Absolute Morality...again.

The fact that our observations/experiences don't reveal absolute morality (i.e. we see examples everyday of how morals were/are differently interpreted, or 'violated'), is IMO enough in itself to conclude that no such thing exists.Suppose 'a' proposed set of morals, then I ask the question "In which way can we be able to recognise this set of morals as an absolute one?"- claiming that the source is some 'God' clearly doesn't cut it. Too many around, how to prove that the source is indeed 'God'?, some of those morals turn out to sound too silly to take serious...- a set that emerges from a democratic process obviously clearly admits that it is not absolute, but just a matter of numbers- coming up with your personal set and concluding that it is an absolute one, is nothing more than a proof of extreme arrogance and lack of self-critique (in the knowledge that other people happen to have a different set of morals)An actually existing set of absolute morals would prove/impose itself, quite simply. It would be inescapable. And by being inescapable, it would prove itself to be absolute.There simply is no other way.

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?

It is just very tough to discuss this in a meaningful way. Because of the mixup of words used in an "absolute" sense, and words used in a "non-absolute" sense.The problem is that you refuse to let go of the imaginary AbsolutesSo yes, there obviously ARE Absolutes in the world. But as you acknowledged, that doesn't mean that there aren't (many) relatives as well. The problems start when you desperately try to cram obviously relative concepts into absolute constraints. You get in all sorts of trouble if you try to keep that up instead of just facing the truth and accepting it.You're afraid of relative morals because you present the false dichotomy that a lack of Absolute morals equals "anything goes". But everyday experience clearly shows that this is simply not the case. Everyday experience shows there's no sign of Absolute morals, and at the same time we clearly see that this doesn't mean total anarchy. We get something that is infinitely better than "anything goes", something that goes some way towards Absolute morals, but has the benifit of flexibility.Human cultures aren't static. They change and evolve, and the morals change and evolve with them. Absolute morals would be quite a burden, if you look at it that way.

I haven't read over the thread in its entirety again, but I wonder if this point has been made:Of those who "support" the existence of an absolute morality, most seem to admit that it is very hard to get at it, to know it, to interprete it correctly... Maybe even impossible. Or in other words: they argue an absolute morality, that may exist outside the 'knowable' (for mere mortals), but exists anyway.I sorta understand that, since from their point of view there needs to be 'something' that we have to be judged against, in the end?However, I would argue that this simply makes no sense. Morality only exists of, is expressed in, the behaviour of people. It can not exist outside the world of people, it has no meaning as a seperate concept. Where there are no people who act, there is also no morality. Thus, when you're looking for morality, you have to look in the world of human behaviour.I guess this is just an alternative way to point out that we can be absolutely certain that Absolute Morals don't exist, since practice shows that no such uniform moral interpretation reveals itself.

One does not have to assume the existence of one (single) best moral judgement. Or in evolutionary terms: 'perfect' is not necessary, 'good enough' also works. I think we have to accept that certain dilemmas simply don't have an optimal solution. And that the best we can do, is try to not end up too far from an (imaginary) optimum.Hard to swallow for people who postulate absolutes, of course

Maybe they (the majority of people) simply behave according to a 'good enough' set of morals? And maybe 'good enough' means a set that sufficiently overlaps the 'set of morals' of other people? Who says there aren't solid guidelines? What about The Golden Rule? And isn't the Golden Rule something that is to be expected to appear spontaneously (in an evolutionary framework)? It's all pretty simply, if you think about it... It wouldn't matter much if it was only an "opinion". Opinions don't affect others. But in this case, the "opinion" has serious implications that affects people, including (potentially) relatives and ourselves.

I'm sorry but I just don't see how that follows... To take a silly example: there are thousands of people searching for Atlantis; does that mean that Atlantis must exist? Thousands of alchemists were looking for a way to turn ordinary metals into gold. Does that in itself mean that this 'philosopher's stone' actually exists? Desires or expectations do not imply actual existence. That's rather interesting... Maybe it wasn't explicitly mentioned, but I sorta assumed it as the only possible reason. I'm curious after any other 'behind the scenes' reason to hold onto Absolute Morality.Maybe simply the 'absolute' vs the 'relative' mindset at work, again, lol.

No matter how hard you try, I simply don't seem to get it. Let me think a bit further about this (my brain is in pain, lol, certainly in a foreign language...)One thing I could point out is that you use "...that implies that there is always a best one." Does that deliberately exclude the possibility that there could be 2 (or more) decisions that are BOTH most correct? Or only 'both indistinguishably correct' (such that humans are merely unable to make the distinction)? And again: is there a meaningful difference between the last two statements?I also object somewhat to your use of the word "we FIND one". I would argue we MAKE/DEVICE one. Or if you like that more: we decide autonymously at which point we stop searching (that is: we may "find" a number of different judgements, and then decide on our own which one we consider). And we do, in the end, because having "a" decision is better, ultimately, than waiting for an imaginary "optimal" moral judgement to suddenly reveal itself. We simply have no other choice, since the "optimal" moral judegement, if it exists, may be unknowable. There even isn't any way to know definitely that our final judgement IS the optimal one.Also, to get back to "since we do find a moral decision in our pursuit of the fairest, truest, best one, that implies that there is always a best one". That sounds so utterly bizarre! I would think that what we find exactly (i.e. does it turn out that everyone always finds more or less the same moral decision, or does it turn out that it can considerable vary according to person/culture/situation) makes a difference for the reasoning. But it seems it doesn't?? Like doing "a" test, only to disregard the outcome completely and hold onto a preconceived idea anyway. Doesn't that make the whole statement pretty... meaningless?

In the case of a social species, asocial behaviour is simply not viable in the longer term. A certain 'baseline morality', although somewhat flexible and with considerable differences possible between larger somewhat seperated social groups, maintains itself.Isn't that all obvious? I really don't see the problem.Edited by Annafan, : formatting and last sentence

I would say the example you use is a bit too absolute (where have we seen that before ;-) ) Whereas a mother will very often just jump after her child regardless any other consideration, 'strangers' will certainly weigh a couple of things. Do they consider themselves able to swim? What are the circumstances the child is in? Is the water calm or extremely wild? Are there rocks around the child so that there's a considerable chance of dying when hitting them if you jump, or is it clear water? Is the child surrounded by sharks? (the popular man-eating variety or the real ones) Etc. I would say a typical person will, even just unconsciously, decide whether a possible rescue-attempt has a good chance of succeeding before attempting it. You should stop phrasing it like that, because 'arbitrary' does not do justice to the mechanisms behind it (cfr the truly excellent post #283 by Omnivorous). It reminds me of the 'random chance' arguments against evolution, completely disregarding natural selection.