Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Victor · 17-10-2011 05:49PM

Zombrex wrote: »

we then get into the rather bizarre argument that killing 50 million is not as bad as killing 100 million.

Indeed, thats a matter of abilty / oppurtunity, not evilness.

Festus · 17-10-2011 06:13PM

strobe wrote: »

Why do I have such a hard time getting my head around all this subjective/objective/relative morality stuff?

Ok, I'm going to try and get this all cleared up in my head once and for all this time. (Maybe I should start a thread over in the philosophy forum... I'll stay here for the time being. Lot of you seem to have a good handle on this stuff).

So, first question(s):

If someone believes that no objective morality exists does that make them by default a moral relativist? Can you believe that subjective morality is the only morality that exists and not be a moral relativist? Or is moral relativism more about saying "you can not make moral judgments about the actions of others"? Is that what it is? 'Cause I mean you could believe that you can make moral judgments on the behaviour of others and simultaneously believe that no objective moral exists right? You are just judging them based on your own subjective morality and there doesn't seem to be any logical barrier to that.

No, No, Yes, No, Yes, probably... I think.

Absolute morality makes life so much easier.:)

Festus · 17-10-2011 06:19PM

Victor wrote: »

Indeed, thats a matter of abilty / oppurtunity, not evilness.

Would it not be the case of being evil first and developing efficiency later?

Helix · 17-10-2011 09:25PM

does the fact that the church itself revises what is right and wrong not suggest that there are no absolutes, even within catholocism?

The Quadratic Equation · 17-10-2011 10:41PM

Helix wrote: »

does the fact that the church itself revises what is right and wrong

Examples ?

Zombrex · 18-10-2011 09:26AM

Festus wrote: »

Would it not be the case of being evil first and developing efficiency later?

I think he means Stalin wasn't twice as evil as Richard III.

PDN · 18-10-2011 10:00AM

Helix wrote: »

does the fact that the church itself revises what is right and wrong not suggest that there are no absolutes, even within catholocism?

Not at all, you are referring to men's changing understanding of an absolute, not the thing itself changing.

For example, scientific knowledge might change, concerning something like the age of the universe. But the universe still has an objective age - it is only our understanding of it that has changed.

So, the fact that men change their opinion on what is right and wrong only indicates that men's opinions change, which is precisely what we mean when we use terms like 'subjective' and 'objective'.

Morbert · 18-10-2011 12:14PM

PDN wrote: »

But, if you do not believe in an absolute objective morality, 'compassion' and 'intrinsic love' are just evolved responses - of no more objective value than a dog sniffing another dog's arse. No?

Yes, insofar as compassion and a dog sniffing another dog's arse are both considered natural. Perhaps, as Zombrex suggested, it was a misunderstanding on my part, but, even on an evolutionary level, altruism is not for the purpose of some cold utilitarian goal of furthering the species or the individual. The moral abhorrence an atheist feels is no less raw than the abhorrence a Christian feels.

Helix · 18-10-2011 12:52PM

PDN wrote: »

Not at all, you are referring to men's changing understanding of an absolute, not the thing itself changing.

i thought the pope was infallible?

Zombrex · 18-10-2011 12:53PM

Helix wrote: »

i thought the pope was infallible?

No, he can make infallible proclamations, but they are rare and there is a whole set of criteria that must be met for them to be considered infallible. Him liking Jim Carey over Robin Williams is not an infallible assessment :P

PDN · 18-10-2011 03:06PM

Morbert wrote: »

Yes, insofar as compassion and a dog sniffing another dog's arse are both considered natural. Perhaps, as Zombrex suggested, it was a misunderstanding on my part, but, even on an evolutionary level, altruism is not for the purpose of some cold utilitarian goal of furthering the species or the individual. The moral abhorrence an atheist feels is no less raw than the abhorrence a Christian feels.

Indeed, and I wouldn't for a moment say that the moral abhorrence feels less raw to an atheist.

However, the Christian's abhorrence (in their opinion) stems from an ideal that something is intrinsically and objectively wrong. The atheist's abhorrence (if they are consistent) stems from an accidental quirk of evolution that could just as easily have caused us to be proud of torturing babies and to view compassion as despicable weakness.

Indeed, could it not be argued (once one rejects the concept of objective morality) that the philosophy of Nazism, and the whole concept of the final solution, was not immoral per se, but that the Nazis were simply misunderstood because they represent a minority strand of opinion rather than the view that evolved to become the majority?

Morbert · 18-10-2011 05:24PM

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, could it not be argued (once one rejects the concept of objective morality) that the philosophy of Nazism, and the whole concept of the final solution, was not immoral per se, but that the Nazis were simply misunderstood because they represent a minority strand of opinion rather than the view that evolved to become the majority?

Yes. The majority of materialists like myself would be moral nihilists.

Fanny Cradock · 18-10-2011 06:23PM

Zombrex wrote: »

we then get into the rather bizarre argument that killing 50 million is not as bad as killing 100 million.

Pinker himself deals with the absurdity of such an argument on his web site in typical elegant fashion.

I'm curious what his whole argument is based upon. My understanding - which comes from the TED talk watched some time last year - is that Pinker is doing exactly that - comparing figures of violence over the millennia and determining that we are getting less violent.

Fanny Cradock · 18-10-2011 06:46PM

Morbert wrote: »

Yes. The majority of materialists like myself would be moral nihilists.

Well, at least you recognise and embrace, however theoretically, the conclusions of a universe devoid of a transcendental source of morality. The outrage one feels at every rape, murder, cruelty and injustice is at heart illusory. And it is truer - absolutely truer - to say "Dachau is wrong is not a fact" then it is to say that "the murder of people in Dachau was absolutely wrong".

Do the conclusions of that not eat you up inside, especially if some unspeakable cruelty is visited upon you or your loved ones? Or does moral nihilism also liberate you in some way?

Morbert · 18-10-2011 07:12PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, at least you recognise and embrace, however theoretically, the conclusions of a universe devoid of a transcendental source of morality. The outrage one feels at every rape, murder, cruelty and injustice is at heart illusory. And it is truer - absolutely truer - to say "Dachau is wrong is not a fact" then it is to say that "the murder of people in Dachau was absolutely wrong".

Do the conclusions of that not eat you up inside, especially if some unspeakable cruelty is visited upon you or your loved ones? Or does moral nihilism also liberate you in some way?

I see it as a terrible truth, but there is nothing I can do about it. All we have is our collective revulsion towards cruelty, which, as history has shown, is often only paper thin.

I would not describe it as liberating. I would also not describe theism as a constraint on human behaviour. People have done great things in God's name. They have done terrible things in God's name.

Fanny Cradock · 18-10-2011 07:22PM

Morbert wrote: »

I see it as a terrible truth, but there is nothing I can do about it. All we have is our collective revulsion towards cruelty, which, as history has shown, is often only paper thin.

I would not describe it as liberating. I would also not describe theism as a constraint on human behaviour. People have done great things in God's name. They have done terrible things in God's name.

I agree with much of that albeit with the obvious exception.

You know, I can't help but think that sometimes - just sometimes - you are close to the Kingdom, Morbert.

strobe · 18-10-2011 07:36PM

Festus wrote: »

Absolute morality makes life so much easier.:)

:pac:

I agree absolutely.

strobe · 18-10-2011 09:46PM

Morbert wrote: »

Yes. The majority of materialists like myself would be moral nihilists.

Could Morbert or anyone else direct me towards any good criticisms or refutations of moral nihilism?

Not 'you shouldn't be a moral nihilist because...', or 'moral nihilism is undesirable because...' but more 'moral nihilism is untrue because...'.

I am aware of where I am posting but hoping for arguments that don't primarily work off the presumption that 'there is God, therefore', for obvious reasons, if possible.

Thanks.

Fanny Cradock · 18-10-2011 10:06PM

strobe wrote: »

Could Morbert or anyone else direct me towards any good criticisms or refutations of moral nihilism?

Not 'you shouldn't be a moral nihilist because...', or 'moral nihilism is undesirable because...' but more 'moral nihilism is untrue because...'.

I am aware of where I am posting but hoping for arguments that don't primarily work off the presumption that there is a God, for obvious reasons, if possible.

Thanks.

I'd be interested to hear this too. You might find the afore mentioned Pinker (he of the nasally voice) and Sam Harris' recent release The Moral Landscape to be of interest. You can watch both on TED.

If I've understood Harris' argument correctly, he attempts to ground morality in well-being or flourishing - things he argues are measurable and therefore scientific. Merely drawing a connection between the two only goes to suggest that scientific knowledge can inform moral choices. In short, I think he must be making a category error.

How do you suppose that absolute right and absolute wrong could exist beyond us, Strobe, if not for some transcendent source?

strobe · 18-10-2011 10:10PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

How do you suppose that absolute right and absolute wrong could exist beyond us, Strobe, if not for some transcendent source?

I don't. (I think...)

Zombrex · 18-10-2011 10:19PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm curious what his whole argument is based upon. My understanding - which comes from the TED talk watched some time last year - is that Pinker is doing exactly that - comparing figures of violence over the millennia and determining that we are getting less violent.

That isn't really what myself and ISAW were discussing, it is ISAWs notion that Christianity is a more moral system because it only kill X million people, where as Communism killed XX million people.

It is like saying murder is worse than rape so we should just stick with raping people. We should of course be trying not to murder or rape people.

The Quadratic Equation · 18-10-2011 10:22PM

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't really what myself and ISAW were discussing, it is ISAWs notion that Christianity is a more moral system because it only kill X million people, where as Communism killed XX million people.

It is like saying murder is worse than rape so we should just stick with raping people. We should of course be trying not to murder or rape people.

And when you have to resort to trying to misrepresent his argument as such, you have clearly lost.

Zombrex · 18-10-2011 10:25PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

And when you have to resort to trying to misrepresent his argument as such, you have clearly lost.

I wasn't aware I was trying to win

The Quadratic Equation · 18-10-2011 10:35PM

Zombrex wrote: »

I wasn't aware I was trying to win

You shouldn't try so hard then

Zombrex · 18-10-2011 10:37PM

PDN wrote: »

Indeed, and I wouldn't for a moment say that the moral abhorrence feels less raw to an atheist.

However, the Christian's abhorrence (in their opinion) stems from an ideal that something is intrinsically and objectively wrong. The atheist's abhorrence (if they are consistent) stems from an accidental quirk of evolution that could just as easily have caused us to be proud of torturing babies and to view compassion as despicable weakness.

Christians also face the same problem (in fact all believers of a creator deity do).

Are God's commandments on moral living a reflection of the objective truth of reality's moral laws?

If so God is not the source of moral law he is merely a reflection of it, and this raises the question of where these moral laws come from.

If morality is God's determination then why is one thing moral and another thing not moral. A classic answer is that God knows what is best, but then what is best, who is that defined? Is that an external determination separate to God? If so what is the source of it? If it is not, if best is what God says it is then you get into a recursive loop.

Can it be explained why God things X is moral and Y is immoral without endless recursion or appeal to an objective standard above God?

Christianity no more escapes this issue than the idea that evolution is the source of morality escapes it. We are still left with the question why X is moral and Y is immoral, if you introduce God you are simply left with the question why is X moral according to God and Y immoral according to God. If you say that is the way God wants it to be you are left with the question why does God want it to be that way. If you say it is part of his nature you are left with the question why is it part of his nature.

There is a least a sense of understanding with evolution, evolution picks behaviors that benefit reproduction and survival. It does that because if it didn't it wouldn't be around to ask the question why does it do that because noting would reproduce or survive.

We think it is wrong to kill babies because if we didn't we would kill all the babies and we would no longer exist.

We think it is wrong to murder people because if we didn't we would murder people and they would murder us and we would no longer exist.

It gets more complicated with stealing and other ethical behavior but ultimately the principle is the same.

Zombrex · 18-10-2011 10:39PM

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

You shouldn't try so hard then

I was merely explaining that Fanny's question was not what myself and ISAW were discussing (and have discussed many many times before).

Out of curiosity what part do you feel is being misrepresented in ISAW's position? I assume you are familiar with it?

Enkidu · 19-10-2011 08:36AM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

The outrage one feels at every rape, murder, cruelty and injustice is at heart illusory.

How is it illusory? It has no a priori and atemporal foundation, but that's pretty high standards to have for any emotion you feel. This is often my problem with these kind of discussions, the standard is set so high, everything must be held to be true in some eternal sense, outside of time, in some logically complete way via being held in the mind of some infinitely powerful being. Of course any other justification is going to fall short of that.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do the conclusions of that not eat you up inside, especially if some unspeakable cruelty is visited upon you or your loved ones? Or does moral nihilism also liberate you in some way?

Again maybe I'm missing something here, but I would view moral nihilism as an objective fact, but that doesn't upset me. It would be like going on a roller coaster and getting no enjoyment from it because the roller coaster is ultimately just made of protons, electrons and neutrons, i.e. it's true on a level which has no effect on me as an individual. So if somebody gets murdered why does it matter that it isn't "wrong" in some objective sense that's burned into the fabric of the universe. I'm a person, not a galaxy, it being wrong to us and that it brings us pain, is all that matters.

ISAW · 19-10-2011 09:04AM

Zombrex wrote: »

That isn't really what myself and ISAW were discussing, it is ISAWs notion that Christianity is a more moral system because it only kill X million people, where as Communism killed XX million people.

No Im not endorsing moral relativism. I m pointing out how anti christian elements create myths such as the Spanish Inquisition or "pedophile priests" when they dont mention hunderds of millions killed by atheistic regimes of militant atheists, or that pedophiles are a minority of abuseing prioests who are a tiny minority of all abusers ( by tiny I mean of the order of less than 1% of abusers and less than 0.1. per cent of priests.)
At the same time while praising secularism and feminism and "remove the male dominant church as they have no moral values" type proclamations, we find the non church Ireland oversaw 30 dead children in their care in the last year and over 200 in the last ten years. comparatively less media analysis is devoted to such secular child care.

It isn't a "lesser of two evils" point. It is a "focus on anything the church did which might be construed as wrong. Hype them like mad and avoid comparisons with non church institutions whose philosophy we support especially when the damage is a hundred times worse."

It is like saying murder is worse than rape so we should just stick with raping people. We should of course be trying not to murder or rape people.

I totally agree. and part of that means accepting the non church deaths of over 200 Children in state care over the last ten years as well as acknowledging the 24 priests who abused children in institutions in Ireland between 1920 and 1990. But the church has responded to such abuse by clergy. what has the State done since 2000? How can we compare them? Church ZERO deaths ( I would put in 1 or 2 if they existed but they dont; state over 200 deaths) . If the Church had one or two deaths that would still be wrong but don't you really think something should be done about over 200 children dead in state Care over the last decade?

PDN · 19-10-2011 09:40AM

Enkidu wrote: »

Again maybe I'm missing something here, but I would view moral nihilism as an objective fact, but that doesn't upset me. It would be like going on a roller coaster and getting no enjoyment from it because the roller coaster is ultimately just made of protons, electrons and neutrons, i.e. it's true on a level which has no effect on me as an individual. So if somebody gets murdered why does it matter that it isn't "wrong" in some objective sense that's burned into the fabric of the universe. I'm a person, not a galaxy, it being wrong to us and that it brings us pain, is all that matters.

This reminds me of Cypher, in the Matrix movies, who was happy to betray his friends in order to gain illusory rewards back in the Matrix. He knew that the experiences and sensations in the Matrix weren't objectively real - but they felt real enough to make the transaction worthwhile. "Ignorance is bliss."

Zombrex · 19-10-2011 10:11AM

ISAW wrote: »

No Im not endorsing moral relativism. I m pointing out how anti christian elements create myths such as the Spanish Inquisition or "pedophile priests" when they dont mention hunderds of millions killed by atheistic regimes of militant atheists

I think they mention them all the time, normally in the same breath as the Spanish Inquisition and pedophile priests, as a warning against blindly following people claiming to represent the correct objective morality.

Stalin and his communists claimed to know what was best for society, and justified persecution of those who disagreed as corrupt morally evil people because their views conflicted with the Communist ideal of what is the correct way to run society.

Sound familiar?

ISAW wrote: »

I totally agree. and part of that means accepting the non church deaths of over 200 Children in state care over the last ten years as well as acknowledging the 24 priests who abused children in institutions in Ireland between 1920 and 1990. But the church has responded to such abuse by clergy. what has the State done since 2000? How can we compare them? Church ZERO deaths ( I would put in 1 or 2 if they existed but they dont; state over 200 deaths) . If the Church had one or two deaths that would still be wrong but don't you really think something should be done about over 200 children dead in state Care over the last decade?

Can you point out who doesn't accept the problems at the HSE?

The reason you don't hear people going on about the HSE is the HSE don't spend a huge amount of time trying to defend themselves like the Catholic Church does.

Or put it another way, how many reports from the HSE have you seen that try to point out that yes they had issues but look at what the Catholic church were doing!

It is the Catholic church's response to the sexual abuse scandal that has angered so many people, not that the abuse took place in the first place. Abuse will always take place, that is a reflection of the person involved and you cannot irradiated all child abusers. But it is how the body handles it that is a measure of the organisation and that is what people are critical at the Catholic Church over.

They would be as critical at the HSE if the HSE had been stupid enough to behave in the arrogant defensive way that the Catholic Church has.

But all that is rather off topic for this thread, I'm sure there are other threads we can discuss the arrogance and mis-management of the Catholic Church.

Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Comments