Absolute morality: PROVE IT!

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Not to be drawn into an esoteric squabble over obvious contradictions easily discovered in both culture and history but...

No, there isn't.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
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.

Jesus Christ, it always comes back to baby raping doesn’t it. I don’t need you to explain to me why raping babies is wrong thank you very much. I was actually commenting on an earlier post ( the one that I quoted in mine). I apologise if I deviated from the current topic but I thought the thread was about absolute morality in general – not the morality of raping babies. It’s pretty see through what you’re doing. Think of the sickest example you can so that anyone who disagrees with you comes across as an advocate of baby rape. You could’ve just gone for raping women ( or men for that matter), but sick as that it is it’s not quite sick enough for you. Fine though, if that’s the way you want it. But what if someone was told that if they didn’t rape a baby their whole family would be murdered? Or what if someone was told that if they didn’t rape one baby, someone else would rape two? What would be the right decision? These are sick and ridiculous hypothetical scenarios. They’re stupid and I resent the fact that you’ve made me stoop so low.
Let’s say that you’re right though. This is one example of an absolute moral. So what? What point are you making and how does it apply to morality in general? What statement are you making? Morality in general is subjective except when it comes to baby rape in which case it is absolute?
My main interest in absolute morality is the assertion that religion offers its followers an absolute source of morality, and that those who do not subscribe to a religion must therefore be immoral because they arrive at their morals independently and do not fear the judgement of the ‘creator’ in the next life. You can bang on and on about baby rape if you like and go round in circles but maybe it might be a bit more interesting to broaden the topic a bit?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


A proper reply to this, better than I would have stated it, can be found here.

To myself or others, including yourself, child rape is deplorable, but for others it might be seen as routine, even necessary. Show me how it is something objective.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

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

Ummm...No it has not.

You made a post.

It did nothing to negate this:

"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."

Now if you are attempting to say the rapist thinks he's doing a good thing - prove it.

Give me one example of someone doing this in real life where he/she says it was for a good end - trust me they know it's bad whether they have a brain anamoly or not.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


An unrepentant baby rapist would think it was a perfectly good thing to do...because they're a baby rapist. Plenty of people think that incredibly odd things are the right thing to do.

The thing is, you've just found an instance of something that is more akin to a single universally accepted taboo rather than absolute morality, unless you can claim to base an entire moral system on 'baby raping is wrong'.

In quantum physics we have the areas of study of "Newtonian physics", "Absolute Quantum physics," and definitely such things as absolute states. These are proven mathematically and scientifically as in one case the results of tests with Bose/Einstein condensate.

In philosophy we also have the the ideas/theories of an absolute state and many who have experimented with the possibility of experiencing such a state say its real, and just like strings in the aforementioned condensate ....in this absolute state all things are One, I am you, you are me, we are all what Is.

SO if that child being hungry down the street or that old man being beat by cops is actually you, an extension of you, how much more is there a want to help since its yourself going through this?

Definitely a possibility for the reality of absolute morality.

reply to post by dominicus


Ugh...quantum physics woo again?

Quantum physics, and I'm going to say this as slowly and clearly as I can, only applies to sub-atomic scale phenomenon, there is no evidence that quantum physics applies beyond that level.

Humans cannot directly experience quantum phenomenon, so your statement really begs the question of empathy rather than absolute morality.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

Quantum physics, and I'm going to say this as slowly and clearly as I can, only applies to sub-atomic scale phenomenon, there is no evidence that quantum physics applies beyond that level.

I mean that is just absurd ........that is similar to an argument that certain frequencies of UV light or sound that we can't see or hear only applies to those subjects. Circular logic. Everything, all of reality, all of us are made up of "sub-atomic scale phenomenon".

To just outright reject that ....takes alot of guts and a biased frame of mind.

Humans cannot directly experience quantum phenomenon, so your statement really begs the question of empathy rather than absolute morality.

Prove it? How do you know that all of experience is not quantum phenomenon? How do you know? There may be states of experience that allow quantum experience or even everything is quantum experience.

I've been seeing your posts for a long long time and many times was interested but at the end I have seen that its all circular logic that gets one nowhere and in the grand scheme of things of all that is and the "Isness" of all things is just dust in the wind or a strawmen.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

An unrepentant baby rapist would think it was a perfectly good thing to do...because they're a baby rapist. Plenty of people think that incredibly odd things are the right thing to do.

The thing is, you've just found an instance of something that is more akin to a single universally accepted taboo rather than absolute morality, unless you can claim to base an entire moral system on 'baby raping is wrong'.

A baby rapist would not think it was a perfectly good thing to do.

He would hear the screams of pain from his victim. He could not rationalize to himself that this was good. The rapist might feel good about his actions in the moment but he would later know his actions were not good.

Please provide us with one name of a baby rapist who lived out his entire life thinking his actions were good.

Otherwise you have no evidence to support your claim that this action is a universally accepted taboo.

Raping a baby is 100% completely wrong - 100% of the time.

There is no relative Morality when it comes to this act. I know that is what you are pushing for but it does not apply in this case.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
A baby rapist would not think it was a perfectly good thing to do.

He would hear the screams of pain from his victim. He could not rationalize to himself that this was good. The rapist might feel good about his actions in the moment but he would later know his actions were not good.

Please provide us with one name of a baby rapist who lived out his entire life thinking his actions were good.

Otherwise you have no evidence to support your claim that this action is a universally accepted taboo.

Raping a baby is 100% completely wrong - 100% of the time.

There is no relative Morality when it comes to this act. I know that is what you are pushing for but it does not apply in this case.

You can think and believe what ever you like my friend. The fact still remains that you cannot know what is inside someone elses mind. Thus, you cannot claim to know what they think is good or bad. All we can do is formulate what their concept of good and bad is by their actions.

What one thinks is bad, they do not do. Every action one does, no matter what others may think of the action, is done because they think it is right thing to do. It brings them pleasure or some sense of satisfaction. Now they may claim after the fact that they knew it was wrong, but this is merely acknowledging that it is not right by societies standards.

Pretending that it is absolutely immoral only brings shame upon the act. This shame causes those who would do this deed to conceal their desires rather than seek help to understand them, and overcome them. Thus the cycle continues.

Absolute Morality is subjective. What you think is absolute, you are applying subjectively from your limited point of view.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
A baby rapist would not think it was a perfectly good thing to do.

He would hear the screams of pain from his victim. He could not rationalize to himself that this was good. The rapist might feel good about his actions in the moment but he would later know his actions were not good.

Please provide us with one name of a baby rapist who lived out his entire life thinking his actions were good.

Otherwise you have no evidence to support your claim that this action is a universally accepted taboo.

Raping a baby is 100% completely wrong - 100% of the time.

There is no relative Morality when it comes to this act. I know that is what you are pushing for but it does not apply in this case.

You can think and believe what ever you like my friend. The fact still remains that you cannot know what is inside someone elses mind. Thus, you cannot claim to know what they think is good or bad. All we can do is formulate what their concept of good and bad is by their actions.

What one thinks is bad, they do not do. Every action one does, no matter what others may think of the action, is done because they think it is right thing to do. It brings them pleasure or some sense of satisfaction. Now they may claim after the fact that they knew it was wrong, but this is merely acknowledging that it is not right by societies standards.

Pretending that it is absolutely immoral only brings shame upon the act. This shame causes those who would do this deed to conceal their desires rather than seek help to understand them, and overcome them. Thus the cycle continues.

Absolute Morality is subjective. What you think is absolute, you are applying subjectively from your limited point of view.

With Love,

Your Brother

edit on 11-1-2011 by IAMIAM because: (no reason given)

I understand the point you are trying to make.

Relative moralism.

It's not a hard concept to get.

But in this case the victim knows the action is wrong, the person doing it - while getting instant gratification - knows his actions are wrong and does get a feeling of guilt - not because of societal guilt but because he knows his actions were wrong but he still acted on them.

You may call youself a brother but you should know better than most here that we are fighting a spiritual battle.

As such, the spirit inside an individual is absolute. Either it is of God or not.

Obviously, a child rapists actions come from an absolutely bad spirit.

Now to get others here to understand that is never going to happen. But you should realize this easy point.

Originally posted by dominicus
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Quantum physics, and I'm going to say this as slowly and clearly as I can, only applies to sub-atomic scale phenomenon, there is no evidence that quantum physics applies beyond that level.

I mean that is just absurd ........that is similar to an argument that certain frequencies of UV light or sound that we can't see or hear only applies to those subjects. Circular logic. Everything, all of reality, all of us are made up of "sub-atomic scale phenomenon".

To just outright reject that ....takes alot of guts and a biased frame of mind.

No, it takes a cursory understanding of quantum physics. Can you please demonstrate an instance in which quantum mechanics applies to anything larger than an atomic particle?

Humans cannot directly experience quantum phenomenon, so your statement really begs the question of empathy rather than absolute morality.

Prove it? How do you know that all of experience is not quantum phenomenon? How do you know? There may be states of experience that allow quantum experience or even everything is quantum experience.

Um...prove that humans cannot directly experience phenomenon that don't occur above the atomic level? Humans are unable to directly perceive events at the atomic level. Our sight doesn't even function at the microscopic level, our hearing doesn't operate below 2 hz, our smell has no way of distinguishing atomic phenomena, our sense of touch cannot register individual atoms as it is based around mechanisms too large for such sensitivity and the same applies to taste...um...did I miss anything?

How do I know? Well, I don't know, but there's no evidence to put forth your positive position that people can experience quantum phenomenon. And what exactly is a 'state of experience'?

I've been seeing your posts for a long long time and many times was interested but at the end I have seen that its all circular logic that gets one nowhere and in the grand scheme of things of all that is and the "Isness" of all things is just dust in the wind or a strawmen.

Please, show me an example of circular logic or a straw man in any of my posts. I will apologize for it and correct my error by replying to my own post in that particular thread if I have not already done so.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


How do you know that someone thinks doing something is wrong? In Aztec culture it was perfectly acceptable to kill a man by ripping out his still-beating heart to please the gods...and then do the same process again dozens, if not hundreds or thousands of times. The Aztecs not only thought that it wasn't wrong, they thought it was proper.

I, however, think it's stupid and wrong. But I have no way of knowing if they thought so.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
I understand the point you are trying to make.

Relative moralism.

It's not a hard concept to get.

But in this case the victim knows the action is wrong, the person doing it - while getting instant gratification - knows his actions are wrong and does get a feeling of guilt - not because of societal guilt but because he knows his actions were wrong but he still acted on them.

You can prove what another feels?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
You may call youself a brother but you should know better than most here that we are fighting a spiritual battle.

As such, the spirit inside an individual is absolute. Either it is of God or not.

Obviously, a child rapists actions come from an absolutely bad spirit.

Now to get others here to understand that is never going to happen. But you should realize this easy point.

Listen my friend, I do not know where you are pulling your thoughts from other than thin air, but you have no way of knowing whether or not someone feels pleasure or pain, guilt or innocence, good or evil. Is there an innate spirit within us all that is good? Absolutely. The spirit is the animating consciousness. However, there is a mind which is the filter between that spirit and this world. The filter develops first as synaptic connections which can go wrong, then as learned behavior, which can also go wrong.

I am not pulling my ideas out of thin air, but have personal experience to judge by.

When I was a wee lad at the age of 8, I had a baby sitter who had a retarded 26 year old sister. For sport, my baby sitter would tell her sister to do things like beat the crap out of me, molest me, and chase me around the house naked. The girl was 26, but in her mind she was 2. She did not know what she was doing was wrong. She was not evil. She did what she thought was right and felt no guilt about it.

So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, check and mate.

With Love,

Your Brother

Originally posted by IAMIAM

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
I understand the point you are trying to make.

Relative moralism.

It's not a hard concept to get.

But in this case the victim knows the action is wrong, the person doing it - while getting instant gratification - knows his actions are wrong and does get a feeling of guilt - not because of societal guilt but because he knows his actions were wrong but he still acted on them.

You can prove what another feels?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
You may call youself a brother but you should know better than most here that we are fighting a spiritual battle.

As such, the spirit inside an individual is absolute. Either it is of God or not.

Obviously, a child rapists actions come from an absolutely bad spirit.

Now to get others here to understand that is never going to happen. But you should realize this easy point.

Listen my friend, I do not know where you are pulling your thoughts from other than thin air, but you have no way of knowing whether or not someone feels pleasure or pain, guilt or innocence, good or evil. Is there an innate spirit within us all that is good? Absolutely. The spirit is the animating consciousness. However, there is a mind which is the filter between that spirit and this world. The filter develops first as synaptic connections which can go wrong, then as learned behavior, which can also go wrong.

I am not pulling my ideas out of thin air, but have personal experience to judge by.

When I was a wee lad at the age of 8, I had a baby sitter who had a retarded 26 year old sister. For sport, my baby sitter would tell her sister to do things like beat the crap out of me, molest me, and chase me around the house naked. The girl was 26, but in her mind she was 2. She did not know what she was doing was wrong. She was not evil. She did what she thought was right and felt no guilt about it.

So, unless you have evidence to the contrary, check and mate.

With Love,

Your Brother

You obviously don't play chess very well.

You can not use a retard without mental capacity to think as an example disproving absolute morality. They are not even cognitive.

Wow. Talk about grapsing at air.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
You obviously don't play chess very well.

You can not use a retard without mental capacity to think as an example disproving absolute morality. They are not even cognitive.

Wow. Talk about grapsing at air.

You can't change the rules of the game at the end. Absolute means absolute. It is either absolute or it isn't

But your welcome to keep your view my friend. I have seen many absolutes disproven in my time. The only absolute I know is that there absolutely are no absolutes.

With Love,

Your Brother

If morals are not absolute, if they are relative, then everything is permissible; you can just convince yourself what you are doing for the greater good and still me an ethicist. If everything is permissible, then mass murder is permissible so long as you aim to ensure the greater good, a utopia where there is no religion or the elimination of inferior genes. Is mass murder permissible? Why not? Don't we always argue that the lesser evil as permissible? If morals are subjective then one could just argue from their point of view they committed the lesser evil.

Originally posted by 547000
If morals are not absolute, if they are relative, then everything is permissible; you can just convince yourself what you are doing for the greater good and still me an ethicist. If everything is permissible, then mass murder is permissible so long as you aim to ensure the greater good, a utopia where there is no religion or the elimination of inferior genes. Is mass murder permissible? Why not? Don't we always argue that the lesser evil as permissible? If morals are subjective then one could just argue from their point of view they committed the lesser evil.

When the world is done beating the snot out of each other, we may find again, the common law that binds us all.

However, it is not gonna be until we have thoroughly beat the snot out of each other.

Then again, I always have hope and trust in what tomorrow brings.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by IAMIAM


Well, I don't think morals are relative. Stealing bread for your hungry family is still morally wrong, because stealing is wrong. Similarly, killing is wrong even if your life is in danger. It's not the motives that make and action right or wrong but the action itself. Else you get a very slippery slope where many evil deeds can be called good and good deeds called evil.

Secular Morality can be judged on an absolute scale.

OTRAUMP = "Be sure to love good and hate evil"

..."the wages of immorality is death, but the reward of a moral society is the everlasting progression and thereby continual advancement of their existance"

Explanation of the Morality Scale