Moral absolutes

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**quote:
So what’s ok or what isn’t is determined by the majority of a society?

Exactly.

In that case, nobody had the right to tell the Germans that the concentration camps were bad, right?

The fact that there were people who willingly build and ran these camps clearly proves that morals are variable and not absolute. Or else there would never had been camps at the first place.

As for “the right to tell the german that they were bad” . The rights are precisely based on morals. The nazis thought the correct thing to do was to kill the Jews, hence that they had the right to build camps. Other people thought that was wrong, hence that they had the right to bomb the nazis. What you personnally think on this issue is irrelevant. People just don’t have the same morals. Were you born around 1920 in Germany, perhaps you would have applauded.

The slavery that existed a couple hundred years ago, and in fact, still exists in some African countries can’t be concidered wrong?

Once again, slavery have been accepted in most societies in the past. We’re more of an exception on this. You’re don’t belong to our tribe/country/race? You’ve no rights. You’re weaker than us? Too bad, we’re going to kill/enslave you. That’s the way it worked for most of human history, and people, on the overall, had no much of a moral issue with this. And in these societies, there were thinkers, moralists, priests, philosophers, etc…But most of them just didn’t get there was something problematic with slavery. Were they all stupid, unable to see the obvious? Or is it that they had a different set of basic assumptions and thought and worked on these assumptions, considering them self-evident, in the same way we consider self-evident that slavery is bad?
Taking again this example. PETA and similar organizations are currently telling us that killing animals is evil. There are more and more people who become vegetarians for moral reasons. A lot of people dislike killing animals and wouldn’t do it themselves. Assuming you eat meat, do you feel or think you’re evil just because these people think you are? I strongly doubt it. You probably just don’t agree with them.

They’re working on an assumption (we’re animals too, and all animals have the same right to live than us) which isn’t utterly stupid. But most of us, and probably you too, don’t agree with this moral basic assumption. Note that nor you nor them can prove that the other is wrong. You just think/feel that killing an animal isn’t at all comparable with killing a human being, they think/feel there isn’t much of a difference.
Now, let’s suppose these people will eventually have their way (and I think it’s a very real possibility). If you were transported in this future society, 200 years from now, how do you think they would take you “carnivore” stance? Most probably, you would be considered in the same way than someone condoning slavery today. “How could you even consider for an instant torturing and killing a poor innocent calf, you wicked monster!”

Norms change, ideas change, morals change…

[Nobody]

Ahh, I see. So, if I understand both of you then, morals are man made, and so, artificial.
If I was walking down an alley, and saw one of you being mugged, and was under no legal obligation to help, I could tell myself that I don’t buy into the belief that I should do something, like jump in to protect you, or call the police, or anything that could help, I could just walk away because, while some people believe that I would have a moral obligation to help you, there really is no such thing, and I would have no reason to feel guilty or bad, because guilt and shame come from a since of morality, and if I don’t feel it’s immoral to leave you there, getting the sh*t kicked out of you, then that’s what’s most important, doing what’s moral to me. Right?

[jacksen9]

Joel - here are a few links that are very interesting. I suppose life would be less complicated if we all believed the same things. As society changes, our beliefs change… to suit our purposes.

This link deals with the efforts of a probation officer to change the behavior, and beliefs, of the offenders he saw coming in and out of his office… repeatedly. The Franklin Reality Model is very interesting and I encourage you to read some of this info.

read this

The model allowed the offender to fully explain his world, express the logic behind his (criminal) actions and then enter into a truthful dialogue with those of us purporting to ‘help’ him. Quite briefly, the model taught that we all have a belief window. This was not new information. This device had also been called the Jihari window, self-talk, or, if you prefer, the Freudian Id. These types of labels had never made sense to any offender I had ever worked with. However, using a cartoon-like visual image of TV screen wired to the back of our heads and permanently mounted in front of our faces gave an image that I could teach to offenders. The TV screen was a filter. This information was as old a Socrates but it was presented in a thoroughly modern manner. All I needed to do was allow offenders the opportunity to describe their ‘belief window’. As it turns out, this has made all the difference.

Also of interest:

But there is no such thing as “pure” data upon which to base a test of belief. As both Karl Popper and F.S.C. Northrup have pointed out, evidence cannot prove a belief or a theory to be absolutely true, for any piece of evidence may be explained by more than one belief. But evidence can go a long way in disproving (or falsifying) a belief. Evidence of the truth or untruth of belief is always an interpretive process, especially within the everyday lifeworld of people. Belief leads to affirmative or exploratory action in the world, and the action produces phenomenal feedback which is interpreted in terms of the belief that gave rise to the action in the first place. Experience is meaningful precisely because of the intentional projection of knowledge upon sensory events. Experience only becomes evidence when it is recalled (a cognitively selective process in itself) and interpreted relative to the belief being tested. In a very real sense, we see what we want to see, and we want to see because of what we have seen. Thus belief, action, and experience interpreted as evidence participate as phases in a cycle of meaning (remember this from Day Six?) in which beliefs result in experiences that cognitively operate to verify (confirm) and vivify (bring to life), or disconfirm and either transform or annul beliefs.

Core Belief Engineering

As Elly Roselle, creator and founder of CBE, quotes: “A belief is not an idea held by the mind, it is an idea that holds the mind.”

pv

[robertliguori]

Originally posted by Joel *
**Ahh, I see. So, if I understand both of you then, morals are man made, and so, artificial.
If I was walking down an alley, and saw one of you being mugged, and was under no legal obligation to help, I could tell myself that I don’t buy into the belief that I should do something, like jump in to protect you, or call the police, or anything that could help, I could just walk away because, while some people believe that I would have a moral obligation to help you, there really is no such thing, and I would have no reason to feel guilty or bad, because guilt and shame come from a since of morality, and if I don’t feel it’s immoral to leave you there, getting the sht kicked out of you, then that’s what’s most important, doing what’s moral to me. Right? **

Since when do guilt and shame come from a sense of morality?
If you appeared naked on national TV without being paid, wouldn’t you feel ashamed?

And, to answer your question, you tell us. We can’t decide whether or not you risking your ass would be moral. It’s your damn decision.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

It never ceases to amaze me how opponents of moral relativism seem unable to differentiate between a relative morality at all. It’s as if someone stumbled across Einstein and objected, “Hah! You’re saying that nothing can move!”

My morality is necessarily grounded in my relative context. Until I gain an absolute epistemological perspective, there is no escape from that limitation. That does not mean that I do not have moral beliefs, and it does not mean that I am paralyzed from acting upon my moral beliefs, and it does not mean that I have to grant your moral beliefs equal validity to my own. I do have to admit that i have no absolute perspective from which to condemn your morla beliefs, but that is not the same thing. I don’t have an absolute perspective from which to judge your motion, either. That doesn’t prevent me from steoping out of the way if you try to hit me.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

That should have been, “between a relative morality and no morality at all,” of course.

I am handicapped by my complete lack of typing skills.

[Mr.A.Nemo]

Originally posted by Joel *
**Ahh, I see. So, if I understand both of you then, morals are man made, and so, artificial.
If I was walking down an alley, and saw one of you being mugged, and was under no legal obligation to help, I could tell myself that I don’t buy into the belief that I should do something, like jump in to protect you, or call the police, or anything that could help, I could just walk away because, while some people believe that I would have a moral obligation to help you, there really is no such thing, and I would have no reason to feel guilty or bad, because guilt and shame come from a since of morality, and if I don’t feel it’s immoral to leave you there, getting the sht kicked out of you, then that’s what’s most important, doing what’s moral to me. Right? **

Yes, Precisely.

Examine the world that you live in. There are no moral absolutes. There is however, the Moral Majority who prescribe to certain tenets. Such as “Murder is Wrong”, “Theft is Wrong”… or if we want to travel further along… “Homsexuality is Wrong”, "Abortion is Wrong, “Drug Use Is Wrong”. In our world, morals are often translated into Laws.

There is a large segment of the population, including the American President, whom believe that Abortion is immoral. If you believe in Pro-Choice are you automatically an immoral person? Of course not, because you don’t subscribe to that particular brand of morality.

In your scenario, if you did “what was moral to you” in a region which had a “good samartian law” you would be punished for your indifference.

There is no situation which you can concoct which can be called a moral absolute.

If however, your personal set of morals differs drastically than the population as a whole, you’re violating the social contract and will be dealt with appropriately. Ostracism, Penalties under Law, etc.

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**Ahh, I see. So, if I understand both of you then, morals are man made, and so, artificial.

Essentially. Or else, point me to a mine of morals, or a spring of morals. And explain to me how comes morals change over time or from one culture to another.
With an exception, though. I think that part of our feelings or reactions are hardwired in our brain/genes. For instance, refering to my post above about torturing babies, I think that feeling empathy or being protective of children is to some extent hardwired. But of course, these reactions, that you could call “natural” are strongly influenced by the way we’re raised by our parents, the culture we’re living in, etc…
However, these reactions still aren’t “morals”. But they certainly can have an influence on them. If most people feel protective towards children, and react negatively when harm is done to them, it is very likely that some sort of “do not harm children” moral rule will appear. Still, it can take many different forms, be more or less strong, depending on the culture. Children can be more or less valued, for instance (when there’s a lot of death during childhood, or when a male children is considered more desirable than a female one, etc…). And of course, some people can and do harm, abuse, etc…children thinking all the way they’re doing the moral thing.

If I was walking down an alley, and saw one of you being mugged, and was under no legal obligation to help, I could tell myself that I don’t buy into the belief that I should do something, like jump in to protect you, or call the police, or anything that could help,

You could. Or you could not. Morals are often based on strong feelings which aren’t easy to overcome. And usually people don’t want to overcome these feelings, anyway, since they view them positively. Sometimes also, depending on your personnality, you may have some rigid or well-thought principles that you won’t be willing to ignore.

I could just walk away because, while some people believe that I would have a moral obligation to help you, there really is no such thing, and I would have no reason to feel guilty or bad, because guilt and shame come from a since of morality, and if I don’t feel it’s immoral to leave you there, getting the sh*t kicked out of you, then that’s what’s most important, doing what’s moral to me. Right?

Plenty of people do just that. They indeed think they have no duty to take any risk in order to help a stranger. A lot of people would possibly agree that doing something is the moral thing to do, but aren’t very worried about that, and wouldn’t bother helping me, either, if it inconvenience them. Some feel it would be the moral thing to do , but wouldn’t help, because, for instance, they’re scared. Probably they’ll bad later on. But I would prefer not to discuss the relationship between morals and feelings of guiltiness because I think it’s a different debate.

But anyway, I don’t think that quoting examples involving people acting in a way which is considered immoral (torturing babies, killing Jews, not helping strangers) is relevant to the issue. What does it show? That people feel strongly about these things? That we generally share these moral values? I already know that. But it doesn’t prove in any way that morals are absolute and universal.

For instance, most people would agree that going to work dressed as a XVII° century nobleman, complete with wig and make up would be ridiculous and not particulary pretty, either. But it doesn’t mean that there are “absolute” in fashion. And if you were arguing for this position, stating “should I go to my office wearing a wig and breaches?” like you say “should I just sit on my morals and refuse to help a stranger?”, I would answer no, like anybody else. But it still wouldn’t be a proof that there’s some “absolute fashion”.
Like I don’t need to wear randomly a wig, or fur pants or a kimono depending on the day to think that fashion isn’t absolute, I don’t need to not have any morals to aknowledge that morals aren’t absolute. I’ve morals as anybody else, which very roughly are the same most people in the western world at the beginning of the XXI° century share. Very roughly since we’re likely to disagree on many points (like in the “cheating wife” example in my first post) and sometimes on very important points. I feel as strongly as anybody else about my morals, I act according to them or fail to do so as anybody else, and I argue for them as anybody else. And still, I think they’re for the most part an arbitrary construct.

Anyway, the issue of moral relativism is IMO (some other people think it has/should have direct practical consequences) a theorical issue with essentially no bearing on my or anydody else’s life. To have some bearing, I should decide, for instance, to eradicate my morals. Which means not only going against the culture I live in, deconstructing the education I received, but also destroying my own values, suppressing my own feelings, etc…Not only it would be a a lenghty and very painful process, but also : what would be the point? And assuming that it’s even possible (I actually doubt it…you can probably replace some values by others, but I don’t think a human can have no values at all, so most likely I would end up with some new, weird values of my own, at best), what would be left of “me”?

[Zoe]

Posted by Joel:

Read the definition of murder:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder
The death penalty isn’t murder.

In reading the link you provided, I found this:

“v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy…”

In my own opinion, I believe that killing another person is against the laws of God and is therefore unlawful. Further, I believe that all executions are brutal and inhumane. The third definition is clear: Murder means to put an end to or destroy. That’s what executions do.

[Zoe]

Originally posted by JThunder
Torturing babies for fun is always, always wrong. Ditto for a man beating his wife when there is no external compulsion involved.

'Course, the last time I raised the baby torture example, one moral relativist exclaimed “Forget about the babies! Leave them alone!” Interestingly enough, nobody could offer any coherent reason why such actions could be legitimately justified.

Since we are talking about moral absolutes within hypothetical situations, how about this one:

If by some strange circumstance, we could keep thousands of other babies from being tortured by torturing one baby, the “absolute” of not torturing a baby would certainly come into question.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Ramanujan *
**how does me believing i’m right and justified in coming after you equate to me forcing my beliefs on you?
**

How does it NOT equate to forcing one’s beliefs on him? You just said that you would be justified in going after him, based on your own beliefs.

For a moral absolutist, that is no problem. For one who advocates complete moral relativism though, it’s a self-contradictory response. It amounts to saying, “All morality is relative. Nevertheless, I’m the one who’s right, and so I’m coming after you!”

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**Since we are talking about moral absolutes within hypothetical situations, how about this one:

If by some strange circumstance, we could keep thousands of other babies from being tortured by torturing one baby, the “absolute” of not torturing a baby would certainly come into question. **

Please re-read the scenario which I posted. I was talking about torturing babies for fun. FOR FUN. This is quite different from torturing one baby so that others would be spared from such suffering.

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by clairobscur *
**The key word here is legitimately. What does “legitimately” means? Obviously, legitimately according to…morals. You’re presupposing an existing moral while try to prove there are moral absolutes. It’s a little like the believer stating “the bible is true because it’s written in the bible”. Your stance is “torturing babies is always morally wrong because there’s never a moral justification for it”. That’s plain tautology. **

No, I said that torturing babies FOR FUN is never justified. I was quite clear in emphasizing this point. Unfortunately, whenever the subject comes up, I am repeatedly forced to point it out.

Interestingly enough, the advocates of complete moral relativity keep dancing around this issue. So tell me, are there ANY circumstances wherein torturing babies for fun is justified? Any?

And while we’re at it… do you believe that it’s wrong to impose one’s moral worldview on other people?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by Ramanujan *
**i wasn’t a part of that last discussion, so here goes…

suppose there exists a society in which babies are not considered with such high regard as they are in ours, but are in fact looked down upon as dangerous, due to overpopulation or some such (assuming that this is impossible is essentially eliminating the relativistic aspect). suppose, further, that someone enjoys torturing the little critters.

who then would tell him that he is wrong? **

Without hesitation. Why? Do you honestly believe that his worldview is somehow justified?

The society pressures of overpopulation have no bearing on this matter. After all, torture would not be necessary to curb overpopulation. Moreover, the fact that their society hold babies with less regard is irrelevant; after all, Nazi Germany had little regard for Jews and homosexuals. Did that justify their actions?

[Zoe]

JThunder, oops! Sorry that I didn’t read more carefully.

My understanding is that a “moral absolute” would be statement about an action that is always wrong or always right. (It is always wrong to _______ or it is always right to _________. ) If you set up the scenario yourself (by adding “for fun,” then you have blocked our ability to offer a situation as an example of when the suggested absolute has an exception.

I can’t contest the specific scenario – only the so-called “moral absolute” itself.

[Nobody]

quote:

Posted by Joel:

Read the definition of murder:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder
The death penalty isn’t murder.

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**In reading the link you provided, I found this:

“v. mur·dered, mur·der·ing, mur·ders
v. tr.
To kill (another human) unlawfully.
To kill brutally or inhumanly.
To put an end to; destroy…”

In my own opinion, I believe that killing another person is against the laws of God and is therefore unlawful. Further, I believe that all executions are brutal and inhumane. The third definition is clear: Murder means to put an end to or destroy. That’s what executions do. **

Ah, but I replying to you saying

Our government justifies murder all the time. After that, in my opinion, everything else in tame by comparison.

Murder is illegal killing, and if the government ok’s killing, then it’s not murder is it? It’s killing, but not murder.

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by jacksen9 *
**Joel - here are a few links that are very interesting. I suppose life would be less complicated if we all believed the same things. As society changes, our beliefs change… to suit our purposes.
pv **

Just because people believe or don’t believe in something, doesn’t make it so. People believed, and in fact, some people still believe, that the Earth was flat. Did the fact that they believed it make it so?
Nazis had no problems putting Jews, Gypsies, and other such ethnic minorities into concentration camps, did the fact that they didn’t believe it was wrong, not make it so?

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**Since when do guilt and shame come from a sense of morality?
If you appeared naked on national TV without being paid, wouldn’t you feel ashamed?
**

Feeling guilty or shameful comes from a since of doing or saying that’s wrong. And right and wrong come from morality. If I appeared naked on TV without being paid, because somebody filmed me without my knowing, I may feel embarrassed, because my body isn’t that attractive, but I wouldn’t feel ashamed because shame of nudity comes from the moral belief that you shouldn’t show your naked body in public because it’s indecent, and me being filmed secretly wasn’t my fault, so I have nothing to be ashamed about. On the other hand, if I believe that showing off my naked body in public is indecent, and I get an offer to appear nude on TV, and I take it, I would feel a since of shame for being indecent.

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**It never ceases to amaze me how opponents of moral relativism seem unable to differentiate between a relative morality at all. It’s as if someone stumbled across Einstein and objected, “Hah! You’re saying that nothing can move!”

My morality is necessarily grounded in my relative context. Until I gain an absolute epistemological perspective, there is no escape from that limitation. That does not mean that I do not have moral beliefs, and it does not mean that I am paralyzed from acting upon my moral beliefs, and it does not mean that I have to grant your moral beliefs equal validity to my own. I do have to admit that i have no absolute perspective from which to condemn your morla beliefs, but that is not the same thing. I don’t have an absolute perspective from which to judge your motion, either. That doesn’t prevent me from steoping out of the way if you try to hit me. **

Getting out of the way if I try to hit you is a matter of self preservation, not morality. And if all morality is relevant, then everybody can be moral. If Sadam feels that it’s moral to torture and even kill those who simply disagree with him politically, then he’s being a moral person because he acts on his own morality. If I’m a professional theif and feel that it’s immoral to work for a living, but ok to steal, then I would be a moral person for acting on my beliefs, right?

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by Zoe *
**JThunder, oops! Sorry that I didn’t read more carefully.

My understanding is that a “moral absolute” would be statement about an action that is always wrong or always right. (It is always wrong to _______ or it is always right to _________. ) If you set up the scenario yourself (by adding “for fun,” then you have blocked our ability to offer a situation as an example of when the suggested absolute has an exception.

I can’t contest the specific scenario – only the so-called “moral absolute” itself. **

But saying that it’s never right to torture a baby for fun is a moral absolute. You’re not saying that it’s up to the individual or society to determine for themselve(s) if torturing a baby for fun is moral or not, you’re saying that it is absolutly wrong to torture babies for fun, regardless how you feel, thus, a moral absolute.