Absolute Morality

There is no way to determine how the world ought to be from how the world is. The only source for normative moral claims is conjecture and preference. Morals are subjective in nature.

That doesn't make them in any way deficient, but they're like your preference for chocolate icecream. Perhaps I like strawberry. Maybe you like chocolate so much that you're willing to force everyone else to eat it. Fair enough. That's when morality becomes law.

 

okay, I've never heard of moral facts before so I remain very skeptical on them since to me a fact is something that can be observed and verified, such as when you throw a stone in the water the water ripples. that is a fact.

So would you care to elaborate?

 

Murder is NOT always an immoral act. If I kill an armed intruder, it will be listed as a homicide (all deaths, even executions by the state after a trial, are listed as homicides), but some are justifiable. And over time, morality DOES shift. There was a day it was considered immoral for a woman to expose her ankle in public. People from those times, if we could resurrect them and take them to a typical beach during spring break would be absolutely horrified by what they saw.

Rape is always immoral, but is having consensual sex with a 14-year old always immoral? With the current state of our laws, it's always illegal, but I'm smart enough to realize that some 14 year olds are old enough to provide meaningful consent. But because they're the exception to the rule (most genuinely are not) we've drawn a line in the sand because making case by case decisions about who is and who isn't isn't practical.

 

I make a distinction between murder and killing.

Murder is a senseless act of ending a life.

killing someone is a justified act of ending a life.

For example, if someone is going to rape and chop up your ten year old child then killing that attacker is justified.

Ending someone for twenty dollars or for the color of their skin is murder.

Now, this is not trying to excuse an action, because ending a life is ALWAYS a terrible thing, but some actions are more understandable than others.

 

I don't how hard this will be to find but it is worth looking. I was given a boxed set of sermons made by Dr. King in the midst of the Civil a Rights movements. There were 12 sermons and there was much publicity around their release. One if the sermons was on the topic of Absolute Truth. Does the natural universe support the concept, what does the human race do without Absolute Truth? His general argument is mankind as the civilized, social species that it has become would not be possible without Absolute Truth. An analogy would be an ant hill. Without social rules accepted by every member, you would not have the same type of functioning species? Without an agreed basic Truth, would humans still be civilized man?

Dr. King thought Absolute Truth was not only tolerated but demanded for a cooperative species. If you can locate his sermon, it is interesting even for those holding opposing religious views.

 

Sounds like semantics to me. All human deaths that are the result of a direct action of a human are considered (at least in our language) homicides. Some are justified, and therefore legal and moral, some are not.

PS... When I said "some" 14 year olds were old enough to provide meaningfully consent to sex, I meant "mature" enough. All 14 year olds are 14 years old, whether or not they possess that maturity. Most do not. But there's always exceptions to the rule.

 

I have mixed emotions on this. On the one hand, cooperative societies can accomplish some impressive things. I mean what if everyone in town pitched in to help build a house for a newcomer? On the other hand competition makes us better. You think Apple would be cranking out better and better phones if they weren't being pushed by Samsung? Probably not, they'd just sit back and relax and enjoy the iPhone 1 revenue rolling in. Possibly to this very day.

 

What's wrong with controlling other people? Are you saying that violates a moral absolute? Then I suppose you're just trying to control people. You're a victim of your own axiom.

 

If it's okay for you to control other people then it's okay for other people to control you, unless you think you're special and better than everybody else.

Try living in a society where the elite get to control every aspect of your life.

ENJOY!

 

Imho, The Golden Rule is a moral/ethical absolute, particularly in its negative version, "Do not do to others that which you don't want done to yourself," essentially, treat others with respect unless they aggress against you.
https://www.ted.com/talks/karen_armstrong_let_s_revive_the_golden_rule

Although I have failed to live up to The Golden Rule at various times and will probably mistakenly fail to comply with it in the future, I still feel that violations of this rule are absolutely immoral, and regret my lapses.

 

So you're against the death penalty,

And killing in war

Or self-defense

Or would you like a little incoherence?

 

Wait, wait,wait. You started off saying the GR was absolute, then modified it before you even finished the sentence. So again, you don't believe in the death penalty or killing in war, no matter what.

 

Am I supposed to believe that's true simply because you say it is? Is it another one of your moral absolutes? Why are you trying to control people? According to your axiom, it seems you're being corrupted by your own set of absolute morality.

 

How did I modify it?

How does trying to treat others with the respect one wants for himself rule out defending oneself, even to the death of others?

 

No, all you're doing is playing semantics tot ry to turn this against me.

You are the one who is playing moral absolutes here.

 

The article is arguing that we need to be teaching some things as moral facts, things that are objectively true, and stop referring to them as opinions. In essence, they want to change the definition of the word 'fact' to include strongly held moral convictions and deliberate beliefs. I can see the appeal in this when dealing with small children ("Stealing is wrong because I said so!") but that doesn't mean that we should go changing the definitions of words just so that someone with a good idea can make it a bad idea by trying to turn it into dogma.

 

Oh, I get it. like how torture becomes advanced interrogation techniques. and how socialism in some circles gets changed to minarchism.

Don't like the word, change its meaning.

Standard dirty rotten technique to control things.

Sigh.

people never learn.

 

What do you mean? I never said there were any moral absolutes. I only pointed out that by assuming controlling others is "bad," you are violating your own axiom.

 

Murder isn't an act. Killing is an act. That we describe an act of killing as murder is a judgement.

You might judge a killing murder, another person might not. And the standard by which we judge a killing murderous is far from absolute.




​

 

Odd, because I see many who believe in absolute morality feel it's fine to have the person convicted of rape actually be raped when they go to prison. The eye for an eye thing doesn't seem to fit the mold of absolute morality. It is more consistent with revenge. As is the death penalty.

 

That rule works poorly in guiding a masochistic sociopath or when asking a stranger to administer an emergency epinephrine injection to you... if that stranger turns out to be Amish.




​

 

I prefer the corollary to the Golden Rule - "Treat others how THEY wish to be treated".

 

I wish to be treated like a king.



​

 

I don't want to be treated like a king, except for maybe once in a great while.

I want to be treated like a person, with respect and fairness and equality.

That's something I never will get from most people though.

The number of people that have actually treated me in that manner is less than the fingers I have on one hand.

Which is a sad thing.

I SHALL PERSEVERE AND DAMN THE TORPEDOES FOR I SHALL CONTINUE STRAIGHT THROUGH!

For I am eternal.

And I am you.