Absolute morality: PROVE IT!

Absolute Morality is simply defined yet appears impossible for people to adhere to... Never do anything on purpose that hurts another human, either physically or emotionally, nor purposely make yourself a burden onto another(s).


Subjective morality is simply defined... Feign ignorance towards Absolute Morality!


--Charles Marcello

Suppose I drag a kid, perhaps yours, out onto the lawn and threaten to chop off body-parts one by one, until death.

If there is no natural good/bad you wouldnt feel anything while I do so. Nor would there be any reason to protest.

Do you agree?

reply to post by Justsomeguyhere


Everyone has their own personal dilemas to work out justsomeguy.

I worked this one out in that "In truth there is no contradiction."

objective absolute morality exists and each individual being chooses to seek it and live according to its truth, in spite of innate free will and desires and lusts and pride.

In each heart is written absolute objective reality.
Some rebel against this and will suffer the consequences.
Pride, refusal to submit to an intelligence greater than oneself, dabbling in physical transient pleasures and the like interfere with the knowing and acting on the objective absolte morality.

Human free will cannot and does not negate the free will of a supreme being.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


This is an interesting debate - here's my take. I cannot prove that objective morality exists; nor can I prove that it doesn’t. We cannot even conceive of the morals that animals may have (and I do believe they have them) - much less the possibility that even plants or life outside the planet earth may have morals. If we cannot conceive of these things, how can we absolutely state or prove anything about how our morality may compare to these other “cultures”.
That said, I do believe that within the confines of our human cultures, there are some “absolute” morals. But, on an individual basis (versus overall cultural basis) I’d have to define “absolute wrongs” by the wrong-doer’s intent versus the action itself. I believe most (if not all) cultural norms view individuals who intentionally inflict harm on others for no other reason than their own unnecessary gain as “bad”. But since, of course , we cannot always know a person’s intent, judgment as to what the intent is brings in a level of subjectivity.
I am not sure how to extrapolate this to the cultural level – meaning how to “judge” cultural norms against the “absolute morality” I claim exists. I’ll have to think about that some more…

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Hi madnessinmysoul,

I'll throw in my two cents worth - probably more like one cent but here goes:

Just to make sure we are talking about this: wiki- "Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong."

Let me respond by asking a couple of questions:

1. Wouldn't society and science cease to exist if certain actions were not aboslutely wrong?
Isn't society and science based on a specific set of absolutes?

2. No I am not confusing the two. I am just asking. Because what if it was ok for a scientist to lie and falsify his findings. Is this ever ok to do this in science? If it is not, then it is absolutey wrong then, right?

3. Or how about this one, over the top disgusting but it gets my point across - Is it ever ok for anyone to have sex with a new born baby? Has it ever been ok in any society? Ever? So is this absolute wrong then, right?

So maybe there are certain actions that are absolutely right or wrong.

Originally posted by IAMIAM
Morality is an absolute that we apply subjectively. Summed up simply, Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or even simpler, love each other. Though this moral is absolute in that it is the one behavior we all desire from others, it is subjective in that we pick and choose who we apply it to ourselves.

With Love,

Your Brother

Thou shalt do unto others only that which you can, without contradiction, will to be an absolute moral maxim for every conscious and free-willed entity.

There is a duality of distinct inseparability on all fronts, including the moral arena. There are altruism and egoism which I feel are at the ends of the spectrum. One may act with intent to benefit oneself or others (or any combination between the two), and most people will assign the ideas of good and bad to either selflessness or selfishness. The assignment of good and bad to altruism or egoism is the subjective part.

Then you have the duality of intent and consequence. And the duality of pain and pleasure. The duality of knowledge and ignorance. We can all see this duality, but each of us passes judgment on each section independently. The duality itself exists absolutely, the choice and perspective is all ours.

Is morality possible in a world with no conscious/living entities?
Is morality possible in a world with no free will?

In the end, it doesn't matter what things you do and with what intent and how it makes you feel - all events lead either towards order or chaos, entropy versus consciousness, each necessary for the other to exist.

Time and space are meaningless without each other. Time without any space has no purpose or meaning - similarly, space without time has no purpose or meaning.

Good and bad, altruism and egoism - each are valid ideologies and moral theories, each are necessary for the other to exist.

Remember - there is a deep and powerful illusion of separateness in our world. We are all truly a unified consciousness which has fractured itself, fractalized itself, broken itself into individual egos, in order to learn more of itself. Your self-perspective would be greatly enhanced were you able to take the perspective of an individual cell in your body. Similarly, the single, unified, infinite vibration we call god or the universe has segmented itself into opposing parts so that a great diversity of experience shall arise, allowing the infinite creator to know and love itself more fully.

Opposing moral theories allow for a larger range of potential outcomes, ideas, and perspectives from conscious entities. Free will implies/necessitates morality be subjective, and this is necessary for universal evolution. Paradoxes and contradictions are necessary so that they might be resolved.

I love you all very much

Originally posted by slugger9787
Human free will cannot and does not negate the free will of a supreme being.

Paradoxes cannot exist except as seen from the perspective of an entity confined within a system which is not the entirety of existence. Here's an example from an email I wrote to some dude about paradoxes:

...
Computers are closed systems which, without any external breach of the limit of the system, can only produce results within the system's confines. Even a programming glitch/bug is a phenomena completely within the computer's system. Thus, from the limited perspective of an entity within the computer, it would be apparent that a paradox can not exist - it would defy the rules of the system. (I mean system very generally, as just a set of rules and limits within which any phenomena is possible)

However, the computer is not truly a closed system (despite the illusion that it a closed system) - a hacker can infiltrate the system, break rules, and create a paradox or contradiction. If one views their system as closed (as current scientific theory and meta-science hold themselves), paradoxes may present themselves without a resolution. That is, unless one expands their view to see that their previously thought-to-be closed system is actually a holon within a larger holon heirarchy (I'm guessing you know this term, but if not - a holon is an entity which is simultaneously a whole unit and a part of a greater whole - everything is a holon except the universe/reality as a singularity). When one expands their view, the system and rules from which phenomena originate diversifies, allowing far more variety, or novelty, for lack of a better word.
...

So, paradoxes may only exist when your perspective is not complete/unified/the singularity. The supreme being is the singularity, thus, no contradictions may exist. The free will of an individuated consciousness, like you or myself, regardless of its decision, is still a part of the supreme being/infinite creator, it is a holon of the greater unified existence, and thus contradiction is impossible. Hope that makes sense

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Just to make sure we are talking about this: wiki- "Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong."

Let me respond by asking a couple of questions:

1. Wouldn't society and science cease to exist if certain actions were not aboslutely wrong?
Isn't society and science based on a specific set of absolutes?

2. No I am not confusing the two. I am just asking. Because what if it was ok for a scientist to lie and falsify his findings. Is this ever ok to do this in science? If it is not, then it is absolutey wrong then, right?

3. Or how about this one, over the top disgusting but it gets my point across - Is it ever ok for anyone to have sex with a new born baby? Has it ever been ok in any society? Ever? So is this absolute wrong then, right?

So maybe there are certain actions that are absolutely right or wrong.

This moral theory is called cultural relativism - basing moral behaviors and such on society's past judgment of said behaviors. This is not absolutism, because as soon as an individual thinks it is OK to, say, rape a newborn baby, then that moral law becomes invalid. If it is absolutely wrong because it has never been right in any society, then you are basing your moral theory off of cultural beliefs. As soon as some society thinks whatever the moral law is, is OK to do (like raping babies), then it becomes OK to do. Legalism is a similar theory to what you are describing.

Moral absolutism would be more like, no matter what any society thinks or has ever thought or will think, raping a baby is wrong. Even if past societies or our current society is raping babies and thinks it is totally cool, a moral absolutism theory would say that raping babies is bad. So how can we say that raping babies is absolutely bad? If there were no conscious observers of a baby getting raped (I know it's impossible, because the baby and rapist would have to be conscious beings), if nobody has an opinion or prior experience with baby rape, then nobody can say whether it's good or bad. But I think we all know that raping a child or anybody is wrong.

Even those who do go out and rape people, I feel, know deep down what they are doing is wrong. Or at least, to the best of their knowledge/intellect/judgment, they are doing what is right. I don't know any people who think to themselves as they go about their day, "Ok here we have an opportunity to act or do something. What should I do? What should I NOT do? I choose explicitly to do what I should NOT do in this situation." Most people choose what they consider the right/best thing to do in all situations, to the best of their judgment. Others might not agree with them, but most people do what they think they should do.

edit: Free will is important here. Is raping a baby inherently bad? No. If there are no conscious entities to judge the rape of a child, if there are no free willed entities to have a moral opinion/belief, then there is no morality associated with the rape of a child. However, we can all understand that the rape of a child is a the rape of a free willed entity. In doing so, the rapist is denying or impeding upon the free will of the child. This breach of free will, I feel, is what most of what we consider to be "bad" can be distilled down to.

Thanks for the response.

So raping a baby is bad no matter what then, right?

The person raping the baby and the baby itself would know it to be so, correct?

Otherwise the person doing the raping would believe it's good and the baby would think so too, right?

Whether society says it's ok or not, it is still absolutely wrong.

The baby does not have an opinion or prior experience with it, but I 100% guarantee you that the baby would say that it was a bad experience, agreed?

So it is absolutely bad.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Thanks for the response.

So raping a baby is bad no matter what then, right?

The person raping the baby and the baby itself would know it to be so, correct?

Otherwise the person doing the raping would believe it's good and the baby would think so too, right?

Whether society says it's ok or not, it is still absolutely wrong.

The baby does not have an opinion or prior experience with it, but I 100% guarantee you that the baby would say that it was a bad experience, agreed?

So it is absolutely bad.

The baby might, the baby might not. If we assume that the baby's free will is being denied by the rapist, then I would say that for me, and probably for most people, the rape of a baby is wrong. That's only because I personally feel that altruism (do things to help others, or for others) is right, and egoism (do things to help yourself, or for yourself) is bad. Other people might feel that impeding on one's free will is RIGHT, and not doing so is wrong.

Rape is a good example, because it is understood that rape goes against one's free will. But this question we are discussing might be better addressed with another example that isn't so loaded. How about stealing - let's say I steal some of your food.

You would have eaten that food if I hadn't stolen it. Indeed, you need it to live! You will starve without it. But I am even more starved myself. I need some food to live, just like you. There is only enough food to sustain one of us. If we split it, we will both starve and neither of us will last long enough to find more food. Each of us have a similar perspective in that we are starving and need food to survive. We have different perspectives in that I took your food from you without your approval.

Did I do something wrong by stealing your food? There are two human lives at stake, neither can be absolutely said to be more valuable, so how do we figure out what the moral thing to do is? I don't think there is a moral thing to do in this situation - there is too much subjectivity involved. Certainly, the best outcome, the moral outcome, we'd think, would be that both of us somehow live and neither of us have to steal to do it. But we know that is not a possibility. So all we have left are less-than-optimal outcomes. Somebody dies, somebody's free will to live is going to be denied. There is a possibility for each of us to live and consume the food and exercise our free will to live, but only one of us at the most will do so. The consequences of this situation and actions are quite vague and really don't give any morally satisfactory solutions in which both of us end up like we wanted.

I think we each have valid perspectives on this particular dilemma - you want to live, I want to live. Maybe you would have stolen my food if it came down to it and the situation was reversed. I bring this example up to show that what is moral and what is immoral is rarely clear-cut, and thus rarely if ever absolute. There can only be morals if there is a sentient being to think about those morals. If there is a sentient being, a free-willed being, he must have his/her/it's own perspective. If it has its own perspective, and it bases its ideas on its perspective, then this being must have a subjective moral outlook. It cannot be objective since the being is free-willed.

The being must be free-willed if it is able to make moral choices - if you do not have free will, then you have no ability to choose between right and wrong. Since it is free-willed, it must have a subjective opinion. This is a kind of circular argument, or, I should say, self-supporting argument. Free will, morality, and subjectivity are all distinct ideas but must all exist together.

reply to post by tetsuo


you are wrong.
and cannot realize that.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by tetsuo

 

you are wrong.
and cannot realize that.

When he tried changing the debate from rape to being a liar - I think he did realize it.

I chose child rape because it was such an obvious example of absolute wrong.

I hope more members like you can see it for what it is, as I hope he does too.

Originally posted by billbert2
Is rape ever justified in any culture?
Is torturing a baby to death ever justified?
Isn't telling the truth, always to be preferred?
Isn't stealing, no matter how small, a crime?
There are absolute morals. You know something is wrong intuitively, and you also know things that are intuitively good as well. Like ... love and charity.
These concepts are absolute morals and are not relative.
And ... they have been created in us for a purpose. You may not buy into my last statement, but whether you do or not is irrelivant. Absolute morals exist.
Empty philosophy can not erase the truth.

I think you're over simplifying it a bit. If absolute morality exists then it's far more complicated than you would think. There are just too many situations in which an 'immoral' action suddenly becomes moral. It seems obvious that killing someone is wrong, but most people would say that killing in self defense is justified and moral. How many innocent people have been killed in military strikes and it has been deemed acceptable collateral damage? What about the death sentence? Personally I'm totally against it but many people support it and it's still practiced in many countries including the US. How is it that so many people are in favor of the legalised murder of someone when they're already in custody and there may be a chance, however slim, that they're actually innocent? Stealing may always be a crime but would you say it's wrong for someone to steal in order to feed themselves and stay alive? What if they have a child to feed too? Is it wrong to lie to protect someone's feelings? Is it right or wrong to protect people from truths ( by lying) that might lead them to do something immoral such as kill someone? Is it always 100% wrong to cheat on your wife or husband? What if a woman is in an abusive marriage and is being beaten? What if the husband beats her at the very mention of the word divorce and she's too scared and ashamed to go to the police? If she decided to take comfort and sanctuary with someone else would you have the nerve to tell her that she was immoral?
If you consider the death sentence to be moral and I don't, how do we know which one of us is absolutely right? If I'm wrong am I being immoral by opposing the death sentence?
When we're talking about absolute morals aren't we talking about an absolute code of morals which govern all behavior? It's easy to list a few behaviors which seem absolutely right, and absolutely wrong, but what about all the stuff in between?

reply to post by Hoskizaki


We were last talking about this example - not murder:

"So raping a baby is bad no matter what then, right?

The person raping the baby and the baby itself would know it to be so, correct?

Otherwise the person doing the raping would believe it's good and the baby would think so too, right?

Whether society says it's ok or not, it is still absolutely wrong.

The baby does not have an opinion or prior experience with it, but I 100% guarantee you that the baby would say that it was a bad experience, agreed?

So it is absolutely bad.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
We were last talking about this example - not murder:

"So raping a baby is bad no matter what then, right?

The person raping the baby and the baby itself would know it to be so, correct?

Otherwise the person doing the raping would believe it's good and the baby would think so too, right?

Whether society says it's ok or not, it is still absolutely wrong.

The baby does not have an opinion or prior experience with it, but I 100% guarantee you that the baby would say that it was a bad experience, agreed?

So it is absolutely bad.

Raping a baby is wrong as it violates the free will of the baby, as a poster above stated. This is applying the principle that it is always wrong to violate another's free will. This does not mean it is wrong to the person doing the raping. The person doing the raping may have learned from his own experiences that this is "Ok" behavior. He may have some physical anomaly in his brain which inhibits his ability to comprehend his actions. There are many reasons as to why the person may actually think that what he is doing is correct.

So, how do you adhere to the principle of not violating anothers free will, while this person does not?

Here is the hardest part for people to accept. The rapist must be shown love and compassion to find out what it is that makes him want to violate anothers free will. Is it a brain anamoly? Has he been taught this from his own experiences? What went wrong in his life and early development to bring him to this action? Once found out, he must be helped to overcome the problem with love, compassion, and acceptance.

The easy road is to shout for his imprisonment or death. In doing so, you continue the cycle of violating each others free will. No life is more valuable nor less valuable than the next.

This is not an easy path to travel. We have done great harm to each other. We have created this crazy world we live in and we are reaping what we sow.

Today my niece at 13 years of age was held up at gun point for 15 dollars by a 15 year old FRIEND. If we do not take the road of Love and Forgiveness as a species soon, we will be locked down under a tyranical regime for our own good if we do not annihilate ourselves before hand.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Criminals choose to violate the moral codes of society and decency and common sense, in spite of overwhelming pressure to not act that way, they choose to act immorally and illegally.

Originally posted by slugger9787
Criminals choose to violate the moral codes of society and decency and common sense, in spite of overwhelming pressure to not act that way, they choose to act immorally and illegally.

So you agree a group of people simply by being a group have the moral right to usurp another's free will?

With Love,

Your Brother

1.There are no absolutes.
2. Morality as a concept exists.
3. There is no single definition of what is moral. -however-
4. There are points of agreement.

The premise is flawed: "Absolute morality: Prove it!"
It can't be done.

Originally posted by Smack
1.There are no absolutes.
2. Morality as a concept exists.
3. There is no single definition of what is moral. -however-
4. There are points of agreement.

The premise is flawed: "Absolute morality: Prove it!"
It can't be done.

Yes there is.

Child rape is an example.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Yes there is.

Child rape is an example.

My friend, this has already been thrown out as an example. Perhaps you would like to address one of the rebuttals above?

With Love,

Your Brother