe 'wrong' things are 'wrong' proves nothing.


What does it morality has anything to do with it? Can people not simply value their own life over so called 'morality'?


What do you mean by 'rights'?

Last edited by 01001011 on 27 Sep 2011, 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.

Ugh, it's awfully uptight in here with a sprinkle of some closed-mindedness. Open up and lighten up [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2OSfrrG3nk[/youtube]

How about these for Moral Laws?*

1. A person may not harm the community, or, by inaction, allow the community to come to harm.

2. A person may not injure another person or, through inaction, allow another person to come to harm, except where doing so would conflict with the First Moral Law.

3. A person must follow the directions given to him or her by another person in authority, except where such orders would conflict with the First or Second Moral Laws.

4. A person must protect his or her own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First, Second, or Third Moral Laws.

5. A person may express him- or her-self in any way, as long as such self-expression does not conflict with the First, Second, Third, or Fourth Moral Laws.

*(With acknowledgement to Dr. Isaac Asimov, PhD., and his Laws of Robotics.)

then you would still need a clear picture of what is of benefit to society andw hat is not, in as chatoic a world as today that is impossible.

I think that definitions would be required for "community", "harm", "injure", and "conflict". Also, would "inaction" require some foreknowledge of what harm it might permit? I mean, if I simply do not know that a woman is drowning her kids two houses away, could I still be held culpable for my inaction in preventing her from murdering her kids?

That doesn't make any sense, though. We are able to resist our hunger for food. In some cultures and occasionally in our own, it's sometimes common or at least not unheard of for someone protesting an action to go on a "hunger strike." Ritual fasting has been practiced for all sorts of reasons, as part of prayer, as part of strengthening personal resolve, as a symbolic purgative in response for mourning--all sorts of reasons. We can resist hunger until we starve ourselves--if we feel like it.

So...what's so important about valuing life that we should eat and sustain ourselves?


That's not it, though. You keep answering for your value judgments with just more value judgments. If you value something, you feel it is right to act on those values. That is the essence of moral justification.


What do YOU think they mean? Except the problem is you can't evaluate "good" and "evil" since it would be inconsistent with the argument you're trying to present. But the problem of moral denial is that its inherently internally inconsistent, and that is the problem that comes up with just about every point made here so far.

What do I think they mean? I think that good=conformity with the will of God. Evil=rebellion against God. And the only consistent moral standard is an objective one devoted to God's nature and character. Oh yeah, and it's an unchanging ABSOLUTE standard. And it cannot be concerned with whether or not we agree with it.

Even if you cannot accept that, you still have too much evidence that moral absolutes exist, regardless of whether we believe they come from God or not. That's why I keep saying it's not so much a matter of "where" but a matter of "what." You have to answer for a near-global assessment of certain things like murder (unjustifiable homicide, whatever we agree that means across cultures) as an intuitive "wrongness." And if you murder someone without a justification that others who feel hurt in the process can ultimately accept, other people will hold you accountable for that death. It's really just as simple as that.


In this case what one intrinsically feels is right.


Do I feel justified in harming myself? Does it feel like a good thing for me to do? If I don't place any value at all on my life, or if I come to feel my life is utterly pointless or useless, or that there is no longer reason to hold on to hope for living, it might seem right to commit suicide. In which case I'm only harming myself. It may or may not matter to anyone else. But does it matter to me? Maybe if I hold out long enough, someone might find me and then my life would be useful to someone else. I would feel it is more important to live than to give up on life. So I'd probably do everything I could to keep harm from coming to myself. It would feel like the "right thing to do."


You're the one talking about psychopaths. I'm not concerned with outliers.


Or I could exist with only what I needed in order to minimize contact with other people. I like being left alone, but I do recognize total isolation is unrealistic.


According to YOUR value system... You seem to think that the world of peer-review is somehow superior to the rest of the world, that it is somehow above reproach. And to a degree it is, and for its own purpose. But you would feel it's wrong for someone to contradict a peer-reviewed study without first examining the facts and offering evidence why the study should be discredited.


Doesn't answer the question of why people value something that is irrational.


By "right," as I've mentioned, I mean not necessarily what is ultimately "right" but what one feels to be right, even if for no one but themselves. Whether it is a delusion or not, people do still believe it. And a delusion is still "something." It is real to the person who imagines it. What we're talking about would be delusions on a global scale, though. You might as well say Galileo was deluded because Ptolemy's system obviously makes reliable predictions.


OK then. So why do other people "feel" that certain actions based on "just because they want" ought to be curbed? Why bother deterring anyone from doing anything? Is it "just because WE want"? Or is there an underlying reason WHY we want?


So laws only apply to individuals who want to comply with the law? OK. So if I commit a crime and I'm forcibly brought before a judge to answer for why I committed a crime, I can just say that I do not wish to comply with that law and therefore that law has no authority over me? You could say I'm outnumbered, but why do people choose to comply in such large numbers?


It proves they believe certain things to be wrong. Well, not "just saying" they do, but just ask. People really do believe things are wrong and they'll say as much. Certain people in PPR here believe it is wrong to make abortion illegal. How do I know? They make it known they believe that and will argue it vehemently. And they'll justify killing babies in the name of protecting women's rights to decide what to do with their own bodies. And they'll say it's "right" to stand up for women's rights. They are making a value judgment on reproductive rights. When they do that, it becomes a moral argument.


They could. But then again, valuing one's own life is still making a value judgment.


If I'm referencing legal codes that purport to guarantee rights, then what "rights" do you think I'm referring to? Or, to put it another way, when someone tells you that your are "within your rights" to do something, what are they referring to?

LOL!! !

Hey, welcome to PPR!! ! This is where all the bullies on WP hang out and get away with things that would be unheard of on any other forum. I do try to follow some basic rules, and if you dare accuse me of tl;dr or "word salad," you'll only encourage me. And, besides, I'm already well aware and really trying to fix that problem. People like 01001011 make it difficult for me, though.

j/k

My rules:
1. Ad hominem is as good as concession.
2. No sacred cows.
3. If I start having dreams about posting to WP, it's time to take a break for a while.

It takes getting used to, but I do think highly of MOST people here... In fact, come to think of it, I only really had problems with one other WP'er, and I haven't seem him around in quite some time.

You do learn to be tough in here, but this is the place for it. As someone who represents the Christian worldview, I try to keep my responses within the same spirit as I think Christians OUGHT to respond (not the way many of us actually do). I've noticed that responses/counter-responses have been at least as friendly, and I'm not afraid to call people out when they get out of line. It has made a huge difference, at least in most discussions I've participated in. I've also noticed that PPR is MUCH friendlier than it was 2 years ago, and I suspect that it is in part due to people resolving to treat each other with decency, even if we disagree on things.

My views are very much the minority here, and I'm well aware of that (there are several Christians here, but sadly they aren't very vocal). But with a FEW exceptions, I do not feel bullied or harassed much at all.

I did not say food is the only desire. There are many other desires that may not be compatible. And accordingly there are MANY different value systems.


Define what is 'important'. Is that a value judgment?


What do you expect? At best one stops SOMEWHERE and consider value as closed axiomatic systems.


Wrong. Value only tells what is the BEST relative to that particular value system. A psychopath / terrorist may decide it is best to kill the target by building a missile to shoot down the airliner the target is taking because the target has the least chance to escape. How is that 'moral justification'?


I don't think they understand what they are saying.


What inherently internally inconsistent? Just inconsistent with your presupposition.


Classical failure. How is that standard more universal than the amoralist 'standard'? What kind of quality do you think 'right' and 'wrong' is.


Nonsense. DO you have a falsifiable theory of moral absolute?


If you are so naive to believe in some magical quality called 'right' and wrong why not the others. Moreover the vast majority are born in huge societies and have to behave accordingly. At best you prove that magic is the most naive explanation of code of behavior.


OR JUST because OTHER people value other things.


None of word salad has anything to do with 'right' or 'wrong'.


So you simply pretend counter-examples that debunk your worldview doesn't exist.


How small is minimal?


I am using peer review journal to prove that such project EXISTS. I did not say it proves their validity. Your response is just a strawman.


Nonsense. It is just your baseless assumption that one cannot place value on something that is 'irrational'. And what do you mean by 'irrational'?


Visual illusions also seems global.
http://www.michaelbach.de/ot/


Just because 'other people' want or otherwise you won't see them. What reason do you expect?


Is being outnumbered not a reason? Is there any reason NOT to comply with the law?


Wrong. You are presupposing there IS something to believe.


You still fail to distinguish moral and value judgments.

[/quote]
They mean they promise they will not interfere you doing that. Or in legal terms the action is legal and cannot be punished (according to the law).

My what a myriad of responses. You guys are making it almost impossible for someone else to get a word in... or even catch up.

What you have succeeded in showing is that your view is, in your view, logically consistent. Even if you were to be granted that point by AngelRho (which I do not think he should) he is still attempting to get you to justify why your view should be considered axiomatic, even if is closed. Translation, you are begging the question. It would be acceptable if your only goal was to demonstrate 'internal' logical consistency but not if it is to show your view to be anything more than subjective. It seems AngelRho's main point is that your view is subjective; thus you may not have responded adequately to his position.

^^^ I DO accept that value IS largely subject, even though facts may play some secondary roles.

Then what are you two arguing about? Clearly AngelRho's position is a closed one, as is your own. AngelRho is correct that we have a hard time justifying value on the subjective. You say that the subjective is mostly good enough; which if dismiss objective morality as being necessary then you have no reason to make the leap. I think you are both making good points. I also think your view will most likely be as unlivable for you as it ended up being for Nitschke... but you seem intent on walking a similar path.

I should point out that that none of these examples have been considered actual "natural law" by its theorists (Locke, etc.) or examples of "absolute morality." Rather, they were laws unique to Hebrew culture, relating to Hebrew ritual cleanness/uncleanness. Even within that culture, ritual uncleanness and sin were two different actions/states of being. There are simply no modern Jews or Christians who believe these are still relevant today, unless they are of the Fred Phelps variety (and I think he has 12 followers, perhaps?)

Also...people! This is the "politics, philosophy, and religion" forum! None of these three are hard sciences, and there is no need to pretend that they are, or troll that you are above them because they are not uninterpreted facts!

Doesn't matter. What matters is that there ARE value systems. Violate someone's values and they will claim that they have been done wrong. "Wrong" is a moral judgment. You can't make moral judgments without morality.


Define "important"? Are you kidding me? Look, I'm not playing word games here. People prioritize things. Some things are placed higher on the list than others, some things are valued more highly than others. I'm not the one with a problem with making value judgments.


Well, um...yeah! And, as I've pointed out, by violating those values, one risks offending the victim's moral sensibilities, the importance or priority given to any one given value. He feels "wronged" and may, depending on the degree to which values have been violated, feel he is due some form of reprisal whether he takes justice in his own hands or he hauls someone before a judge. And, of course, some things just aren't worth fighting for. The "better man" can just let things go. Does he value "turning the other cheek" in certain situations more than seeking retribution? Again, he feels wronged, he has made a moral judgment, and he has decided that ignoring the problem is the best solution for the time being.


Simple. Like I said, I'm not worried about outliers but rather people who are ordinarily within their mental capacity to make sensible judgments (i.e. not insane, mentally ill, or otherwise lacking in their mental faculties). Socio-/psychopaths are the exception, not the rule.

So let's take a terrorist or a group of terrorists. If we had them where we could ask, would they answer that they felt their actions were justified? If they answer "yes," then what would they say their justification was? We know from past experience that some might say "it says so in our holy book that we must do this." OK, there you go. They have a book, and let's say they believe that the words of their "holy book" of choice are said to have been the inspired word of their god. It would seem, then, that one rule you must never, EVER break is that you never defy a deity. I've even read some posts in PPR from atheists who admit that if God personally came down and made Himself known, then they'd believe God exists. So we all on some level intrinsically value a supreme being--the atheist only realizing it if God showed up, of course--and recognize that as an authority we must ultimately submit to. So if you have a group of terrorists who believe themselves to be on a mission from a supreme being, they are justified in their own minds that what they are doing is under the direction of God and must be carried out. They would not, for instance, carry out these actions on their own people or a group of people they knew sympathized with them. If the "holy book" in question is the Koran, I can tell you right now there is at least one passage that pardons collateral damage such as Muslim "hypocrites" who peacefully exist alongside the enemy--they are not true Muslims and deserve to die. They believe, then, that God said "do it." Hence you have your moral justification.

Relative to another value system, that is, of the victims of their actions, it may seem unjustified. The victims would feel morally justified in reprisal. There are any number of possible outcomes. Here are two:

1. The victims fight back and lose. They'll either accept that their cause isn't worth fighting for, maybe take a "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" attitude, or they'll maintain their justification for reprisal and fight to the death or become entrenched in ongoing guerilla warfare until they wear the enemy down or until their sympathizers grow to the point that they can get relief.

2. The victims fight back and win. The terrorist group would then have to reconcile being beaten with the will of Allah and conclude that Allah is not on their side in this matter. So, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" applies here. Or they might conclude that martyrdom is preferred and refuse to surrender because surrender is for cowards.

Both sides are morally justified in the sense that a) It is morally right to fight for God's cause and b) it is morally right to protect people from injustice and cruelty. Perhaps if God does not allow people claiming to be His to win, they can reevaluate exactly what it means to follow the will of God and act accordingly. But you are less likely to gain anyone's sympathy through relentless and thoughtless destruction.

Therefore, fight for God's cause, but make sure you understand the cause and that your methods are necessary in achieving that cause. The key is understanding the people you're trying to reach. Ruthlessly attack a nation that values peace and justice, and you've just made an enemy just as strong in its resolved as you are in yours. I don't see that as how Islam is commonly understood, so clearly terrorist motivations based on the Koran are grossly mistaken.

[Not that I actually buy that, but there are obviously a vast majority of Muslims who sincerely believe "Islam" means "peace."]


Question-dodge.


It doesn't matter what I think! Asserting that our world lacks morality of any form completely ignores that many of our actions are guided by moral judgments. You've asked how eating is immoral...

Well, is it wrong to eat a cow? Under normal circumstances, I can't think of a reason not to unless it's a health issue and human life is valuable to someone.

But is it OK to eat another human being under normal circumstances? Most people feel there is something wrong here.


Another question dodge.

How is it more universal? Well--for one, compare the number of people who honestly believe "right" and "wrong" do not exist at all in any form as opposed to those who do. People are more accepting of morality than those who truly seek to reject it. One type of amoralist just merely says there's no right or wrong--just don't ruin my "happy feelings" (no morals, only emotions). But why should I stay out of your happy feelings if you don't value that particular emotion? Is that a value judgment against me? Of course it is. So amoralists don't even really believe what they themselves say.

For another, God created the heavens and the earth and everything contained therein ultimately belongs to God. Therefore, whatever standard the nature and character of God bears on morality by necessity applies to all of creation.


Me personally? No, and it isn't my problem. I already know what I think. However, I COULD suggest ways in which a falsifiable theory of moral absolutes could be developed, and to handle this empirically you'd have to turn to the discipline of psychology. It's not unthinkable, and there are already PEER REVIEWED studies that explore morality. For instance, this can point you in that direction: http://www.mpm.umd.edu/


Who says I'm naive? I'm just pointing out the obvious. And who has said anything about magic here? I've asserted my faith in the supernatural, but so what? Those things we observe are real things despite disagreements in causative factors. People prefer right over wrong. You don't have to go very far to figure that out. I don't know what "others" you're talking about. We're just talking about morality here.


Again, I said nothing about magic.

OK, but let's assume "no morality." Without moral codes, there is no "act accordingly." Where does "society" get the "right" to tell you what to do?


Agreed. And by holding "other values" they reveal a differing perception of morality.


Not what you asked. You asked me what I meant by "right for me to harm myself." I answered the question as best I could.


Not at all. I accept that exceptions exist. But we also understand the reasons for the exceptions.


Does it really matter? I suppose if I were to totally exist in as close to isolation as I possibly could, I'd have to guess maybe I'd have to interact with roughly 30 or less people a month, and that would be if I didn't have a family. Examples would be a landlord for rent payments, once-weekly trips to the grocery to buy food, once-monthly trips to pay utilities, like electric, cable/internet, and so on. To get the money, there are three people I'd have to interact with at church two or three times a week, and my piano students--and I have less than 20 there. So--30, or at most 50. If I went to writing music full time and managed to work from home full-time, then the number of people I'd HAVE to interact with would be less than 20, and even then it would be mostly email or phone correspondence.


My apologies. But you're also being evasive and that makes it difficult to draw correct conclusions. I'm just doing the best I can given the circumstances.


I'm not playing word games. You're the one to bring up something being irrational. To what degree do you think emotions are rational?

Also, people can feel all kinds of ways that have nothing to do with whether their emotions are well-reasoned responses to a tangible cause. They do not "like" feeling certain emotions while they do "like" others. They assign values to the "likes" and the "dislikes" (how much they are worth avoiding). Even if it's completely irrational, they still value it on some level.


But we know visual illusions exist. An illusion is an illusion, regardless of the cause, and it is still SOMETHING. You can "smoke-and-mirrors" the Statue of Liberty out of perceivable existence, but that doesn't change the fact that you're using smoke and mirrors.


You're saying there's no reason at all, ever? Then why is it you could ask people and they'd give you a reason? As to what I expect, I don't know. I'm only myself, not other people. I can only answer for myself. There are a lot of things I might want to do, but if I feel or suspect that there is something wrong by wanting to do certain things, I'm likely to change my mind and make a different choice. I might, say, want sex, and it could be the only way I could get sex is drug a girl and rape her. Would I be right in assuming there couldn't be any consequences for my actions, especially if she figured out what happened and knew who I was?


It is not a reason. In order for it to BE a reason, one has to value one's own well-being over consequences of opposing society. Shuck society. But if I consider myself valuable to myself, then I could justify preserving myself by conforming to society. If I value society itself, or if I value other people who are engaged in societal participation, then I could also make the same justification for conforming to society.


Ask American civil rights advocates from the middle of the 20th century if they had a reason NOT to comply with the law.


It's a fact that people believe things. You, for example, believe I'm presupposing something. So?


A value judgment has to do with two different meanings of the word. For one, it is the regard that something is held to deserve, i.e. it's importance. The other meaning has to do with one's principles or standards of behavior.

Morality has to do with right vs. wrong.

The two are connected because of the intuitive "wrongness" people sense when values have been violated. You can't have morality if you lack any values. But you can't obtain justice without those values, either.


Yes, ACCORDING TO THE LAW. But who makes the laws? And why do they feel justified in making those laws?

By value I exclusively mean the first, i.e. what one desires or consider important. I refer the second to morality. It is you who is jumping between the two definitions.

If there is really such thing as universal morality in the moral realist sense then there is a non question begging way to define what is right and wrong without referring to ANY value system in the first sense (even supreme or not is value).

If one takes this definitions then your 'connection' must be wrong. The so called intuitive wrongness is no more than emotion when they see something undesirable.

No, because one's own standard of behavior on its own has nothing to do with right or wrong. That's a personal thing. I might live as close to the Bible as I possibly can, but that doesn't mean I think everyone else should. Now, true, I do think everyone else should, but it's not because I value the Bible. It's because I value other people. Values can also change over time, or one can refine what he believes in terms what is ultimately important. One might conclude that certain values aren't really all that important or really aren't valuable at all.

Morality, on the other hand, is NOT personal. It might appear personal because of differing values, but it's not. In order to detect morality at all, you have to have AT LEAST two people involved. One person to violate the values of the other, and the other to make a moral judgment against the first person based on value violations. The same is true if a person is completely in the absence of other human beings. Why? Let's say a person is in isolation and is disaffected by a natural disaster of some sort. Since natural disasters are the domain of God, that person might blame God for being a jerk. Or if the person believes that he must have done something wrong for God to punish him, then he's making the conclusion that he has failed in relation to a superior system of values. Without God or without another person, there is no moral expression.


Not buying it. If we don't place value on anything, there is no reason to feel offended if those values are violated. That may sound circular, but I'm just trying to point out that you can't offend something that doesn't exist. If there are no values, there is no morality. A subtle variation on the reverse is also true: If no morality, then no reason for values. No matter how you try to argue your way out of it, there's no question (that I can think of) about the reasons behind any given value judgment that cannot be answered without yet another value judgment. It's hard to avoid answering in terms of "right" and "wrong," and you did this in a very veiled way in your own responses and I just now realized I completely missed it. Lemme see if I can find an example... OK, probably not the best example, but the first one I noticed in looking back:


You didn't say "It's only fair..." or "It's only right to expect..." in those exact words. You're struggling to be consistent, but what you're basically doing is justifying why things SHOULD be a certain way--not "should" in terms of predictability, but rather in terms of "ought." There is no "should" in that sense, or no "ought-ness" in the absence of morality. There "should" not be, if you are right (correct), any need for justification at all.

Universal morality doesn't deal with nitpicky personal standards of behavior. Universal morality merely affirms that certain things are "just right" or "just wrong." I may be oversimplifying, but universally we all have a sense that unjustifiable, malicious behavior is wrong, whereas compassionate, helpful behavior is right. If there is no "right" or "wrong," then why even HAVE an emotional response?

Digression Warning: My daughter doesn't handle being picked on very well, but I let her brother get away with teasing her to toughen her up. It's working, but she still has furious tendencies and hasn't figured out that her brother is just doing it for the attention. So when she's not even interested that he's playing with one of her toys, he STILL pesters her just to get a reaction and it doesn't always work. So when I see that happen, I tell her to look at him and say "Whatever."

Back to the point: Why don't we show the same response? For the little things, we may really not care all that much and some minor infractions are not even worth the effort. But gross acts of destruction deeply offend us, provokes emotional responses, and tempts us to demand justice. Why is that? Just to protect our emotions? But wouldn't that mean we're placing value on our emotions and our perceived rights to feel certain ways?


Well, like I said, the second definition of value is not morality nor universal because we all value different things, even in terms of personal standards of behavior. Morality is more than just one person.

I think that "wrongness" demands an emotional response, yes. But if there is no "right" or "wrong," then "desirable" or "undesirable" are irrelevant. And that makes concepts like "justice" or "vengeance" completely irrational and reduces, say, an abused housewife seeking a divorce to nothing more than overdramatic histrionics.

In the first two statements, you assert that personal value has nothing to do with morality. Then how can one make a 'moral judgment' based on her own personal value being 'violated'? This shows how bad your logic is.

If I am 'just right' to kill your daughter than I am 'just right' no matter what your value is or how you are offended.


Because it is. You feel offended because your value being violated, NOT because the other party is 'just right' or 'just wrong'.


Just because you are begging the question by asserting that appealing to 'universal morality' is the only reason.


No idea what you are talking about.


And what does 'just right' and 'just wrong' mean?


Magical WOO


Emotional response is just bio-chemical reaction. Why do we feel hungry?


You still fail to distinguish 'value' being 'violated' (actually I think you just means you are placing values in terms of desirable / not desirable behaviors.


What do you mean by 'relevant'?


Define 'rational'.