Moral absolutes

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by JThunder *
**So you say NOW. Yet earlier, you restated my position as follows:

Note that in your rephrasement of my stance, you clearly omitted the part where I spoke about torturing for fun.**

I ommited “for fun” because I wasn’t going to type “for fun” each time. I assumed it was clear we were talking about torturing babie “for fun”. Reread my first answer. I clearly wrote “I enjoy torturing babies”. It seems to me it’s quite clear it means torturing babies for the sake of it, “for fun”. I don’t understand why you insist on stating I ignored the “for fun” part

For pity’s sake. YOU are the ones who claim that there are no moral absolutes. None whatsoever. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders to defend your claim. Or is the problem that you can’t defend it, and that you thus want to shift the burden or proof onto someone else?

Nonsense. you’re stating that something exist : “morale absolutes”. Hence the burden of proof rest on your shoulders. And anyway I did answer. For the umpteenth time you want me to morally justify torturing babies ** for fun ** (is it enough or should I write it in big red letters, next time?). To give a moral justification, I must necessarily assume there’s a preexisting moral. IOW, you want me to accept that there’s an absolute moral as a given, and prove on this basis that there is no absolute moral. It makes no sense.

So let me ask you again. DO you believe that torturing babies for fun is justifiable? I’m not talking about situations where there is some external compulsion, or where one must choose between the lesser of two evils. I’m talking about torturing them for fun. **

Once again, in simple terms : I want to torture babies because ** it’s fun **. I just enjoy it. That’s my justification. Now, prove me that it’s immoral. And not by mentionning some arbitrary moral rule, like “torturing people is wrong”, because I will tell you : prove me that not following this rule is immoral.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I think that “morality” is a product of human thought which does not actually have any objective reality outside of human thought. Essentially, I believe that groups of humans, on a micro level and a macro level, have attempted to formulate a consensus for behaviors which basically fall into three broad categories: desirable (or “good” or “right”), acceptable (morally neutral), and unacceptable (or “bad” or “wrong”). Oftentimes, these codes of behavior have been mystified, or perceived as having been derived from a more divine authority.

Generally the consensus about what behaviors should be expressly forbidden is what has been most important to people.
Usually these are behaviors which cause obvious and gratuitous harm to others. Murder, rape, theft, assault and the like are generally recognized as undesirable behaviors in any human society.

Most political and philosophical conflict over morality springs from the wide variety of behaviors which have often been deemed undesirable or “immoral” by various cultures, subcultures and religions which do NOT cause any obvious harm to others. Archaic beliefs about ritual purity once led to proscriptions against homosexuality and having contact with menstruating women. A once genuine concern about simple health led to strict dietary codes. Other taboos were derived purely from a superstitious fear of angering gods. (atheism, working on the sabbath, worshipping idols).

Much “morality” is amorphous, ambiguous, ever-changing. As human understsnding of the world changes, so does human consensus about behavior. We no longer fear divine reprisals for idol worship or marrying “foreign” women. We no longer accept any notions of racial superiority/inferiority, and have changed our codes accordingly.

Other behaviors, though, are still clearly harmful. The consensus has not changed about *murder, rape, robbery and assault. If anything, consensus has widened to offer MORE protection from these behaviors. So in that sense, I would say that there are at least some behaviors which have a virtually universal consensus for being defined as “absolutely” immoral. This is probably the closest thing we can get to an “absolute” moral value without resorting to the supernatural.

*Ironic point: it is interesting, is it not, that the one behavior which humans find the most undesirable, the taking of human life, seems to be the one “absolute” taboo with the most loopholes and exceptions.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Clairobsur, to answer your hypothetical about torturing babies, I would say that it matches MY defintion of “immorality” (see above) in that it violates human consensus as to what is acceptable behavior.

[erislover]

If one cannot justify an absolute moral that “nearly everyone” has, I wouldn’t think it would ever be any easier to do with one less consequencial, DtC.

The consensus has not changed about *murder, rape, robbery and assault.

Hasn’t it? To this relativist, we’ve liberally applied ad hoc definition changing in order to keep murder, rape, robbery, and assault wrong (consider ‘date rape’ for a recent example). Consider people who do think it is wrong to commit murder, but support the death penalty as right. Why is the death penalty OK? Because it is not murder by definition (and it really isn’t murder by definition). QED. Needless to say I am not impressed.

The consensus on which behaviors—specifically—count as ‘rape’, ‘murder’, and ‘robbery’, have changed over time. As such, it seems silly to say that murder has always been illegal. Murder hasn’t always been murder, so I don’t know what that’s supposed to prove.

And given instead that there is some locus of behavior that has remained constant—and shall ever remain constant—implies a certainty with which I am not familiar. (RE: Spiritus’s posts, et al)

[clairobscur]

*Originally posted by Diogenes the Cynic *
**Clairobsur, to answer your hypothetical about torturing babies, I would say that it matches MY defintion of “immorality” (see above) in that it violates human consensus as to what is acceptable behavior. **

I don’t disagree with your definition…

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

My definition may seem arbitrary, but I don’t think it is any less so than some other human constructs. Let’s take “countries” for example. Do geographical “borders” have any objective reality? No. Does that make them any less meaningful in a practical sense?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Of course not. I don’t believe that anybody here is arguing that morals are not meaninful in a practical sense. Are you arguing for the existence of countries with absolute borders?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

No, I guess I’m just trying to say that the argument itself (i.e. “does absolute morality exist?”) is useless in a practical sense. Morality is a made up set of rules, this is true. Some of them I like and some of them I don’t like, some of them I don’t recognize as legitimate at all. Ideas of right and wrong do not have any objective reality of their own. Knowing this philosphically, however, does not change our experience of these things as having real influence on our lives.

[Nobody]

All right, which moral relativist here could witness somebody getting shot for their shoes, and say, “In my opinion this is wrong, but that’s only my opinion.”, How could you say that it’s only an opinion that an abusive parent putting out a cigarette on their child’s arm is wrong?
How could you not look at these things and see that, no matter what anybody thinks, they are wrong?

[loinburger]

*Originally posted by Joel *
How could you not look at these things and see that, no matter what anybody thinks, they are wrong?

Why are they wrong?

(Understand that I also believe that these things are wrong, but my justification for this belief rests on logic (whose axioms cannot be proven absolutely), language (which is a man-made creation that is constantly changing, and thus is not absolute), and culture (which is also constantly changing, and thus is not absolute). In other words, I am not a moral absolutist simply because I don’t believe that it is possible to absolutely prove that any given moral law is correct, since all available means of justifying morals are non-absolute. So, by what absolute means do you justify your belief that these things are wrong?)

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**All right, which moral relativist here could witness somebody getting shot for their shoes, and say, “In my opinion this is wrong, but that’s only my opinion.”, How could you say that it’s only an opinion that an abusive parent putting out a cigarette on their child’s arm is wrong?
How could you not look at these things and see that, no matter what anybody thinks, they are wrong? **

The Vizigoths, Mongol hordes and the Vikings did not think that rape and pillage was wrong. They were a large group of people, and they were around for a long time. Morals change over time. They are fluid, not fixed in stone.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

All right, which moral relativist here could witness somebody getting shot for their shoes, and say, “In my opinion this is wrong, but that’s only my opinion.”

I can.

Perhaps your confusion comes from thinking that “in my opinion” is a restrictive phrase. My opnion is, in fact, the only one that matters when I, as an independent moral agent, determine what is right and what is wrong.

[Nobody]

*Originally posted by loinburger *
**Why are they wrong?

(Understand that I also believe that these things are wrong, but my justification for this belief rests on logic (whose axioms cannot be proven absolutely), language (which is a man-made creation that is constantly changing, and thus is not absolute), and culture (which is also constantly changing, and thus is not absolute). In other words, I am not a moral absolutist simply because I don’t believe that it is possible to absolutely prove that any given moral law is correct, since all available means of justifying morals are non-absolute. So, by what absolute means do you justify your belief that these things are wrong?) **

In case 1, somebody getting shot for their shoes: Harming and/or killing somebody just because you WANT not NEED something of theirs is wrong because you’re harming someone who doesn’t deserve it, and you’re taking something from them, that they had to work for, to earn the money to buy.
But the main thing is the complete devaluing of human life, having shoes be more valuable than a human.
The second, an abusive parent putting a cigarette out on a child’s arm: There’s a million things I could list. Oh, where to start. Well, treating a CHILD cruelly and extremely harsh…do I honestly have to spell out why both scenarios are wrong? It should be blazingly obvious.

[Nobody]

quote:

Originally posted by Joel
All right, which moral relativist here could witness somebody getting shot for their shoes, and say, “In my opinion this is wrong, but that’s only my opinion.”, How could you say that it’s only an opinion that an abusive parent putting out a cigarette on their child’s arm is wrong?
How could you not look at these things and see that, no matter what anybody thinks, they are wrong?

*Originally posted by jjimm *
**The Vizigoths, Mongol hordes and the Vikings did not think that rape and pillage was wrong. They were a large group of people, and they were around for a long time. Morals change over time. They are fluid, not fixed in stone. **

Uhm, you either ignored my post, or completely didn’t understand the part where I said “How could you not look at these things and see that, no matter what anybody thinks, they are wrong?”
Are you saying that if a large group of people do something, that makes it allright? Are you out of your mind? The Vizigoths, Mongol hords and Vikings were brutes, thugs, bullies, and so on. since when does majority = morality?

[Nobody]

quote:

All right, which moral relativist here could witness somebody getting shot for their shoes, and say, “In my opinion this is wrong, but that’s only my opinion.”

---

*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi *
**I can.

Perhaps your confusion comes from thinking that “in my opinion” is a restrictive phrase. My opnion is, in fact, the only one that matters when I, as an independent moral agent, determine what is right and what is wrong. **

Uhm, your opinion may only apply to you. In that case, it is restrictive. It’s restricted only to you.

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**In case 1, somebody getting shot for their shoes: Harming and/or killing somebody just because you WANT not NEED something of theirs is wrong because you’re harming someone who doesn’t deserve it, and you’re taking something from them, that they had to work for, to earn the money to buy.
But the main thing is the complete devaluing of human life, having shoes be more valuable than a human.
The second, an abusive parent putting a cigarette out on a child’s arm: There’s a million things I could list. Oh, where to start. Well, treating a CHILD cruelly and extremely harsh…do I honestly have to spell out why both scenarios are wrong? It should be blazingly obvious. **

so you consider a list of things you call wrong as proof that something else is wrong? what’s blindingly obvious is that you don’t see the circularity in your argument.

what exactly is absolutely wrong about devaluing human life, about cruelty and harshness? please be very specific, and pay attention to the word “absoutely”.

(we can probably go on like this for weeks)

-d-squared

[Nobody]

What is right about devaluing human life? What is right about being cruel and causing unecessary harm?

[Spiritus_Mundi]

How could you not look at these things and see that, no matter what anybody thinks, they are wrong?

Wrong question. I do see that they are wrong, and I see that that is just my opinion.

I don’t really see how you can read what several of us have been saying and still be confused on that point, but let me repeat: a moral relativist is NOT unable to judge something right or wrong; we simply do not pretend that we enjoy an absolute perspective from which to form our opinions.

[Ramanujan]

*Originally posted by Joel *
**What is right about devaluing human life? What is right about being cruel and causing unecessary harm? **

i never claimed anything was.

[Spiritus_Mundi]

Uhm, your opinion may only apply to you. In that case, it is restrictive. It’s restricted only to you.

Once more: I am the one forming the moral judgment.

Please think about that for a moment and then tell me exactly how “my opinion” forms a restrictive bound for “my decision.”