Absolute Morality...again.

For sure, absolute nonsense exists. You need only look at what has been posted in this thread to see that.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

I would respond to this witticism, but my blackeye is killing me.

First you say categorical imperitive i'm not sure where that is.But from what i understand you mean there is a fundamental value on life? And the preservation of it and thus because of that militant groups are not covered by that set. True but this does not cover the varieties of utiliarianism that are present, that is only a single one. There are other different ones that if operated upon would have provided a different set of solutions. Some forms of utilitarism also emphasize attributes that may not necessairly contribute happiness of a singular person or group such as justice etc. I would say consistent, open, and free dialogic processes where people would constantly have to learn about each other and that stereotypes and racial barriers would fall, and begin to understand each other would then allow for a democratic method to take place that would allow for looking out for the needs of all vs singular group. Again this wouold be decided through a continual feedback loop process of dialogue that would continually grow and change as populations changed and grew to best accommadate and synthesize a view that would further the entire social group. If people buy into the idea of a common dialogue, then by necessity everyone will be looking out for each other's natural rights and needs.

I have appreciated Ringo and yours side posts it has certaintly been important in terms of considering the possibility of an Absolute Morality being in place, yet man not understanding it.This allows for an Absolute Morality yet demonstrates it has no practical or even feasible ability to be used in society.Perhaps then does it not demonstrate the fruitlessness of discussing an Absolute Morality model for humankind?Or perhaps if you could think of purely immoral acts or purely moral acts perhaps that may further the developlment of the thread? Or perhaps consider the notion of Absolute Morals being so abstract that they do not help in day today moral decisions?

So does that lead credence to the idea of precedence becoming the appropriate answer? That sounds like a very interesting distinguishment could you put that together with an example and a slightly more detailed explanation?

That is a very interesting notion, I had mentioned the idea that would be a precedence kind of approach to Faith. And in a way I think it might apply.But I think mostly that moral codes are an abstract set of codes that you shape your life around such that you try to be as moral of a person as possible, versus the dictation of minute control of life in regards to decisions. To clarify I come from the approach that you start with basic abstract morals and you try to apply them to your life the best you can, to be as moral as a person as you can. So basically what i'm trying to get at is the idea of abstracting situations to such a level that it becomes an Absolute Moral, but in the process of doing so, I think, Absolute Morals become meaningless, to some groups, because they no longer provide an unambigious answer to a situation.

Laws derive from the sense of morality. Outlawing the tying of Giraffes to telephone poles stems for our ability to empathize with the creature. That's the mechanism that allows for us to distinguish what's right and what's wrong. Something that is intrinsic is an innate quality. Everyone has it, but it can be dulled by some. Every culture in the world understands that murder is wrong. What they disagree on is circumstances that might justify or exonerate murder. You're open to the possiblity that they might exist? They do exist. And to be sure, just answer these questions:1. Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously?
2. Can you be in India and Sweden simultaneously?
3. Can you be telling the truth and telling a lie simultaneously?
4. Is anyone getting younger as opposed to growing older?
5. Can anyone live without sustenance or oxygen?Absolutes exist. That much is unquestionable, though I'm sure somebody who doesn't like the implications of that will come up with some off-the-wall reasons why they are possible. Well, first of all, any judge that would come up with a ridiculous allegation such as that isn't fit to engage on any level of jurisprudence. Secondly, if morals are absolute then something established the rules. We'll say the Creator. If there is a Creator, He/She/It knows your thoughts before you thought them, and you will be judged on those thoughts. If your thoughts are clean, then you have commited no crime against the Eternal Lawgiver. No, the other people bear no relevance to Absolute Morality. If humans sentence you unjustly, then it is they who are absolutely wrong. Injustices happen all the time because we are fallible humans. But the infallible knows whether or not you are justified.Aside from which, why is the obvious eluding the masses? If morals aren't absolute then right and wrong don't exist because it ultimately relies on the opinions of those in power to assign for you what's right or wrong. We could even go so far as to say that even language doesn't make sense for words that convey absolute premises, such as, but not limited to, "Yes, no, right, wrong, left, right, up, down, good and evil." Those words are meaningless without them being in an absolut context.Man 1: "Hey man, what you did back there to that lady was wrong."
Man 2: No it wasn't
Man 1: Yes it was.
Man2: That's your opinion, but where I'm from, were allowed to do that.
Man 1: You are evil!
Man 2: What's evil? That subjective to the eye of the beholder.
Man 1: What? Everyone knows what you did was wrong!
Man 2: What makes it wrong? What is wrong? Oh, I see... So whoever is the judge in this town gets to decide what's right or wrong? That's wrong!
Man 1: How is that wrong? He understands what is right and wrong. The fact that you don't is shockingly ignorant.
Man 2: Eh, that's your opinion.And on, and on, and on it will go if there is not a definitive, concrete, absolute Lawgiver.Without moral absolutes, everything is permissable, nothing has meaning, and chaos ensues. Even me killing one of you would just be a matter of opinion, which is exactly why political Anarchy does not work.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

LOL! I'm a big fan of Sweden, and I've always hoped to visit someday, but I had no idea that Sweden was one of the absolute fundamentals of the universe.

Just answer the questions.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

It's obvious that absolute morality doesn't exist, or if it does it's unknowable, because nobody can agree on what those absolutes are.It's obvious that human morality is a fluctuating, amorphous thing. If morality was an absolute condition of the universe, it would be impossible to act immorally. If morals were absolute they would be like the laws of physics.Right and wrong exist independant of absolute morality. The fact that you don't have any ready source for what right and wrong actually are is irrelevant. When you play Monopoly, some games put the Community Chest payments in the middle and pay them when you land on Free Parking, and others don't. If you refuse to pay in in a game where its been established that you must do so, you're still cheating, even though that isn't written in the paper rules. Communities establish their own morals and address transgressions, and individuals look to the community and the community's authorities for moral guidance. Nobody who examines such experiments as the Stanford Prison Experiment or the Milgram Experiment can honestly arrive at any different conclusion.Morality is something we experience as community. It's not a set of absolutes that the universe enforces. Obviously God can't enforce anything as he doesn't exist. If morals were absolute, they would be inviolable and obvious. That they are fungible, negotiatable, and flexible in every instance proves that there are no moral absolutes.

Any answer to post 62, Faith?

Hey Crash,Maybe you will work with me on this. I'm not really into philosophy so this Absolute Morality thing is confusing especially the way others are using it.From watching the discussion, the proponents of absolute morality don't seem to know what it means either.I found this definition though that seems to follow what I think some are trying to say: If this is the case then I understand which definition from the dictionary is being used.But given that and looking at NJ's questions, the questions don't make any sense. The last two fall into what you stated and I agree with:

quote:

---

It's obvious that human morality is a fluctuating, amorphous thing. If morality was an absolute condition of the universe, it would be impossible to act immorally. If morals were absolute they would be like the laws of physics.

---

I'm not sure what doing something simultaneously or not has to do with absolute. I mean, I can be wet and dry at the same time and I can tell the truth and lie at the same time.I think that is why I was getting confused. In trying to clarify the absolutist position some get away from morals and into odd stuff.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Doesn't follow. Doesn't follow. Doesn't follow.

Of course.

Well, obviously I think the question is moot since no such thing exists, or will ever exist.But from an evolutionary perspective, one could define an 'optimal' set of morals as a set which leads to a maximum number of reproducing offspring? That way, you automatically get a basic set of morals which sort of "imposes" itself, since it in itself increases the number of individuals who hold onto it.We again run into the dichotomy of absolutes vs relatives here, since this set of morals will be dependant on the (ever changing) environment again, and thus fluctuate somewhat.Isn't that exactly what we see in practice?