Absolute Morality/Natural Law?

Post Reply New Topic

I think you answer that here:


In the absence of immorality, there would be no need for justice. So, justice depends upon morality both to exist and to be applied rightly/justly when it is necessarily imposed for morality's sake.

It is you who is having it backwards. Suppose I kill your daughter and you do not accept my justification then either
a) I am 'just wrong'
b) I am not 'just wrong' but your standard is incorrect
How do you tell which is the case from your feeling? The fact is people feeling hurt for all reasons nothing related to 'morality' (politics, sports, etc.). Even if people do feel hurt when their moral sense being offended, the reverse is not true. Therefore feeling hurt is not a basis to conclude the other party is 'just wrong'.


Then why people have different values?


Nonsense. The "probably cause" is based on concrete evidence and not your 'moral feeling' or motivation. (Think about those politicians uncovering his enemy's scandals in order to damage the enemy.)


Why the lawmaker or the universal consensus has to be 'just right'?


Still wrong. Not rational =/= random. I told you long before.


Wrong. Emotional responds represent personal value.


That is just absurd. If you go in front of somebody's garden and his dog barks at you, is that just 'coincidental', 'random' events? Why need morality at all?


So magic is not ad hoc...


You never really said there IS. You can't even define what 'right' refers to in 'Action X is right'.


Are you saying people ONLY have emotional response when 'real morality' is violated?


http://face-and-emotion.com/dataface/em ... _intro.jsp


If it is science, then what is the evolutionary advantage of morality?


I'm not sure I understand how it is question-begging.

Just because something is "allowed" doesn't mysteriously make it justified, though. Remember, perception is relative because the perceiver's scope is narrow. But that doesn't mean we all don't merely have a view of a small piece of the same thing. A lot of behaviors that might have been justified at one point in time might be found to be unjustified later. Does that mean that they really were justified once-upon-a-time? No. It just means that people have gained an improved understanding of it. [/quote]
Then you are defeating yourself.


Either you admit all conventions are equally justified (then I proved you are begging the question) or you admit there are unjustified killing according to your standard being allowed.


For dogs?


Without the magical 'absolute morality', what is there for 'universal morality' to sense? Without magic, at best you can say most people have some similarity in their personal values.



Based on what do you say the first consensus is right but the second is wrong? Because of your feeling? How do you know your feeling is correct?

[/quote]
More evasion.

we are talking about absolute vs relative morality here, reason based moralit as i suggested would imply that some things would be fixpoints and others would change with changing conditions.
an absolute morality means there are hardcoded laws with little change or interpretation.

i find actual morality to be more like the former, largely limited by the feeble attention span and perception of humans, we contemplate what we have to and then stop, leaving a large part of the picture out.

You're making too much of this "just wrong" business, and notice I've stopped using those terms. All "just wrong" means is that certain behaviors, whether physical or cognitive, have an intuitive "wrong feel" about them even if you can't immediately figure out why something just feels wrong. You could think about it and come up with a reason, but a lot of times the initial feeling exists without any apparent rational cause. Just my opinion here, but I think if you dig down deep enough you can't really find any reason for right/wrong--they "just are"--and very little actual reason exists beyond someone just telling you that something is wrong. If you instinctively say about someone who hits you that they were wrong to do that, you've basically asserted that "it is wrong for anyone to harm you." You would also be making an instinctive moral judgment if you retaliated, assuming that it is right to do so, or maybe you make a decision based on something someone told or taught you that it is better to let the criminal justice system handle any relief you wish to seek from a wrongdoer.

Back to your question:
a). Sure
b). Sure.

"How do you tell which is the case from your feeling?" OK, sure, you can feel hurt for all sorts of reasons. So we can conclude that not all hurt is related to morality and moral judgments. Therefore, if we're talking about morality, then we're only talking about hurt feelings that arise from moral issues.

Sports, for instance: It is not a moral offense that is the cause for disappointment your favorite team didn't win. It WOULD, however, be a moral offense if a referee made a poor call, and a ref showing favoritism towards one team or another would just compound the moral issue. Even worse would be if a coach bribed a ref to make favorable calls, or if a coach accepted money to throw a game, since that would inequitably benefit a gambler who would effectively be stealing from others since the odds would be shifted in his favor. And some, of course, would look at gambling as immoral outright.

Maybe "feeling hurt" is not a basis to conclude the other party is "just wrong." But it IS symptomatic of the possibility that they are. We aren't taking into consideration other circumstances that would clarify whether a hurt is related to a broken moral rule. But I'm not trying to overly complicate things.


Beats me. Because they want to? Because they can? People have their own reasons for lots of things. I highly value my musical ability because it's really the only skill I have that would help me support my family. But I value my family more than my music. So it's in my best interest to keep my musical skills sharp so I won't have to worry about how I'll contribute financially to my family. The dark side is it often requires me to be absent during "family time." But it's also better to occasionally sacrifice that time if it means doing a better job supporting them. Those are MY reasons for MY values. But I wouldn't value those at all if I didn't also feel a moral obligation to my family and people I work with.


You don't think if a politician's opponent is morally corrupt that he owes it to his constituency to protect them from a crooked candidate? We tend to value transparency in this day and age unlike any other time I can recall.

Now, sure, "probably cause" is based on evidence. But do we need probable cause if a crime has NOT been committed? And how do we determine what is even a crime? That's a moral judgment. Before you can determine whether a crime has been committed, you have to understand what a crime is. And what basis is there to even label an act a crime?


If they aren't right, why follow the laws? Then all you have is just an appeal to majority, and thus no logical reason why something is right. It's possible that an entire society can make and enforce laws that are unjust to some, and then it's a matter of making the public aware of the injustice and getting the laws revoked and/or revised. The American Civil Rights Movement, for example. However, it becomes a question what is really justified and what isn't. I'm not so dense as to pretend that the Civil Rights problems have all been solved and American blacks and whites are all sitting down at the table of harmony together. But for the most part an entire society's way of thinking on the issue is forever changed. And this is certainly not going to be the last time people forget morals and justify some way of dehumanizing other people and depriving them of rights, but neither will it be the last time people question what is ultimately good and work towards that ideal. We don't know why slavery is "just wrong" or freedom is "just right." But we nevertheless call human slavery "wrong" and "immoral" whereas human freedom is "right." I have an idea of why that is, but that's irrelevant here.

I'm not sure that is a good response...I don't think I understand your question, but please clarify what you meant and I'll try to do better if I can...


Yes, I recall that. But you haven't yet given anything more than an ad hoc explanation of why it is behaviors are contained within certain boundaries. Come to think of it, you haven't really given any explanation at all, and anything even resembling an explanation is just some sort of appeal to society that fails to explain why we should even value society at all. Even when you tried to explain it in terms of an appeal to society, you couldn't even do that without making value judgments, and even worse, value judgments that are predicated on there being such a thing as moral discernment to make value judgments on. So why do these behaviors seem to be so well-contained? Morality explains why those kinds of boundaries exist. So even if the feeling of why we do some things and avoid other things is irrational, those behaviors are still not random. Can you provide a non-ad-hoc explanation for observed patterns of behavior?


Then explain why anyone should personally value anything.


We aren't talking about dogs. We're talking about human beings. Please don't confuse the two.


Straw man.


Well, ok, so what is "Action X"? I can't define rightness or wrongness if I don't know what the behavior is we're talking about. You can't just say all behaviors are right and all behaviors are wrong.


No. What I'm saying is that people cannot have an emotional response to something they deem right or wrong if such things as right/wrong do not exist.

If an emotional response is determined to be the effect of a cause, then one may reasonably expect the same effect consistent with the same cause each time that cause is present. No cause=no effect.

If morality is the basis by which one measures one's own response to a causative factor, then one can only reasonably act if a cause offends one's moral sensibilities. If morals do not exist, then moral sensibilities cannot exist. If moral sensibilities do not exist, there is no basis for making moral judgments. And if moral judgments cannot be made, then there cannot be emotional responses to them.

I suppose it's logically possible to have effects without causes. But in the case of morality and related emotional responses, causes CAN be determined. And we find these patterns of behavior to be highly predictable.


I see nothing resembling an emotion on that website. They just talk about some stuff going on in the brain and maybe some facial expressions. They talk about emotions, but I didn't really see one.


Not all sciences depend solely on evolution. Try again.


No, not really. I've consistently said that morality is the best explanation for observed behavior. I still don't see how anything I've said is question begging. About as close as I can think of is attempting to explain observed behavior in the absence of morality without using ANY moral or value judgments. It's difficult, if not impossible, to explain things as being right/wrong without using the terms "right/wrong." If a better explanation cannot be found, the simplest is preferred.


But we've already established that not all conventions are equally justified.


You calling me a dog? Ad hominem.


Ah, but now we're getting personal, and this isn't really that much a part of the discussion.

But if you want to know what I think, even if it's irrelevant, I think that a feeling is correct only so much as it corresponds to what is ultimately true. I believe absolute morality exists but is unknowable, and the reason it is unknowable is because human beings are not omniscient. All we need to know is just what we need to get us through the day, and that's why I think some things like murder get such big reactions--it's to heavy to be questionable in any meaningful way. I would also extend that to the divine sense: an innate need to somehow be reconciled to our Creator. Either we are deceived and live in rebellion to what is absolutely good and right or we consciously try to reconnect with it. And since we all are aware on some level, even if only on a subconscious level, of what that is, we GENERALLY conform to the same sense of morality. That we aren't consistent from culture to culture or even from person to person is easily explained by a) we are not perfect beings, and b) we are not omniscient. I personally find it remarkable that not all of us believe in God or the same god and yet somehow come to roughly the same conclusions.

Now if you are demanding some grand proof of all that, you're going to have to ask someone else. But you did ask how I know, and until someone gives me incontrovertible PROOF otherwise that is all I have to go on.


Define "evasion."

Last edited by AngelRho on 06 Oct 2011, 3:29 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Me thinks autism is related to inflexibility of the mind. 01001011, perhaps you've become a little inflexible with your view of relativity. Perhaps there could be some moral absolutes. AngelRho, perhaps you're a little inflexible with your view of absoluteness. Maybe there is some relativeness where you only see an absolute.

The back and forth is interesting here guys and both ideas of absolute and relatives make sense. Law vs. chaos, morality vs amorality, rigidness vs flexibility are some underlying themes I see in this. You can become too set in your rigidness and your flexibility. Some rules can bend and some chaos can be more ordered.

I don't expect this to bend either of your views, but you never know...

to me the very fact there is at east a single relative area means there is a far higher probability that morality is a human construct, like philosophy or politics.

I kinda agree Oodain. I think AngelRho's argument is that we're realizing this morality instead of creating it ourselves. Perhaps some of us are under the illusion that we've created right and wrong. Instead, maybe we've realized or tapped into this morality. Or maybe it's been revealed to us (I think revelation and realization are talking about the same thing). Maybe she sees it like math. The constants, equations, physics, laws of the universe, and etc have always been there, but we have only realized ways to describe it and apply it and our continual progress and refinement is more of a further realization of these absolute laws. Correct me where I'm wrong AngelRho.

Edit: Maybe realizing and creating morality are just two sides of the same coin. We're all talking about the same thing but with these 2 different interpretations.

You're pretty close in your assessment of what I've been saying. Maybe not exactly, but I'll take it.

Back to what Oodain said: I agree that SOME things are relative. And I don't think that it's self-defeating to think so. We tend to make up our minds relative to our experience and perspective. That's just a plain fact.

It's when you look at morality as relative that you start making self-defeating statements. You're a relativist only until someone runs you down with a car or points a gun at you. The instant you assert that you have the right to live safe from harm given that situation, you also assert that the person threatening you does NOT have the right to do that. Now it's no longer "you have your morals and I have mine." You are asserting that someone is wrong, and that is inconsistent with relativism. You are then no longer a relativist.

Morals really are absolute, and if we talk about something that can change or is found to be subjective, then we're no longer talking about morality. We're just talking about opinions, perspectives, and personal values. It's never "ok" to kill another human being. But we also accept that situations exist when there is no alterrnative to killing. In self-defense killing, we accept the fact that the attacker left us no choice. The blame lies with the attacker for his own death. Also, accidents happen, so that just means we should always be aware of potentially deadly situations and do our best to avoid putting others in harms way. But in no way is untimely loss of life ever considered a good thing. Because of that, we can determine that "do not kill" is an absolute, objective moral rule.

That alone is enough to show that there is at least one moral absolute. These are not like unbreakable laws of nature--moral rules, even if absolute, CAN be broken. But just because we CAN break the rules doesn't mean there ren't consequences for breaking the rules. We don't know everything, so there does have to be some kind of consensus as to how we will agree as to what rules we will follow and how to handle those who break the rules. If morality is merely subjective, then agreeing on what we will ALL be governed by is a meaningless task.

And even if we (you and I) disagree as to whether morality is absolute or relative, at least we agree that such a thing as morality exists at all!

Objectively, I do not consider 'untimely loss of life' to be a good thing, but nor do I consider it a bad thing. It is simply a thing that can happen, like two massive bodies exerting a gravitational pull on each other - would you assign a moral value to that? Furthermore, I do not want a person to kill me, but my own wishes do not constitute morality and I acknowledge no moral 'right' - for myself or anyone else - to live (I might argue that such rights did exist in the interests of self-preservation, but such would be a purely pragmatic act and would not reflect on my own beliefs).

But how do people in general feel about "untimely loss of life"? We have a natural tendency to fear death, as though death is somehow a bad thing, and we irrationally hold on to the lives of the elderly in the twilight of their lives. Pragmatically, mandated euthanasia for the elderly and terminally ill is more economical and less taxing on the young and middle-aged.

You said, "I do not want a person to kill me, but my own wishes do not constitute morality..." Well, that just means you've placed value on your life such that it is something you want to keep. You value life. And no, that in and of itself does not constitute morality. That would only be exposed if someone posed a threat to your life and you reacted to that threat. You would be asserting something between your own personal right to live and your personal right to protect yourself. You would also be asserting that someone is wrong to threaten your life. You may not think of it as morality per se, but it is a moral judgment call. And you can manifest this kind of thing without at least one other person being involved. There can be no morality without at least two people. You are correct in saying that "my own wishes do not constitute morality." Your own wishes are only half of the story.

You asked "Would you assign a moral value to [two massive bodies exerting a gravitational pull on each other]?" Well, that all depends. I believe that a Supreme Being created the universe with the intention of creating at least one world that would support human life. Within that universe, there exists two massive bodies exerting a gravitational pull on each other--our sun and the earth. There is a third body: the moon. The relationships among those three are such that they create ideal conditions for life on earth. If God had created human life on earth but purposefully left out gravitation or altered/disruptive the gravitational relationships of these three massive objects, then he would have doomed all human life to extinction. If God really did, as some seem to think He did already, set human being up for failure beyond anything they had control over and for no apparent reason, would He still be a good God or would He be jerk? If you believe in God, then you could look at the universe and conclude God is good because at the very least we live in a universe that was created to sustain us. There would then be an underlying morality to the laws of physics--that is, natural laws "work." Of course, we wouldn't know that if we didn't exist.

Morality is based on opinion, not on fact. That is why there is no science of morality.

ruveyn

Observed human behavior IS fact, though, and there are scientific disciplines built upon those facts. Morality is just as much fact as any other kind of observable thing.

yes but human behavior is never in any case or circumstance static, we are a biological beings with all that that entails.

the discovery of non coding dna and it functions also show us that biological changes throughout our lifetime are normal and effect us quite substantially,

also scientific facts are not based on human behavior in any way,
it might have data points involving human behavior but the mechanisms behind will exist and function regardless of how we behave.

You don't seem to know much about psychology. Psychology is a science built entirely on observed human physical and cognitive behavior.

Incidentally, science reasoning was never something I had trouble with--it was memorizing endless facts and formulas that killed me in high school. Lucky for me I tested out of having to take science courses in college. Unfortunately, I couldn't get out of psychology class, so half of my upperclass courses were in advanced psychology as required for my major. My wife, on the other hand, actually DOES have a degree in psychology. For me it was more general psych 101, educational psych, developmental psych, and maybe one more I can't remember. My wife got to take the fun stuff like abnormal psych and a few others I never had to worry about. About all I remember are B.F. Skinner and a few stage theories.

It is a very scientific discipline, though, since behaviors can be observed and documented. They can even be compared with behavioral patterns in control environments. Experiments can be run. Statistics can be recorded and analyzed.

And since issues surrounding morality deal with cognitive processes, psychology is the ideal scientific discipline to study it.

Now, something that is important to remember is that no empirical study is designed to PROVE anything. I understand you can't use psychology to "prove" such a thing as morality exists. What you can do, though, is show data that strongly suggests that either morality exists or there is another explanation. What 01001011 and I have been going back and forth on has to do with morality versus one such alternative explanation. I don't think his explanation is really supported by psychology--but I do recognize psychology is the ideal discipline to explore 01001011's theory since his theory focuses on the emotions surrounding what we call morality. I just think there are too many problems with that theory to be as workable as just accepting morality. It MIGHT be a worthy discussion as to whether morality exists or not (i.e. morality as opposed to no morality but merely emotions) from a scientific standpoint, but from a philosophical or theological perspective emotions-only is just not a winnable argument IMO. And I've already mentioned that I don't even think psychology really supports an alternative to morality, at least not something as ad hoc as 01001011's theory. Denying morality is about as factual as denying evolution.

as i wrote it may have data points involving human behavior,
psychology is not a strict science, it is a correlative science where exceptions and oddities are the norm, based on statistics from what is largely seperate cases, even studies with large amounts of people show huge anormalities.
it can tell that a person is affected and how, but not why, that is done by neurology or in rare cases the medical field at cause (some diseases and infections can have profound effects on behavior)
it may have given a name to a concept (ASD's for an example) but before we know excactly why and where this happens there is very little reason that the different aspects of ASD's couldnt be hugely different diseases, even among the same "group of the spectrum".
today there are several genes that have been linked to different ASD's but we still need quite a chunk of the puzzle.

you can call it fact in that it happens yes, but you cannot mix up the causality of why it happens,
humans as a conscious being come from the natural laws, in turn those natural laws have shaped us over millions of years into what we are today,
can you point to a specific point where this factual and objective morality kicks in?
in what animals or beings do we look for it?
where does it apply?
is it absolutely universal?

as a theory i find absolute or inherent morality very improbable.
it is much more likely that we developed what some "feel"(i guess) as inherent morality somewhere along the line because it benefits us as individuals and a species.
this is further imprinted by culture and upbringing.

If so, then it is immorality, rather than morality that is wired into us biologically. We are a nasty unlovable species.

Humans f*rt in closed elevators and sh*t all over the territory occupied by other species. If other animals could vote, our species would win no popularity contests.

ruveyn