Moral Absolutism

[m42]

Wikipedia defines Moral Absolutism as "the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act...."

Do you believe in moral absolutism?

Do you believe moral absolutism to be a byproduct of free will?

What are your beliefs on the topic?

[John Scott]

Do you believe in moral absolutism?


No. Silliness. Nonsense.

[m42]

No. Silliness. Nonsense.

Care to elaborate?

[kerrin]

Do you believe in moral absolutism?

No. I believe some systems of belief are more reasonable then others, but all arguments are rationally avoidable in the end. I believe there may be some transcendent moral absolutes, but how could we know them? And how could we know them absolutely?

[kerrin]

Wikipedia defines Moral Absolutism as "the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act...."

Do you believe in moral absolutism?

Do you believe moral absolutism to be a byproduct of free will?

What are your beliefs on the topic?
I'm interested in your thoughts?

[m42]

I'm interested in your thoughts?

This thread stemmed from an argument I had with someone. My adversary was hell bent on creating his own moral belief system and forcing others to adhere to it.

He kept citing the Kantian idea of moral absolutism. I failed to remain calm and polite. The argument became heated and I eventually kept responding that the idea of moral absolutism is absurd and I don't believe in it.

I simply wondered if I was the only person who felt this way.

[kerrin]

I simply wondered if I was the only person who felt this way.
Nope you are not. My understanding of Kant's ethics is that it allows for a wicked action to be a moral one. The only moral action according to Kant is the one with a rational motive. His philosophies did not take into account the outcome or result of an action, which would obviously allow for a wicked thing if someone thought it was rational...the difficulty is that not everyone can agree on what is rational. In my view their is not some objective rationality or universal, absolute rational thought.

Besides getting emotional about the issue, how do you escape Kant's arguments for certain absolute morals?

[John A Roark]

This is where Rand's ideas about the specific nature of man and Heinlein's ideas about a scientifically composed system of ethics and morals link up, I think.
'Moral Absolutism?' What is a 'moral,' first of all? There are several entries, but the one I like in the OED is: "...principle(s) of right and wrong."
We could go 'round and 'round with definitions here...and even though I am a proponent of, "first, define your terms," I will proceed leaving a few doors open.
I think, as Rand, that we must base our visions of right and wrong on a strict, uncompromising observation of what Man is, and not what we would like him to be.
Thus, once I settle that question for myself (trying in the process to be as intellectually honest with myself as I can), I can conceive a system based on those conclusions.
That system constitutes my morality...and, FOR ME, it is absolute. Complete and total responsibility for self demands that I abide by what I've reasoned out so far as this is concerned. I can never allow myself to be swayed by the 'contingency of the moment.' I need to have a system worked out with principles that I can rely on to see me through any situation without having to judge every moment separately. X happens, I respond Y because I have a set of morals. The decision I make is not affected by 'who' or 'why' or 'how much loot is involved?'--and thus subject to change from time to time even though every other variable remains the same. And even if I do falter occasionally, on a personal level, I know I am still accountable for that. In a wider legal and political realm, however, the 'why', the 'how much' and ESPECIALLY the 'who' simply cannot matter, if I am true to my principles.

But I think the question revolves around whether I have the authority to demand that my moral absolutes apply to you.
No, in the conditions we live in.
But my utopia is a place where, if you want to live there, you agree to accept our vision. If not, go elsewhere. Total freedom to accept or not.

Geographically, that would break us all down into very small entities, indeed...and I am not yet fully convinced that the U.S. of A. shouldn't be broken up into about three or four different nations--by popular rebellion of course (see Jefferson for my reasons). To those who like the government dole, I say, get the hell out of here, go back to the East or Left Coast, and pay too much in taxes like the good little toady you are. Let the rest of us live in peace, relying on ourselves to get us out of the mess we're in, not give legal authority to our neighbor to rob us via taxation.

Shit, I went on a rant, and I shouldna oughta done that...

A moral absolute is just fine so long as everyone forced to abide by it AGREES with it. If not, therein lies the rub.

[kerrin]

I think, as Rand, that we must base our visions of right and wrong on a strict, uncompromising observation of what Man is"

John, do you find any problem with Rand deriving from what "is" an "ought"?

[John A Roark]

So far as a recognition of what constitutes right action, not yet.

[Tom Palven]

While dictionaries define "ethics" and "morality" as being synonymous, in practical usage they are slightly different. For example, while a Baptist preacher might say that oral sex and premarital sex, are "immoral", and that homosexuality is "an abomination in the eyes of God", few people would say that these sexual acts between consenting adults are unethical. In practical usage "morals" tend to involve a person's relatiionship with God, while ethics involve interpersonal relationships.

There seems to be developing schools of "rational ethics" and "natural ethics" which are far from moral absolutism. While Thomas Aquinas argued against lying by saying that it is an abuse of God's gift of speech, Mark Twain used a more natural, rather than supernatural, argument, that "When you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything". The stress that appears in lie detector tests on normal humans shows that it goes against human nature to lie. Thus, one can say that nature makes a case against lying, and a further case can be made that lying causes one to have to watch one's back, and can cause a loss of credibility which is necessary to productive personal interactions. So, far from trying to prove a moral absolute, it can be shown that there are good, rational reasons to try to be "ethical" and avoid lying, for example.

[Devilyn]

[QUOTE=Tom Palven;2731]
The stress that appears in lie detector tests on normal humans shows that it goes against human nature to lie.

Or the stress is because the person telling the lie is scared of the consequenses of being caught in the lie. That's not the same as people being innately truthful.

[Devilyn]

Tom Palven:
The stress that appears in lie detector tests on normal humans shows that it goes against human nature to lie.



Or the stress is because the person telling the lie is scared of the consequenses of being caught in the lie. That's not the same as people being innately truthful.

[Tom Palven]

That's a good point. I might add, however, that feeling forced to lie out of embarrassment is also stressful, at least to me, and probably very uncomfortable to most people, unless, of course, they are politicians.
Somebody, maybe Mark Twain, said something to the effect of "When you are ashamed to speak speak up at once", which I have found to be good advice when I've managed to follow it.

[John Scott]

In practical usage "morals" tend to involve a person's relatiionship with God, while ethics involve interpersonal relationships.

When Hillary, Obama and pretty much everybody on the Left is calling universal health care a "moral mandate" and a "moral obligation" - even man atheists calling it that - it's difficult to accept your theory.

Whether your morality/ethics are religiously inspired or inspired by some other system of belief (rationalism, intuitionism, etc), they are still subjective.

In the end, you have to look at why people turn to words such as "moral mandate". It is invoked to justify a non-consensual act of domination (coercion).

And if you accept morality to as a legitimate justification for coercion, then I think you're justifying the worst dictatorships in history.

I think morality is good and fine, as long as it's an individual decision and isn't imposed by governments.

[Tom Palven]

I agree that "moral mandate" are political buzz words. Hillary and the left can call anything "moral" that they want to, because "With God all things are possible." I doubt that you have heard any of them say that their proposed health system is ethical because "ethics" usually implies the use of some logic. I also agree that coercion is logically unethical, or "immoral", to use your term, even when the end supposedly justifies the means. But I'm no pacifist, and I think that attempting to overthrow or ignore coercive governments, including royal caste systems, dictatorships, kleptocracies, and collectivist democracies, among others, are acts of self defense.