orgone Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 I've been pondering over moral relativism. Seems that one camp says that moral absolutes don't exist because of historical evidence. I take this as a fair point but I see it as fallacious because of appeal to tradition. It tells us nothing about the fact that moral absolutes _can_ exist in the future. Based on this question "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" YES, NO Either answer affirms to me that moral absolutes exist in a moral system, because you used a moral judgement to answer a moral question. What is wrong with this argument? Is it fallacious? If so what fallacy does it fall under? It seems like St Anselm's proof to me.
RichardY Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 21 minutes ago, orgone said: I've been pondering over moral relativism. Seems that one camp says that moral absolutes don't exist because of historical evidence. I take this as a fair point but I see it as fallacious because of appeal to tradition. It tells us nothing about the fact that moral absolutes _can_ exist in the future. Like a Hegelian Dialectic or becoming? If so who defines the moral positions and "why"? I think this is more in the domain of psychology. 23 minutes ago, orgone said: Based on this question "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" YES, NO Either answer affirms to me that moral absolutes exist in a moral system, because you used a moral judgement to answer a moral question. Yes it is non nonsensical because you refute the position either way, through a moral judgement of your own. Recently I thought about lying, if you know something is a lie or are wilfully blind is it really a lie? 40 minutes ago, orgone said: It seems like St Anselm's proof to me. Could you elaborate?
orgone Posted June 10, 2017 Author Posted June 10, 2017 3 hours ago, orgone said: I've been pondering over moral relativism. Seems that one camp says that moral absolutes don't exist because of historical evidence. I take this as a fair point but I see it as fallacious because of appeal to tradition. It tells us nothing about the fact that moral absolutes _can_ exist in the future. Based on this question "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" YES, NO Either answer affirms to me that moral absolutes exist in a moral system, because you used a moral judgement to answer a moral question. What is wrong with this argument? Is it fallacious? If so what fallacy does it fall under? It seems like St Anselm's proof to me. 1 Quote "Who defines the moral positions." Potentially, isn't that a loaded question? Ok I got you. I really don't have an answer for this. "Who", "what", "innate in consciousness", "a property in the universe" etc. If a moral principle is shown to be wrong, then reason dictates it should be changed. I'd ask myself the question where does reason come from and is it universal? So I think reason becomes the master. What are your views on this? "Can we keep on doing this ? Can the right/wrong state (value?) of this principle change forever, or does it tend to a specific value. If it tends to a specific value then we have an absolute moral principle. So really, I am interested in the fact that there exists moral absolutes in a moral system. "Now can this be applied universally?" I was approaching the topic from a system of reason/logic. I am kind of thinking that a moral absolute would be the the end result of a refinement process, which we cannot refine anymore because it is impossible. Quote Like a Hegelian Dialectic or becoming I don't follow, can you explain? Quote Could you elaborate? Personally, It is the fear that my reasoning would lead to a contradiction, in which I can't be really sure about Moral relativism/Moral absolutism. Really I want a robust answer.
ofd Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 Quote "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" The question is loaded. First you have to show that there are moral absolutes and then secondly that you have to follow them.
RichardY Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 3 hours ago, orgone said: Potentially, isn't that a loaded question? Ok I got you. I really don't have an answer for this. "Who", "what", "innate in consciousness", "a property in the universe" etc. The only person it can be is the most conscious or a Pantheist God. I.e a person with depth of character and historical knowledge, to be able to see changes in a general collective unconscious. Ever see the movie Groundhog Day? Where Bill Murray lives the same day over and over, but is able to remember each repetition and variation of the day. 3 hours ago, orgone said: If a moral principle is shown to be wrong, then reason dictates it should be changed. I'd ask myself the question where does reason come from and is it universal? So I think reason becomes the master. What are your views on this? Not wrong but inadequate, not changed but repressed. Reason alone imo is biological and is basically Will to Power. Spirit or consciousness is master, as it transcends reason, an example marriage. 3 hours ago, orgone said: "Can we keep on doing this ? Can the right/wrong state (value?) of this principle change forever, or does it tend to a specific value. "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice." Do you have a specific moral principle in mind? In terms of just being a given or a priori, there are Jungian Archetypes or Wittgenstein Elementary propositions, my knowledge and understanding is very limited for both. There is a rationale that if you can not be truly evil/immoral, you can not be truly good/moral. "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going." Nietzsche 3 hours ago, orgone said: If it tends to a specific value then we have an absolute moral principle. So really, I am interested in the fact that there exists moral absolutes in a moral system. The most just universal moral principle I have seen is Kants Categorical Imperative(Transcendental Idealism). On the flip side, less conscientious people often feel apart of Communism, Pantheism or Islam. (Absolute Idealism) 3 hours ago, orgone said: "Now can this be applied universally?" If you strip out subjectivity, its no longer morality. 3 hours ago, orgone said: I was approaching the topic from a system of reason/logic. I am kind of thinking that a moral absolute would be the the end result of a refinement process, which we cannot refine anymore because it is impossible. Not a refinement process, but an integration process. 3 hours ago, orgone said: I don't follow, can you explain? Personally, It is the fear that my reasoning would lead to a contradiction, in which I can't be really sure about Moral relativism/Moral absolutism. Really I want a robust answer. A Hegelian Dialect is the integration of different moral systems, often political into a "greater whole", referred to as World Spirit (Possibly the same as Jung's Collective Unconscious). Don't worry too much about contradictions, I'm still learning and there is so much information out there.
orgone Posted June 11, 2017 Author Posted June 11, 2017 11 hours ago, RichardY said: The only person it can be is the most conscious or a Pantheist God. I.e a person with depth of character and historical knowledge, to be able to see changes in a general collective unconscious. Ever see the movie Groundhog Day? Where Bill Murray lives the same day over and over, but is able to remember each repetition and variation of the day. Not wrong but inadequate, not changed but repressed. Reason alone imo is biological and is basically Will to Power. Spirit or consciousness is master, as it transcends reason, an example marriage. "I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice." Do you have a specific moral principle in mind? In terms of just being a given or a priori, there are Jungian Archetypes or Wittgenstein Elementary propositions, my knowledge and understanding is very limited for both. There is a rationale that if you can not be truly evil/immoral, you can not be truly good/moral. "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going." Nietzsche The most just universal moral principle I have seen is Kants Categorical Imperative(Transcendental Idealism). On the flip side, less conscientious people often feel apart of Communism, Pantheism or Islam. (Absolute Idealism) If you strip out subjectivity, its no longer morality. Not a refinement process, but an integration process. A Hegelian Dialect is the integration of different moral systems, often political into a "greater whole", referred to as World Spirit (Possibly the same as Jung's Collective Unconscious). Don't worry too much about contradictions, I'm still learning and there is so much information out there. 4 Some more thoughts. I think I have the beginning of an answer. I was approaching morality as a purely factual basis and ignoring emotion. I think this approach is wrong in some circumstances. My own actions could have a consequence to others. I could be selfish and it could give a positive or negative outcome. The outcome could be huge or small. One naturally assumes that a selfish act is bad because the outcome in others is bad. This is not always the case. A selfish action although rewards oneself. Can also reward others too in a massive way. Consider when a selfish action leads to the other person gaining something they have extreme value for. Would the other person consider the act selfish? If we consider moral principle as having an objective and subjective component. With an absolute moral principle, the subjective component would have always 0 net effect. Does this mean that moral absolutes are just an objective property of the universe? If so then why are they considered in morality? Am I missing something? My brain seems to be imploding!
RichardY Posted June 11, 2017 Posted June 11, 2017 Being Selfish; is zero-sum, win-lose. Think of the concept of the Selfish gene. It is not a virtue or a vice, merely will to power at it's most base. Conscientiously between people it is war. Emotion is communication. 17 hours ago, RichardY said: "What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an over-going and a down-going." Nietzsche The most just universal moral principle I have seen is Kants Categorical Imperative(Transcendental Idealism). On the flip side, less conscientious people often feel apart of Communism, Pantheism or Islam. (Absolute Idealism) If you strip out subjectivity, its no longer morality. 9 hours ago, orgone said: If we consider moral principle as having an objective and subjective component. With an absolute moral principle, the subjective component would have always 0 net effect. An Absolute Moral Principle(Singular) has zero subjectivity. Universally implemented systematically/culturally in society in the form of an Ideology, it is Totalitarian. With a Premier, Fuhrer, Caliph or Wizard/Witchdoctor at the head. 11 hours ago, orgone said: Does this mean that moral absolutes are just an objective property of the universe? If so then why are they considered in morality? Am I missing something? My brain seems to be imploding! Moral Absolutes(plural). Are derivatives of the Categorical Imperative and are negatives (thou shalt not steal or murder). Objectivity is the rational cultural norms, Subjectivity is how the participants/moral agents interact.
richardbaxter Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 Morality is action or will in accordance with truth. Immorality is logically contradictory behaviour, such as treating another how one would not wish to be treated oneself. If both persons have a shared humanity (and all things being equal), then it makes no sense to treat another different than one would have themselves be treated by others. If one is going to respect the authenticity of their own dignity or desires, why not another's. Such a definition doesn't define moral behaviour in all circumstances (because it depends on assumptions regarding expectations of treatment by others, and these are dependent on concepts of natural law, universal order etc - take for example the trolley problem), but I think it is the principle upon which all morality is based. Pretty much all religious morality derives from the principle (although it often introduces another agent into the equation).
orgone Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 On 2017-6-11 at 2:36 AM, ofd said: The question is loaded. First you have to show that there are moral absolutes and then secondly that you have to follow them. If a justification using a moral principle results in a negative outcome it that immoral? Seems to underpin relativism.
ofd Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 I don't see how your question is related to what I wrote.
M.2 Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 On 2017. 06. 10. at 10:22 PM, orgone said: 1. I take this as a fair point but I see it as fallacious because of appeal to tradition. 2. It tells us nothing about the fact that moral absolutes _can_ exist in the future. Based on this question 3. "Is it right to argue that no moral absolutes can arise in a moral system?" YES, NO Either answer affirms to me that moral absolutes exist in a moral system, because you used a moral judgement to answer a moral question. I have been following this thread, and seems interesting, but I don't understand any of it. 1. Why do you bring up tradition? 2. How is that a fact? How was it proven? 3. Why would one make that argument? What is a moral system?
orgone Posted June 12, 2017 Author Posted June 12, 2017 10 hours ago, Mishi2 said: I have been following this thread, and seems interesting, but I don't understand any of it. 1. Why do you bring up tradition? 2. How is that a fact? How was it proven? 3. Why would one make that argument? What is a moral system? 1 (My other argument was flawed as RichardY pointed out.) Sure conflicting moral principles exist through different cultures, that is a fact. "All morality is relative" seems similar to "all apples are blue or green." Moral relativists seem to think because other cultures have conflicting moral principles, there is no sense of morality. This does not follow. I will attempt to explain. If all moral principles are relative, then a power can take your property for _any_ reason they decide and there's nothing immoral about it in your eyes. Someone can take your property from you and because property covers a large number of things, the moral relativist can't fight about. it seems ridiculous.
richardbaxter Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 Morality is by definition absolute in any given circumstance (there is a right and wrong), but "moral absolutes" generally apply across time/culture so their existence is questioned. There appear to be some moral absolutes (such as not murdering or exploiting people), but I would argue that these are artefacts of a more general principle. "I'm sure this goes against everything you've been taught, but right and wrong do exist. Just because you don't know what the right answer is - maybe there's even no way you could know what the right answer is - doesn't make your answer right or even okay. It's much simpler than that. It's just plain wrong."
richardbaxter Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 This framework also allows for two kinds of immoral action; actions which contradict reality but are not known to contradict reality, and actions which contradict reality and are known to contradict reality (logical fallacies/compromise). I would classify the second as evil, and the first more generally as mistakes. Note this is probably where the concepts of mortal and venial sin arise (or say conscious evil versus unconscious evil). Of course if one does not like to use religiously loaded words they can replace them with arbitrary symbols; but the concepts won't go away. Regarding (moral) "absolutes"; Obi-Wan Kenobi: You have allowed this dark lord to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy. Anakin Skywalker: Don't lecture me, Obi-Wan! I see through the lies of the Jedi. I do not fear the dark side as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire. Obi-Wan Kenobi: Your new Empire? Anakin Skywalker: Don't make me kill you. Obi-Wan Kenobi: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy. Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy. Obi-Wan: Only a Sith deals in absolutes. [draws his lightsaber] Regarding absolute morality/relativism; Obi-Wan: I have failed you, Anakin. I have failed you. Anakin Skywalker: I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over! Obi-Wan: Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil! Anakin Skywalker: From my point of view, the Jedi are evil! Obi-Wan: Well, then you are lost! Anakin Skywalker: [raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you, my master.
orgone Posted June 13, 2017 Author Posted June 13, 2017 On 2017-6-12 at 3:55 AM, richardbaxter said: Morality is action or will in accordance with truth. Immorality is logically contradictory behaviour, such as treating another how one would not wish to be treated oneself. If both persons have a shared humanity (and all things being equal), then it makes no sense to treat another different than one would have themselves be treated by others. If one is going to respect the authenticity of their own dignity or desires, why not another's. Such a definition doesn't define moral behaviour in all circumstances (because it depends on assumptions regarding expectations of treatment by others, and these are dependent on concepts of natural law, universal order etc - take for example the trolley problem), but I think it is the principle upon which all morality is based. Pretty much all religious morality derives from the principle (although it often introduces another agent into the equation). I've had some thoughts about the Trolley problem. As a purely mechanical utility problem it seems like a dilemma, However, if is it robust if you add to the fact that humans have a will to power ?
orgone Posted June 13, 2017 Author Posted June 13, 2017 10 hours ago, richardbaxter said: This framework also allows for two kinds of immoral action; actions which contradict reality but are not known to contradict reality, and actions which contradict reality and are known to contradict reality (logical fallacies/compromise). I would classify the second as evil, and the first more generally as mistakes. Note this is probably where the concepts of mortal and venial sin arise (or say conscious evil versus unconscious evil). Of course if one does not like to use religiously loaded words they can replace them with arbitrary symbols; but the concepts won't go away. Regarding (moral) "absolutes"; Obi-Wan Kenobi: You have allowed this dark lord to twist your mind, until now, until now you've become the very thing you swore to destroy. Anakin Skywalker: Don't lecture me, Obi-Wan! I see through the lies of the Jedi. I do not fear the dark side as you do. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire. Obi-Wan Kenobi: Your new Empire? Anakin Skywalker: Don't make me kill you. Obi-Wan Kenobi: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic, to democracy. Anakin Skywalker: If you're not with me, then you're my enemy. Obi-Wan: Only a Sith deals in absolutes. [draws his lightsaber] Regarding absolute morality/relativism; Obi-Wan: I have failed you, Anakin. I have failed you. Anakin Skywalker: I should have known the Jedi were plotting to take over! Obi-Wan: Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil! Anakin Skywalker: From my point of view, the Jedi are evil! Obi-Wan: Well, then you are lost! Anakin Skywalker: [raises his lightsaber] This is the end for you, my master. So where's the alternative scenario that doesn't end in a bloody battle? Also, original sin = the biblical answer to the will to power, selfishness? Baby, "I want, I want." 1
RichardY Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 Damn Jedi(SJW's) with their Moral Relativism. As for the trolley problem, wouldn't it be best to not flip the switch and have 5 casualties instead of 1, as that would be messing with the tram system and could make you liable? Besides doesn't it make ethics and morality some sort of video game in a way ? "Got me a score of 40" . "That Russian cannibal creep is telling everyone he did 50 plus. That reflects badly on both of us, Patty. This record should be held by an American." The Frighteners
orgone Posted June 14, 2017 Author Posted June 14, 2017 11 hours ago, RichardY said: Damn Jedi(SJW's) with their Moral Relativism. As for the trolley problem, wouldn't it be best to not flip the switch and have 5 casualties instead of 1, as that would be messing with the tram system and could make you liable? Besides doesn't it make ethics and morality some sort of video game in a way ? "Got me a score of 40" . "That Russian cannibal creep is telling everyone he did 50 plus. That reflects badly on both of us, Patty. This record should be held by an American." The Frighteners 2 2 I see your point, you have to put it in a box somewhere. A psychopath might result in a different answer to the dilemma and yet they exist in our herd and there's rational benefit for their behaviour. I think I need to look more into to psychology and social sciences to see why this might be.
Recommended Posts