Absolute morality: PROVE IT!

Originally posted by 547000
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.

What if someone is stealing food scraps from a person's rubbish bin, (which is still stealing,) and obtaining these food scraps is the only way to prevent little children the thief is responsible for from dying of hunger? Would it be moral to murder these children by allowing them to starve to death when one could feed them with something no-one else wants?

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.

What if someone attacks a bunch of children and is slowly torturing them to death, and your only way to protect these children is to kill the attacker? Do you really believe refusing to protect the children is more moral than killing a murderer?

It can happen that the only way to prevent a wrong is to commit a wrong. There are times when one is confronted by a choice between two evils, and must try to choose the lesser evil. We are not perfect beings, and do not live in a perfect world. Part of being homo SAPIENS is having to live with the fact that it's impossible to always, only, do what is right. Maturity gives a person the ability to see this, to accept the weight of the choices they must make, and to realise no deity or rule book can decide for you in every situation.

There is a great principle that covers many situations, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
But woe betide anyone who finds themselves in the power of a masochist who follows this axiom.

Originally posted by IAMIAM

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

You made my point better than I did.

You can't change the rules.

Absolute is absolute.

Just because the mentally challenged person rapes a kid doesn't make it ok.

Just because he is incapable of realizing his/her actions are wrong doesn't make them right.

Ignorance is no excuse for breaking a man made law let alone an absolute law.

Since it came out of your own mind, do you see the truth now?

Its absolute that most humans have never known what is right and what is wrong.

reply to post by Kailassa


Rubbish bins pretty much imply the person is giving all claims to ownership away. And why not just ask the person if you can eat out of their garbage bin if you're that desperate? Maybe they'd be moved and offer you some food. Or maybe they'll tell you to piss off, in which case you should.

Just because he's torturing children doesn't mean you haven't done an immoral act by killing him. Like he has the blood of children on his hand, you have his blood on your hands. It is better to commit no sin than it is to hand out justice and become guilty yourself.

I do believe in objective morality. There is whole science of law build around finding what is right and wrong, and I dont think it is all subjective. There may be some element of subjectivity and mental conditioning present, but morality of humanity is slowly converging towards some absolute version that can be derived from philosophy of law, psychology, neurology and sociology.

Shape of the Earth was subjective in the past in a sense that majority of people believed it to be flat, but it did not change the reality. The same thing happens with morality, where this element is reinforced by current governments based on inherently faulty idea of democracy, instead of dictatorship of science, and by our immature knowlegde of "soft" sciences like those mentioned above.

Just to add, absolute morality can still depend on circumstances, so for example killing may be moral in one case and immoral in other cases. This does not falsify the idea of absolute morality, it just makes recognizing it more complicated.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


The pioneering work of Sam Harris in the field of Science of Morality (look up his book - The Moral Landscape) shows us that indeed, objective morality can be scientifically discovered with sufficient accuracy for practical purposes.

www.ted.com...

First step is to establish basic definitions, starting with the definition of morality (which is easy), and more importantly, discovering the purpose of evolved morality in the society, which can be objectivelly determined using sociology and anthropology:

Sam Harris claims that "moral" propositions and "values" are "concerned with the flourishing of conscious creatures in a society".[5] He argues "Social morality exists to sustain cooperative social relationships, and morality can be objectively evaluated by that standard.

When it comes to defining morality, Harris' main contention in The Moral Landscape is therefore, first, that there are facts about the way that brain activity results in feelings of well-being or suffering. This includes facts about which patterns of thought and action tend to promote such neural events. Following that, Harris makes a pragmatic appeal to common sense, arguing that society should (and already largely does) make decisions based on at least trying to maximize people's well being as the day's science understands it. If this is the case, he says, it seems obvious that we should (and often do) define such discussions as 'moral' discussions[15].

Harris adds that discussions that have no bearing on the so-called "flourishing of conscious creatures" would so simply not be moral discussions, once morality is defined this way[5]. Of course, operationalizing terms related to morality or physics does not prevent alternative use outside the scientific community.[8]

Once the objective sociological purpose of the phenomenon of morality is discovered, we can easily compare different acts, laws, or whole moral systems to determine which fulfill this purpose more or less effectivelly.

Harris believes we must admit that the question of what normally leads to human flourishing has objective, scientific answers. Harris contends that certain beliefs, actions or legal systems may prove to lead reliably to human suffering (e.g. by resulting in dangerously inadequate access to food or health care). He mentions serial murder and acid throwing as examples of practices that are not moral gray areas. That is, these practices are very probably sub-optimal for a society's flourishing[14]. Evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson describes how, while philosophers often identify the most challenging moral situations, there are still many more "moral no brainers".[17]

As with all sciences, various philosophical, religious and intuitive moral views will be validated (and others rejected) In Harris's view, it may be the case that a science of morality leads us to multiple "moral peaks", optimal ethical systems, and Harris believes this would be a success. To Harris, this would mean identifying the more obviously sub-optimal ethical systems (and conversely, any consistent components of a flourishing society). Harris acknowledges that various philosophical or religious intuitions will probably be vindicated by science, and that may happen whether or not the beliefs are held for "justified" reasons.[14][5]

In the past I didnt believe in any objective morality, but after reading some his works, I rethinked my position. In my opinion, objective morality can be determined, using modern science (sociology and anthropology).
God or some supernatural higher authority is not needed at all for discovering what is objectivelly moral. Just science.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
You made my point better than I did.

You can't change the rules.

Absolute is absolute.

Just because the mentally challenged person rapes a kid doesn't make it ok.

My morality is simple my friend, never violate another's free will. So, I agree rape is wrong. You agree rape is wrong. Between you and I, that morality is absolute. It is all encompassing as long as it is you and I. Now we bring in a third person. This person has been raped all his life as a child, therefore, he thinks it is A-ok. So, now we have me thinking rape is wrong. You think rape is wrong. The third person thinks rape is A-ok. Rape is no longer absolutely immoral. Between us three, one thinks it is a-ok.

Now the delema...

I will not violate anothers free will. I am assuming (correct me if my assumption is wrong) that you would not kill this person. So, what do we do to make our moral absolute again?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Just because he is incapable of realizing his/her actions are wrong doesn't make them right.

It does make it right to him/her. I never said it made it right for all. An absolute moral is all encompassing and self evident. It is provable by a universal innate adherence to it. It is not subjective, it cannot be altered, it is timeless, and it needs no explanation. There is no moral which fits this bill.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
Ignorance is no excuse for breaking a man made law let alone an absolute law.

Since it came out of your own mind, do you see the truth now?

I break Man's law when ever it interferes with my own free will. Man has no right to make a law. Man is not the judge by my philosophy. God, whether you believe in one or not, is the maker of the law and his law IS self evident. His law is to love one another. It is self evident because we all want it at the core of our very being. Where society has went askew of the law, is we have created conditions to earn each others love. Our love is not unconditional as it should be. Thus, all of our morality is way off center from the natural state it should be.

There is an absolute morality, it is love one another, sadly we have forgotten it. By love, we can reason with, heal, and restore the natural moral state of Man.

With Love,

Your Brother

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

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?

everything is made up of atomic particles or smaller units of measure. All of existence is made up of this and yet this obviousness which is substantiated by science has no relevancy because according to you we cannot perceive these events? You neglected to realize the one faculty that originally fathomed theories for the existence of atoms ...which is a great segway into you next quote.....

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?

Yet using simple logic, reason, and thought atoms were predicted to be the fundamental substance of existence over 2500 years ago by a Mystic named Kanada, proposed since then by tons of scientists, and just recently in the last hundred years, measured and observed.

SO before the actual discovery of these units, there was some faculty in man that deduced the possibility of atoms, of quantum fields and so on. Call it logic, reason, and so forth but to me its Instinct. Better yet the original theory of Atoms author, Kanada, said that in meditation there was a level of microscopic vision where one's consciousness is able to distinguish the smallest fabrics of reality and that it was the way he was able to see Atoms.

Just because the majority of the worlds "knowledge base" says something isn't so, can't be done, or is yet unproven doesnt mean that this something isn't true.

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.

In example this post itself is first year intro to Philosophy 101 ...there is mo answer to satisfy everyone equally as far as theist, atheists, agnostics. Although in most Esoteric Philosophies and mysticism they say you can experience directly the Absolute state of this existence and in that state there exists absolute morals but since only mystics and certain philosophers make the journey there ...leaves everyone else to speculate.

Everything you post is relative and has relative answers that can only be answered a certain way. This is all the realm of the mind and yet even you would agree that when we are sleeping and/or not using the mind, we still exist. And so this deduces into the fact that the mind has a active and inactive state meaning that its active state isn't all there is. WHat there is is more states as of yet unexplored of the mind and these states hold such things as the subconscious, intuition, gut feelings, and many other great faculties the circumvent the active mind in the way that you are used to using it.

And so all of this is straw even including what I said because you have already decided your own stance and barely move from it nor is it really flexible. Everything that Is, was here before we got here, and will be when we leave. All of this is straw in grand scheme of things, the existence of infinity, multi-verses revolving around each other just above our heads.

And what is this going to do for you? Nothing ...you already know the answer and in a sense and possibly without even realizing it this could be considered trolling.

Humankind has thought about it and came to the conclusion it's ok to pump all the hydrocarbons from inside Earth from those millions of years of stored Carbons and energy from the sun.

We figured it's ok because it would enable people to get rich, our military would be the strongest, and more people would be kept alive than what Earth could otherwise support.

But in all actuality we destroyed the Biosphere burning up our Oxygen and cut down all forests providing us with Oxygen. The excess poisons from the crude oil were all dumped into the seas ending that source of Oxygen.

We've poisoned our waters, the ground we grow crops on, and everything upon the Earth.

We have no morals, no common sense, and are not an intelligent life form. We are a plague that destroyed our own planet and everyone's sitting around waiting for some God to step in and fix what we've done.

We are the most destructive life form to ever exist.

Originally posted by Pervius
We are the most destructive life form to ever exist.

Yes. Yes we are.

Hmmmm....Does that prove that deep down we are absolutely immoral?

Which in turn, proves absolute morality?

Just wondering.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


You just answered your own question. Even as a very non-religous believer I tend to agree with you on this view. The suprement being could in fact and has in fact changed his mind on a moral issue before. So you have it figured out. Case closed. Good job.

FG

Originally posted by firegoggles
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

You just answered your own question. Even as a very non-religous believer I tend to agree with you on this view. The suprement being could in fact and has in fact changed his mind on a moral issue before. So you have it figured out. Case closed. Good job.

FG

"Figured it out? Case closed? Good job?"

Are you being sarcastic?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


in the eyes of God ignorance
is excusable.

morality is absolute. put simply

murder is bad
steeling is bad
cheating is bad
hate is bad
selfishness is bad
pride is bad
gluttony is bad
laziness is bad

helping others is good
giving is good
working hard is good for the spirit and/or temperament

how do we know these for certain? the world would benefit as a whole if the bad stuff wasn't done and if everyone did what is good. it's that simple. that in no way can be subjective none whatsoever, because as a whole it can be proven would prosper under these conditions. so once again morality is absolute.

reply to post by Pervius


So commit suicide and put mother earth and yourself out of misery.
Maybe you can be reincarnated as a rock, and just evolve by erosion.