Greetings,
I was hoping to get a discussion started on morals, specifically what they should be based in and if there are moral absolutes that exist or not. If you are an atheist: on what basis do you assert what is right and wrong? If you believe for some reason that there really is no right or wrong, then do you behave consistently with your worldview?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
kirspykreme - "if there are moral absolutes that exist or not."
probably not
----------------------------
kirspykreme - "then do you behave consistently with your worldview"
probably not, and neither does anyone else it seems
"I was hoping to get a discussion started on morals, specifically what they should be based in and if there are moral absolutes that exist or not."
There are no moral absolutes, morals are conditional, there are circumstances where KILLING people is morally justified. In an absolute system, all morals would be definitive regardless of circumstances and situation, but that isn't the kind of world we live in. The closest thing we can get to an objective morality is a legal system, and people don't like that because it has its own set of problems, but no more than objective morality based on gods does. Morality is inherently subjective. It is subjective in that it only applies to humans, it is also subjective to circumstances. There is no universal morality, as morality is an epistemic ethical methodology that balances right against wrong.
"If you are an atheist: on what basis do you assert what is right and wrong?"
With full knowledge that we are going to fall into an is/ought problem, I will state my position. I know my actions effect other people, and am capable of understanding how they do so, so I feel the ethical thing to do is try to make sure I hurt others as little as possible. Why? Because I choose to try to be an empathetic and caring individual, and not simply an asshole who doesn't give a shit about other people. It really is that simple.
"If you believe for some reason that there really is no right or wrong, then do you behave consistently with your worldview?"
Empathy and compassion exist, and as long as some people have these characteristics, there will be right and wrong. These concepts need not be absolute or transcendent in order to exist as concepts, and those concepts map to reality because they were created to do so. There is no need for a god to qualify helping someone as a good thing, and killing someone for no reason as a bad one. It is ludicrous.
People sometimes ask "If there is no god, what keeps you from raping and killing anyone you really want to?"
The answer is simple. I have raped and killed everyone that was worth the prison time, that number just happens to be zero.
Interesting points, and I see what you're saying. You say that you choose to care about people and that it is the "ethical thing to do" based on.... Your feelings? If I felt that it was right to not care about people, then would I have any grounds to condemn you for caring about people?
Let me pose a question. You say that no moral absolutes exist. Tell me if you believe if this statement is true or false: it is always wrong for anyone torture babies/people to death merely for their own personal pleasure.
"You say that you choose to care about people and that it is the "ethical thing to do" based on.... Your feelings?"
No, the fact that other beings exist that I must coexist with to survive and reproduce.
"If I felt that it was right to not care about people, then would I have any grounds to condemn you for caring about people?"
No, not really, because you wouldn't care about other people including me. Meanwhile, because I do care about other people, I actually CAN condemn you for NOT caring about other people.
"Let me pose a question. You say that no moral absolutes exist. Tell me if you believe if this statement is true or false: it is always wrong for anyone torture babies/people to death merely for their own personal pleasure."
Malformed, you have added conditionals(merely for their own personal pleasure) to your moral(wrong for anyone to torture babies/people to death). The mere fact you added a conditional proves it isn't an absolute, for if the conditional changed, the morality might. A moral absolute is an action that is moral or immoral regardless of any/all conditionals, for they are ABSOLUTE.
Travis Hedglin - "Malformed, you have added conditionals"
Right, this is an attempt to have your cake and eat it too.
It would be like me stating that 2+X=?, and that the answer varies depending on the variable, then someone saying that because 2+2=4; that two is the only possible quantity of X. The entire argument is that morality rests on the conditional variables that arise through circumstance, to then propose an "absolute" immoral action WITH a defined conditional variable, completely ignores the part of the argument that shows that it is the relationship between the action and the conditional variable that produces the morality/immorality in the first place.
Right. From what I've seen around the campfire:
People who pay lip service to the idea that the past is not an indication of the future, live their lives as if the past is an indication of the future.
People who pay lip service to the idea that there is no freewill, live their lives as if other people have freewill.
People who pay lip service to the idea that morality is absolute, live their lives by putting conditions on morality.
It is why I don't take any of those positions seriously.
I think people get too hung up on ideological purity. Anti-intellectuals try to claim that past experiences and evidence shouldn't be used to create predictive models, but still drive a car. Determinists claim that everything is predetermined, but are happy to have laws that prevent and punish. Moral absolutists claim that some actions are ABSOLUTELY wrong, but are perfectly willing to allow for a starving child to steal food. Those are all very strict and ineffective methods for approaching our daily lives, and they obviously recognize it, so I simply try to allow them to come back closer to the center.
What positions do you take?
That whether or not something is morally justified depends on how and why it was done, and that actions are not inherently right or wrong on their face, as conditionals and circumstances MATTER so morals are not absolute.
Of course I have added conditionals, because it is a conditional action. This is the statement: is it always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for one's own personal pleasure. All I'm asking is if you believe that statement is true or false. Can you please answer that?
No, the action isn't conditional, you have added the motivation and intent to affect the moral judgement. It is the essence of a loaded question. Under those conditions and circumstances, yes I would consider it to be wrong, but not under others. Have you quit beating your kids, yet? See how that works?
Absolute morality REQUIRES that morals not be conditional or circumstantial, thank you for proving my point, and destroying your own.
Well sure, it is a loaded question in the sense that you cannot answer it from you atheistic worldview. And yes I am trying to be specific. It is a specific situation. You say that yes, it is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their own personal pleasure. You are then appealing to an ABSOLUTE moral issue. How can you have an absolute moral issue from your worldview?
I fail to see how I have "destroyed" my own position. You are making incredibly unfounded claims. Again I ask: why do absolute morals require morals not be conditional? You are assuming left and right without giving a foundation for your claims.
"Well sure, it is a loaded question in the sense that you cannot answer it from you atheistic worldview."
I am pretty sure that I did "answer it" from my "atheistic worldview", so your first statement is false. This doesn't seem promising.
"And yes I am trying to be specific. It is a specific situation."
Then it isn't an absolute. Situational ethics are not absolute, anymore than an array is a single point. You have added the variables to influence the outcome, then pretend that that outcome is absolute no matter the variable. That is ignorant.
"You say that yes, it is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their own personal pleasure. You are then appealing to an ABSOLUTE moral issue. How can you have an absolute moral issue from your worldview?"
Nope, it is a conditional moral issue, and you MADE it conditional. Ergo, it isn't an absolute.
"I fail to see how I have "destroyed" my own position."
Sadly, it appears you really do.
"You are making incredibly unfounded claims."
Surprising, I founded all of my claims, and you have failed to do so.
"Again I ask: why do absolute morals require morals not be conditional?"
A conditional is a factor that is variable and can change, as such, it will change the outcome.
An absolute is a factor that is invariable and cannot change, as such, the outcome would remain static.
An absolute moral is "It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death", NOT "unless variable, variable, variable". If there is any singular instance in which torturing a baby to death wouldn't be entirely immoral, then it isn't an absolute.
"You are assuming left and right without giving a foundation for your claims."
I gave a foundation, TWICE, you just don't seem to understand it. I doubt you will, no matter how it is explained to you, as you appear to have a vested interest in not understanding it.
You THINK you have a good foundation, but I really do not see how you do. "It is always wrong to torture babies to death merely for one's personal pleasure" is a universal moral absolute. Universal- "anyone", Moral- "wrong...", absolute-"always". I simply want you to answer this question.
Here is the question again: is it or is it not the case that it is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their own personal pleasure? Let me give you an example of what this means. Jim lives down the street. It comes to light that Jim tortures babies to death simply because he enjoys it. Is it morally wrong for Jim to do so? If it is morally wrong for Jim to do so, can it be said that it is morally wrong for ANYONE to do so?
"You THINK you have a good foundation, but I really do not see how you do."
Can't make someone see something they won't look at.
"It is always wrong to torture babies to death merely for one's personal pleasure" is a universal moral absolute. Universal- "anyone", Moral- "wrong...", absolute-"always". I simply want you to answer this question."
Already explained, in excruciating detail, despite your refusal to accept it. Regardless of your attempt to redefine the context of your words, it doesn't actually help your cause.
"Here is the question again: is it or is it not the case that it is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their own personal pleasure? Let me give you an example of what this means. Jim lives down the street. It comes to light that Jim tortures babies to death simply because he enjoys it. Is it morally wrong for Jim to do so? If it is morally wrong for Jim to do so, can it be said that it is morally wrong for ANYONE to do so?"
Have you quit molesting your kids, yet?
Is it always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death for fun?
This is a simple yes or no question which you have failed time and again to answer. Please give me a straight forward answer.
What point are you trying to prove with your last question?
I already did, you have just failed to comprehend it. Meanwhile, back in the real world, absolutes aren't circumstantial.
Answer it again for clarity, please. And absolutes aren't circumstantial? What does that even mean? Are you saying that "It is always wrong to murder" is an absolute moral statement, but "it is always wrong to murder someone in Idaho" is not? That is ridiculous.
"Answer it again for clarity, please."
Let me copy and paste it for you:
"Under those conditions and circumstances, yes I would consider it to be wrong, but not under others."
"And absolutes aren't circumstantial?"
Nope.
"What does that even mean?"
That absolutes cannot change with circumstances and still be absolute.
"Are you saying that "It is always wrong to murder" is an absolute moral statement, but "it is always wrong to murder someone in Idaho" is not? That is ridiculous."
No, it isn't. "It is always wrong to murder" has no variable conditions, which means "It is always wrong to murder". Whereas "it is always wrong to murder someone in Idaho" indicates that it isn't always wrong to murder someone as long as you are not in Idaho.
If you can't understand that, then I can't possibly help you. I ain't a magician, and I can't fix stupid.
I would appreciate if we could avoid attacks on character and intelligence, please.
"It is always wrong to murder someone in Idaho" is most certainly an absolute! This statement is independent of, but does not negate, the statement that "it is always wrong to murder." To state that "it is always wrong to murder someone in Idaho" is to state a moral absolute. The moral action (murder) is always wrong in the circumstance (in Idaho). You can even say that the statement "it is always wrong to murder" is conditional. The moral action (murder) is always wrong in the circumstance (all circumstances). There is an implied condition.
To say that "it is always wrong to murder someone in Idaho" is not absolute because it doesn't deal with murder outside of Idaho is illogical. The statement does not deal with murder outside of Idaho, therefore it is a separate moral issue.
Also, to say that "Under those conditions and circumstances, yes I would consider it to be wrong, but not under others." is completely redundant and unnecessary. The statement ONLY deals with those conditions. That's like if someone said: "Hey do you want to drive me to the store?" and my reply was "Yes, but not if I am in a comma." The original statement deals only with situations in which you are capable of driving someone to the store. What other circumstances can there possibly be from my original statement: "It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death merely for their own personal pleasure."
The reason that I made my initial statement regarding torturing babies so specific is to negate the possibility of someone coming up with a ludicrous example of when something would be morally permissible. If it would help, I can simplify the statement and I will ask the question again.
Is it always wrong for anyone to torture babies to death?
No. It is not an absolute, and no amount of mental gymnastics will make it such. An absolute is the SAME no matter the person, location, situation, or intent. I am unwilling to keep covering the same pile of bullshit with you, so I won't respond again until you make a legitimate argument.
It is always wrong for anyone to torture babies for fun. I have been raising the same issue since the beginning. You are most certainly the one performing mental gymnastics to prove your point.
"Anyone"-- Universal, "Wrong"-- Moral, "Always"-- Absolute. Universal Moral Absolute.
It does not get more simple than that, and you saying that that statement is not a moral absolute does not change the fact that it is. It's frustrating that you cannot see that.
Here is the action: Torturing babies to death for fun.
Now here is the question: Is it always wrong for someone to do that? This ONE specific action?
What if I don't know anybody that gets any fun out of torturing babies?
If they are crying while they do it maybe it's okay then right?
Also, to say that "Under those conditions and circumstances, yes I would consider it to be wrong, but not under others." is completely redundant and unnecessary. The statement ONLY deals with those conditions. That's like if someone said: "Hey do you want to drive me to the store?" and my reply was "Yes, but not if I was in a comma." The original statement deals only with situations in which you are capable of driving someone to the store.
I think what Travis is saying is that you keep inserting "for their own personal pleasure" to the moral code being discussed which is "It is always wrong to torture babies to death." Anything besides that is additional and too specific to conclude if it is a moral absolute as an absolute is just regarding the action itself. "Personal pleasure" is then presenting a reason behind the action that raises the possibility to be justified under certain circumstances, whereas saying "torturing babies to death is wrong" is a standalone moral statement. It's equivalent to saying "Stealing is wrong when you are homeless and hungry" rather than saying "stealing is wrong." The conditional makes the difference.
Exactly. He is equating an absolute moral with a conditional one, and that is intellectually dishonest in these kinds of debates.
Interesting discussion. A starting point would be that everyone is created equal and should be treated in an equal manner, subject to the caveat that they don't break that principle. So people who harm others would have to be punished. The definition of harm would be very broad and include murder, rape, theft etc etc. There are some international treaties which cover this kind of thing like the Geneva Convention and the European Human Rights Convention, and no doubt various others. If enough people come to the conclusion that this the right way to behave then you say that they may be regarded as fundamental.
So, argumentum ad populum is what your appealing to?
Argumentum ad populum fallacy applies to objective propositional logic. Inherently "if most people believe it is so, it is so" is a fallacy of logic that doesn't apply to social convention, because social convention is derived from a consensus of opinion on correct social behaviour, and that's what morals really are; social conventions that, although sharing some commonalities universally, tend to differ across cultures. Morality by its nature is not objective, and majority opinion has almost always ruled in moral structures; legal codes are inherently designed by consideration of what people most agree should be punished or not punished. By the contrapositive, there are actions that a vast majority consider immoral, but that some people may consider acceptable.
Most people consider murder wrong, because fundamentally, people don't want to be murdered or have their loved ones murdered, and humans are social creatures that depend on mutual cooperation for survival -- empathy is intrinsic to that, and that's where most "pure" morals come from, empathy. The only instances when people don't consider murder wrong, or when its justified by one society murdering another, is in war, or if a person is a lone-wolf and lacks empathy -- such a person doesn't depend on others for survival. But is it wrong to burn a note with the Queen's image on it? Well, it's certainly illegal in Britain.
Pages