Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

recedite · 21-10-2011 01:49PM

Something does not have to be real to exist as a concept. Eg. I can look out the window and see a blue car. However I know that "colour" is only the way my brain interprets different wavelengths of light. The car only appears blue because it absorbs other "colours" or wavelengths of light. But knowing this does not make the concept of colour any less valid.

Zombrex · 21-10-2011 02:08PM

recedite wrote: »

Something does not have to be real to exist as a concept. Eg. I can look out the window and see a blue car. However I know that "colour" is only the way my brain interprets different wavelengths of light. The car only appears blue because it absorbs other "colours" or wavelengths of light. But knowing this does not make the concept of colour any less valid.

It does make it not something that exists independently to human assessment or exists as a

Or to put it another way "blue" as a concept is dependent on humans. "That car is blue" means, at a more fundamental level, That car reflects light in a fashion that causes a response in most people's brains consistent with what most people term blue. "Blue" as a concept doesn't mean anything divorced from those underlying criteria.

That sounds like semantics, but when it gets to issues of morality, which a lot of people think of as something independently true or false, it matters.

Morbert · 21-10-2011 02:19PM

recedite wrote: »

Something does not have to be real to exist as a concept. Eg. I can look out the window and see a blue car. However I know that "colour" is only the way my brain interprets different wavelengths of light. The car only appears blue because it absorbs other "colours" or wavelengths of light. But knowing this does not make the concept of colour any less valid.

You are arguing against a straw-man definition of moral nihilism.

strobe · 21-10-2011 02:41PM

recedite wrote: »

In the same way, if someone enjoys torturing others, is that is a valid response to morality? Is that their right?

I think that's a good question. But to answer it you have to ask yourself; what is a 'right'? Do you believe a right is something that is woven into the fabric of reality? A property of the universe that exists independent of everything else in the universe? Or is it a convention agreed upon by humans that happen to inhabit the universe? Does the right to free speech simply exist and we as humans (well some of us) discovered this right in the way we discovered gravity and then decided to abide by it? Or did we decide amongst ourselves "hey, what if we made sure people can say what's on their mind without being kicked in the face by someone" and by doing so bring the right into existence?

If you believe the later then technically you are a 'rights nihilist', if the former then you are a 'rights realist'.

Again, you can be a fervent free speech campaigner for entirely selfless (well, as close to entirely selfless as it's possible to be) reasons and be a 'rights nihilist'. Just as you can wholeheartedly disprove of torture, want to see an end to it everywhere, feel revolted by it, try to discourage those that advocate and practice it, fight those who will not be discouraged, and protect those who are victims of or vulnerable to it, for no direct personal gain or advantage whatsoever, and still not be of the opinion that the wrongness of torture is an inextricable thread in the fabric of reality.

recedite wrote: »

In the same way, if someone enjoys torturing others, is that is a valid response to morality? Is that their right?

Is it their right to enjoy torturing? I'd say yes personally because otherwise we are talking thought crime. Is it their right to torture people? Not if they live inside the jurisdiction of the UN. Should it be their right to torture people anywhere? I think not, but I don't have to invoke a moral truth in order to say that.

PDN · 22-10-2011 09:43AM

strobe wrote: »

Is it their right to enjoy torturing? I'd say yes personally because otherwise we are talking thought crime. Is it their right to torture people? Not if they live inside the jurisdiction of the UN. Should it be their right to torture people anywhere? I think not, but I don't have to invoke a moral truth in order to say that.

What are you invoking, then?

ISAW · 22-10-2011 10:40AM

Zombrex wrote: »

It does make it not something that exists independently to human assessment or exists as a

Or to put it another way "blue" as a concept is dependent on humans. "That car is blue" means, at a more fundamental level, That car reflects light in a fashion that causes a response in most people's brains consistent with what most people term blue. "Blue" as a concept doesn't mean anything divorced from those underlying criteria.

That sounds like semantics, but when it gets to issues of morality, which a lot of people think of as something independently true or false, it matters.

While there is research on the subjective interpretation of colour, such research is verified by measuring the actual wavelength of the light which is not dependent on subjective feeling.

You argument above is "like colour, people may think there are absolute values but they is just what they think and in reality it is all relative"

As regards nihilism or moral relativity. do we want a world where "nothing is absolute" and anything child abuse or anything else can be acceptable if enough people say it is acceptable or if we allow any behaviour? Or one where people just don't care about moral standards and say they don't really exist and they prefer to deal with their own subjective morality or say it is meaningless?
In such a world without objective values/ absolute moral standards how is society going to manage? every time that was tried in the past it ended in piles of corpses.

ISAW · 22-10-2011 10:41AM

Morbert wrote: »

He might be thinking of normative moral relativism, which has nothing to do with moral nihilism.

Can you give me examples of the great nihilist civilizations and what they contributed to history?

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 11:41AM

ISAW wrote: »

While there is research on the subjective interpretation of colour, such research is verified by measuring the actual wavelength of the light which is not dependent on subjective feeling.

Correct, in the same way you can measure the actual chemical processes that happen in the brain when you watch violent images.

That is not the same though as asserting a moral fact, such as "It is wrong to be violent" Such a statement is a proposition failure.

ISAW wrote: »

As regards nihilism or moral relativity. do we want a world where "nothing is absolute" and anything child abuse or anything else can be acceptable if enough people say it is acceptable or if we allow any behaviour?

That is the world we have right now.

ISAW wrote: »

Or one where people just don't care about moral standards and say they don't really exist and they prefer to deal with their own subjective morality or say it is meaningless?

Again that is the world we have right now. Everyone deals with their own subjective morality, it is just that some people kid themselves that their own subjective morality is some how in line with the objective standard of the universe.

In reality all that means is that they picked the religious or moral belief system that closest matches their beliefs and then use that moral system to justify why they believe what they believe.

Just like PDN you speak of this as if there is an alternative. There isn't, everything you described is the world we already live in.

ISAW wrote: »

In such a world without objective values/ absolute moral standards how is society going to manage?

As it has always managed.

Fanny Cradock · 22-10-2011 11:54AM

PDN wrote: »

What are you invoking, then?

That's the question, isn't it? There is still some implicit assumption about the foundation of "rights".

PDN · 22-10-2011 12:03PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's the question, isn't it? There is still some implicit assumption about the foundation of "rights".

The implication, as I see it, lies in the word 'should'.

Strobe asked, "Should it be their right to torture people anywhere." If no one moral choice has any more objective worth than another, then what basis do we have for saying one 'should' be preferred to another?

strobe · 22-10-2011 02:44PM

PDN wrote: »

What are you invoking, then?

-UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5).

Or my own personal 'code of ethics'.

Both have a 'no torture' clause written in there.

PDN · 22-10-2011 02:54PM

strobe wrote: »

-UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 5).

Or my own personal 'code of ethics'.

Both have a 'no torture' clause written in there.

But why 'should' we adhere to those. Isn't a Nazi view of human rights equally valid? And why should your personal code of ethics hold any more sway than that of Josef Stalin?

strobe · 22-10-2011 04:02PM

PDN wrote: »

But why 'should' we adhere to those.

I'm not sure what the question is here man. Do you want me to explain why I think article 5 is a good thing?

Isn't a Nazi view of human rights equally valid? And why should your personal code of ethics hold any more sway than that of Josef Stalin?

Again is it that you want me to argue for my code of ethics over Joey's?

I mean, it would seem a little pointless, surely you know what arguments I will put forward already?

=======
=======

I think I might be missing your point. Could you re-phrase it? Pretend you are speaking to a small child. :pac:

ISAW · 22-10-2011 04:58PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Correct, in the same way you can measure the actual chemical processes that happen in the brain when you watch violent images.

That is not the same though as asserting a moral fact, such as "It is wrong to be violent" Such a statement is a proposition failure.

Into which category you can put your comparison of colour and morals.

That is the world we have right now.

But apparently according to yourself we have no way of knowing that!
So what is the difference or more reasonable reason for between believing that is the world we have and believing in God?

Again that is the world we have right now. Everyone deals with their own subjective morality, it is just that some people kid themselves that their own subjective morality is some how in line with the objective standard of the universe.

Again, if there is no objective way of proving that how do you know that is the world we have? Your insistence is only based on your faith that that is the world we have. It has to be since it insists that there is no objective standard of moral values.

In reality all that means is that they picked the religious or moral belief system that closest matches their beliefs and then use that moral system to justify why they believe what they believe.

Again that is just what you believe. you have no way of showing it to be so!

Just like PDN you speak of this as if there is an alternative. There isn't, everything you described is the world we already live in.

In your subjective opinion.

As it has always managed.

When we tried to manage with atheistic regimes it ended in piles of corpses. You think we should return to that type of experiment with moral relativity and nihilism?

tmccar · 22-10-2011 06:22PM

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:16)
There is no ambiguity on what is right and wrong in the Word of God, if you would refer to it.

PDN · 22-10-2011 07:52PM

strobe wrote: »

I'm not sure what the question is here man. Do you want me to explain why I think article 5 is a good thing?

That all depends on whether you use 'good' as having an objective meaning or not. If you simply mean 'I personally like it better' then I don't see the point of arguing for or against it, no more than I would ask you to present arguments for your choice of favourite colour.

Again is it that you want me to argue for my code of ethics over Joey's?

I mean, it would seem a little pointless, surely you know what arguments I will put forward already?

I doubt if you can put forward any convincing argument without anchoring them in the notion that morality and ethics can be objectively good or bad.

antiskeptic · 22-10-2011 08:29PM

PDN wrote: »

That all depends on whether you use 'good' as having an objective meaning or not. If you simply mean 'I personally like it better' then I don't see the point of arguing for or against it, no more than I would ask you to present arguments for your choice of favourite colour.

What about:

1) Rendered objective by the (current) common consensus

2) Rendered objective by what evolution happens to find useful in the present time

3) Rendered objective by the "Natural Law" (whatever the Hell that might be)

I doubt if you can put forward any convincing argument without anchoring them in the notion that morality and ethics can be objectively good or bad.

In watching Strobes position falter (whether he acknowledges it or not), I'm reminded of flotsam washing up a beach. There's the initial sense of an unresistable force advancing. Then some rather pathetic looking detritus left uselessly hanging.

(no offence Strobe)

PDN · 22-10-2011 08:35PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

1) Rendered objective by the (current) common consensus

2) Rendered objective by what evolution happens to find useful in the present time

Oh, I'm just waiting for either of those to crop up. We'll have some real fun if that happens.

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 08:38PM

PDN wrote: »

The implication, as I see it, lies in the word 'should'.

Strobe asked, "Should it be their right to torture people anywhere." If no one moral choice has any more objective worth than another, then what basis do we have for saying one 'should' be preferred to another?

Its subjective worth, which is what happens anyway.

You can say to someone that objectively you shouldn't torture people. But that person can simply disagree with you that this is what the objective standard is. They may say objectively it is right to torture people. Since neither of you can demonstrate the either is wrong you end up with a stale mate and you just do what you subjectively think is best, which is what you would have done anyway.

PDN · 22-10-2011 08:43PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Its subjective worth, which is what happens anyway.

You can say to someone that objectively you shouldn't torture people. But that person can simply disagree with you that this is what the objective standard is. They may say objectively it is right to torture people. Since neither of you can demonstrate the either is wrong you end up with a stale mate and you just do what you subjectively think is best, which is what you would have done anyway.

So, for Stalin, his morality was better than Strobe's morality. OK.

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 08:54PM

ISAW wrote: »

Into which category you can put your comparison of colour and morals.

The category of things that are entirely subjective and have no objective meaning.

ISAW wrote: »

In your subjective opinion.

It is pretty easy to demonstrate. Just count the number of religions in the world.

ISAW wrote: »

When we tried to manage with atheistic regimes it ended in piles of corpses. You think we should return to that type of experiment with moral relativity and nihilism?

Theistic, atheist, it doesn't matter. In fact the existence of hundreds of thousands of theistic belief systems over the years demonstrate my point.

You seem to be confusing claiming that a belief system is objective (ie what Christians do) and it actually being objective (which no one knows).

Anyone can claim that belief system X is objective. But you have to subjectively accept whether that is true or not because no one has so far come up with away to objectively measure this supposed objective standard.

So a Christian says Mine is the objective standard of the universe, and a Muslim says No mine is the objective standard of the universe.

You pick one based on subjective assessment. So you are back to square one. You don't need an atheist regime to make the world work like this, it already works like this, what you and PDN describe as this horrific alternative is actually just how the world already works and has always worked.

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 09:01PM

PDN wrote: »

So, for Stalin, his morality was better than Strobe's morality. OK.

Oh course, again you say that as if you have some alternative.

Do you seriously think if you went to Stalin and said "Well actually us Christians have had direct revelation from the creator of the universe and he says that you are wrong and in fact your morality is wrong" he would go "Oh right didn't realize I was wrong"

Stalin's morality was always going to better according to Stalin, just like your morality is better according to you.

Again I'm really struggling to see what you think the alternative to this is. As I said to ISAW, objective morality or no objective morality, this is already how the world works.

The only thing Stalin might do is explain to you how you are wrong based on his understand of the objective moral standard (Well PDN what you fail to realize is that it is better that society as a whole function efficiently than we pander to the needs of an individual, so when I sent all those people to the concentration camps it was for the greater good, you can't understand that because you are blinded by evil religion)

lmaopml · 22-10-2011 09:21PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Its subjective worth, which is what happens anyway.

You can say to someone that objectively you shouldn't torture people. But that person can simply disagree with you that this is what the objective standard is. They may say objectively it is right to torture people. Since neither of you can demonstrate the either is wrong you end up with a stale mate and you just do what you subjectively think is best, which is what you would have done anyway.

So the only objective truth is that the opinion that there is only 'subjective' truth 'out there' is THE truth? *scratches head* Sounds like a dogma to me?

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 09:24PM

lmaopml wrote: »

So the only objective truth is that the opinion that there is only 'subjective' truth 'out there' is THE truth? *scratches head* Sounds like a dogma to me?

I think closer to what Zombrex is saying is that in the everyday world, outside of an abstract discussion of the foundation of morality, there is no real difference between subjective and objective morality. There's a lot of people who say they know the objective facts of morality, but in everyday life this just manifests as another opinion, no different to others.

PDN · 22-10-2011 09:29PM

Enkidu wrote: »

I think closer to what Zombrex is saying is that in the everyday world, outside of an abstract discussion of the foundation of morality, there is no real difference between subjective and objective morality. There's a lot of people who say they know the objective facts of morality, but in everyday life this just manifests as another opinion, no different to others.

So, unless every single person in the world agrees on a truth, then it is pointless whether an objective truth exists or not. Do you really want to go down that road?

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 09:35PM

PDN wrote: »

So, unless every single person in the world agrees on a truth, then it is pointless whether an objective truth exists or not.

Well, I would say no. It's not an issue in scientific areas in which you have statistically backed objective facts to rank one opinion over another. In more human areas like morality you don't have as easy a way of accessing the objective truth if it exists, so this would be hurdle. Although of course it's not pointless, if the objective truth of morality did exist, that's very important of course, it's just it's very difficult to use it in the everyday world as anything more than another opinion since you can't "demonstrate" its truth in a scientific fashion.

PDN · 22-10-2011 09:38PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Oh course, again you say that as if you have some alternative.

Do you seriously think if you went to Stalin and said "Well actually us Christians have had direct revelation from the creator of the universe and he says that you are wrong and in fact your morality is wrong" he would go "Oh right didn't realize I was wrong"

Stalin's morality was always going to better according to Stalin, just like your morality is better according to you.

Again I'm really struggling to see what you think the alternative to this is. As I said to ISAW, objective morality or no objective morality, this is already how the world works.

I do have an alternative - namely, that even if Stalin and I disagree, that there is an objective morality that makes one of our opinions worth more than the other.

This means that we can validly believe that one moral view is better than another - even if no-one agrees with us! We can have the self-respect of saying, "I believe I did the right thing there." rather than saying, "Well I know I did something different from Stalin there, but deep down I know that my course of action was no better than his murder of millions of people, because right and wrong don't actually exist."

It appears that moral nihilism says, "Saving a drowning child is no better than murdering millions of people. I might prefer it, just as I prefer yellow shirts to blue shirts, but it is no better." I have not seen anything from a moral nihilist in this thread that offers any alternative to that. Just shrugging and saying, "That's the way it is, and since you don't agree with every single person on the planet then you are really just the same." Which, to say the least, is extremely unconvincing.

Enkidu · 22-10-2011 09:42PM

Earlier in the thread you said that contravening God's qualities was the definition of moral wrong. I'm not very knowledgeable on Christian theology, so I just wanted to know why contravening God's qualities is something you shouldn't do.

Zombrex · 22-10-2011 09:42PM

lmaopml wrote: »

So the only objective truth is that the opinion that there is only 'subjective' truth 'out there' is THE truth? *scratches head* Sounds like a dogma to me?

I've no problem with the concept of objective truth (eg the spin of an atom, the speed of light in a vacuum.)

This discussion is focused around morality specifically. And while people may claim they know the objective moral standards of some moral question I've yet to see anyone demonstrate this.

So what we end up with is a whole lot of different people saying they have access to the objective standard of the universe. And you just subjectively pick one.

It is like 20 people standing in a room all saying different values for the speed of light. If you just pick one you can hardly say you have determined the objective value of the speed of light. You haven't, you have just subjectively picked one of the values thrown at you out of all the other ones being thrown out by the 19 other guys.

I don't see what it would be any different for morality.

PDN · 22-10-2011 09:43PM

Enkidu wrote: »

Well, I would say no. It's not an issue in scientific areas in which you have statistically backed objective facts to rank one opinion over another. In more human areas like morality you don't have as easy a way of accessing the objective truth if it exists, so this would be hurdle. Although of course it's not pointless, if the objective truth of morality did exist, that's very important of course, it's just it's very difficult to use it in the everyday world as anything more than another opinion since you can't "demonstrate" its truth in a scientific fashion.

And that explains why scientism falls flat on its face in the real world. Science is useful for measuring certain things, but it is not the only measure by which we live. Any philosophy that says to the oppressed, "Sorry, but since I can't scientifically measure justice, then your oppression is simply a subjective condition that is not, in its very essence, wrong" is a failed philosophy that offers little to mankind.

Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Comments