Moral Absolutes

HungryJoe

Many people want to practice as much moral relativism as they can. Are there any moral absolutes? It would be hard to argue that things like slavery, torture, genocide, spouse abuse, child abuse and neglect, or forcing your religious beliefs and practices upon the unwilling are ever morally justified. It's pretty safe to say that those are all moral absolutes.

Are there any others? How about cleaning after yourself? Is that a moral decision? How about shirking work responsibilities so that others have to do more work? How about volunteer work? Is there ever a time that volunteering to help in a shelter would be wrong? Is the "golden rule" a moral absolute? Is the prohibition against adultery a moral absolute? How about the prohibition against stealing? Cannibalism? Is it okay to be cruel to animals? Is it okay to be cruel to people?

TheWhaleShark

*I* certainly cannot justify terrible things like that, but there are cultures that do. I take the mere existence of such cultural practices as evidence that there cannot be true moral absolutes.

However, there are certain ideas that seem to simply work better for the sake of living together peaceably. Many many cultures value those ideas, so if there is such a thing as moral truth, it would be reflected in those ideas.

Nine Boomer

It makes you wonder if some of our morals are silly and created by society by some means. We were all naked a long time ago, why has it become such a taboo to expose yourself? Is cannibalism really that bad? You aren't actually causing anyone any harm through cannibalism, unless you purposefully raise humans for consumption, or you kill someone just for food.

Apreche

From the perspective of a universe of atoms, morality is 100% subjective. There is no inherent good or evil that we know of when comparing one configuration of atoms, or sub-atoms, to another configuration.

However, we are human beings living in an "advanced" society. If you accept the principles of the society in which you live as a given, then it is upon those principles which you can build morals. For example, if you treat the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as a law of the universe, you now have a basis for declaring murder, slavery, etc. as absolutely morally wrong.

To eliminate moral and cultural relativism from the equation you have to add one more factor. By observation and comparison of different societies on earth, we can see that some do "better" than others. Even while the idea of better is subjective, it can come from more objective measurements like life expectancy, general welfare, literacy rate, scientific discoveries made, etc. It has been demonstrated throughout history that the principles of freedom, justice, etc. lead to a better society while others lead to a worse one. Thus, morals are not free to change based upon the principles of the society you happen to live in. They instead must change to match the principles which are most beneficial to human beings as a whole.

HungryJoe

*I* certainly cannot justify terrible things like that, but there are cultures that do. I take the mere existence of such cultural practices as evidence that there cannot be true moral absolutes.

Is it not possible to say that a culture that, for instance, forces religious beliefs and practices upon the unwilling is wrong for doing so?

TheWhaleShark

*I* certainly cannot justify terrible things like that, but there are cultures that do. I take the mere existence of such cultural practices as evidence that there cannot be true moral absolutes.

Is it not possible to say that a culture that, for instance, forces religious beliefs and practices upon the unwilling is wrong for doing so?

If you read my second statement, then I'm saying that yes, that is possible.

Didn't I already hijack a thread AND start a separate thread about this very thing?

HungryJoe

Didn't I already hijack a thread AND start a separate thread about this very thing?

I thought about that before I posted; and, while they are similar, I don't believe that this is quite the same thing.

*I* certainly cannot justify terrible things like that, but there are cultures that do. I take the mere existence of such cultural practices as evidence that there cannot be true moral absolutes.

Is it not possible to say that a culture that, for instance, forces religious beliefs and practices upon the unwilling is wrong for doing so?

If you read my second statement, then I'm saying that yes, that is possible.

We can say that society is wrong then, without fear of being labeled as insensitive to the relativism of our values versus theirs?

Rym

From the ever-present solipsistic perspective, nothing can ever be absolute but my conviction that I am a possibly imperfect observer of events.

However, I believe very simply that it is important to strive for what you believe is right in this world regardless of the moral perspective of others. As a thinking being with at least the illusion of free will, I have no choice but to stand up for what I feel is right, and no excuses can be made by others for the behaviors that I find abhorrent.

HungryJoe

As a thinking being with at least the illusion of free will, I have no choice but to stand up for what I feel is right, and no excuses can be made by others for the behaviors that I find abhorrent.

What about relativism? What if a father, in the name of his religion, denied life-saving medical treatment to his son and allowed his daughter to starve, but was acting reasonably within the bounds of his particular society? Should he be judged by the rules of our society? Would a harsh judgment of that father even necessarily be a result of judging him by the rules of our society, but more of a judgment of absolute wrong?

Rym

What about relativism?

It's all relative, but that's not an excuse for breaches of my own moral code.

What if a father, in the name of his religion, denied life-saving medical treatment to his son and allowed his daughter to starve, but was acting reasonably within the bounds of his particular society?

In my mind, that's an indictment of his society. The only question is whether or not my society should take action.

Schnevets

Funny, I just had this conversation in my first day of a new class. In particular, the professor asked if justice existed in the universe, and whether or not anyone can think of a just rule that will always exist, that would seem despicable to any intelligent being, even if it has no influence by mankind. Some kid dwelled on "Do unto others as you would like done unto you" (he was kind of put on the spot, though), and the class dwelled on that, so I never got to give my answer.

I think there is one absolute rule, which I simplified as "Don't die" (The phrase is also a running gag with a friend from high school). Even the simplest organisms will cling on to life as long as possible. If any creature voluntarily decides to die, it does so for a reason it believes is good, whether it's an insect which must die to reproduce, or a soldier who goes to war to protect his family and nation. Even if an emo kid commits suicide, he does so to make a statement, or because he adamantly believes his life is miserable.
All people will value their lives because, human beings are skeptic. Even if Great Religious Book says death is nothing to fear, they are still reluctant to accept it (unless they are very devout and have no other option). Also, just about every other foundation of society can be expanded from this: we enter the social contract to protect ourselves and make our lives easier, better ensuring survival.
If this were to be applied further, it would say the best way to live life is independently, enjoying the world while we still can, while always conscious of our mortality.

This may not be anything groundbreaking to anyone, but I think it's a moral, it's a moral that all organisms practice instinctively, and is the foundation that all other morals are based off of.

HMTKSteve

Morality is defined by the society in which you live.

I tend to agree with Socha in that the only moral truth is to keep yourself alive. If you're dead you no longer matter.

There are times when even things we consider to be immoral are moral, or at least acceptable. Take slavery (or its cousin indentured servitude) for example. Though many would consider slavery to be an immoral condition if the person's only other option is "not to be alive" it becomes acceptable and moral to keep a slave. It is not OK to beat or abuse that slave though and that may be where people get confused about whether or not slavery is moral.

As for forcing ones religion on others I would put that in the same category as forcing any viewpoint upon another that is not backed by settled science.

Issues of abuse are always immoral. It does not matter who you are abusing it is always wrong. Just to be clear I consider it abuse when someone with direct power over another causes them pain or suffering. An owner beating their dog is abuse. A parent beating their child is abuse. A guard beating a prisoner is abuse. Two strangers fighting is not abuse because neither holds power over the other.

Kate Monster

Morality is defined by the society in which you live.

I tend to agree with Socha in that the only moral truth is to keep yourself alive. If you're dead you no longer matter.

So there is nothing worth dying for?

HungryJoe

Though many would consider slavery to be an immoral condition if the person's only other option is "not to be alive" it becomes acceptable and moral to keep a slave. It is not OK to beat or abuse that slave though and that may be where people get confused about whether or not slavery is moral.

Please elaborate.

Kate Monster

@HTMKSlave-Owner: There is never a case when human slavery is acceptable. You would really sacrafice someone else's freedom to save your skin?

TheWhaleShark

From the ever-present solipsistic perspective, nothing can ever be absolute but my conviction that I am a possibly imperfect observer of events.

However, I believe very simply that it is important to strive for what you believe is right in this world regardless of the moral perspective of others. As a thinking being with at least the illusion of free will, I have no choice but to stand up for what I feel is right, and no excuses can be made by others for the behaviors that I find abhorrent.

This is exactly what I conclude to be the only possible truth. It all comes down to my personal definition of what is "right" and what is "wrong," and that fact serves to explain all the differing philosophies across the world.

So, obviously, an individual will behave according to a personal moral code. Here's my quandry: If we take a group of individuals with an identical or mostly similar moral code, they'll form a society which is governed by that moral code. Anyone born into (or otherwise brought in from elsewhere) that society would necessarily be subject to that moral code. Is it acceptable for a society to define the moral code of a child? To continue to shape that moral code throughout their life? When do we get free will?

HungryJoe

I'm interested in whether we may still say something is "wrong" with any certainty in the face of relativism. Based on what he wrote, it sounds to me like Steve doesn't find anything wrong with slavery except for slave abuse. Can anyone say that's "wrong", or are we constrained by relativism to say, "Well, maybe in Steve's society, slavery is okay, so we shouldn't judge him or his society by our standards"?

Apreche

I think Steve is saying is that he wants to be my slave, as long as I don't abuse him. I will glady accept his offer. He can haev food, a bed, and a pot to piss in. He won't be paid, of course, or be allowed to travel freely. He'll also be forced to work 12 hours a day to earn his food and shelter, but it's ok because that's what he wants.

Apreche

I'm interested in whether we may still say something is "wrong" with any certainty in the face of relativism. Based on what he wrote, it sounds to me like Steve doesn't find anything wrong with slavery except for slave abuse. Can anyone say that's "wrong", or are we constrained by relativism to say, "Well, maybe in Steve's society, slavery is okay, so we shouldn't judge him or his society by our standards?"

Relativism is bullshit. You should always judge other societies by your own moral standards. To accept relativism is to say that morality varies with geography, genetics, or other such factors.

The way to always shut down relativists is to bring up female genital mutilation. There are places on earth where people do that. If you want to argue that it's ok for them to do it, but not ok for us to do it, you're just being hypocritical. That's really no different than saying it's ok to enslave blacks, but not whites. Or that it's ok to for christians to murder in a crusade, but not ok for muslims to murder in a jihad. Relativism can not avoid hypocrisy or contradiction. It fails every time.

Kate Monster

I don't know, Scott. Maybe HTMKSteve can justify FGM as long as you use sterilized untensils and pain killers.

Apreche

I don't know, Scott. Maybe HTMKSteve can justify FGM as long as you use sterilized untensils and pain killers.

Well, he's already my slave, so I'll have him do it to himself.

TheWhaleShark

I'm interested in whether we may still say something is "wrong" with any certainty in the face of relativism. Based on what he wrote, it sounds to me like Steve doesn't find anything wrong with slavery except for slave abuse. Can anyone say that's "wrong", or are we constrained by relativism to say, "Well, maybe in Steve's society, slavery is okay, so we shouldn't judge him or his society by our standards?"

Relativism is bullshit. You should always judge other societies by your own moral standards. To accept relativism is to say that morality varies with geography, genetics, or other such factors.

The way to always shut down relativists is to bring up female genital mutilation. There are places on earth where people do that. If you want to argue that it's ok for them to do it, but not ok for us to do it, you're just being hypocritical. That's really no different than saying it's ok to enslave blacks, but not whites. Or that it's ok to for christians to murder in a crusade, but not ok for muslims to murder in a jihad. Relativism can not avoid hypocrisy or contradiction. It fails every time.

Well, I think the point that at least *I* am trying to make is that morality does vary from place to place. If it can vary from person to person, it necessarily follows that it will vary from place to place and from society to society.

In the face of that, what we should do is define what is morally "good" and what is morally "bad" for most people. FGM is one of those things that pretty much everyone can point to and say, "That's bad." Same with slavery.

Basically, we need to be comfortable with denouncing certain things as being "wrong" even in the face of moral relativity, because to do otherwise is a fairly impractical way to exist.

Apreche

You're never going to get perfect agreement among human beings on subjective issues. It's just not going to happen.

However, I do think it is easier to get agreement on a discussion of favorable and unfavorable results. For example, it's easier to get people to agree that living is better than dying. Abundance of food is better than hunger. Health is better than sickness. Those sorts of things that can sort of be objectively measured.

If you have that agreement, you can then branch it down into morals relatively easily. You can show historically which societies "scored" better in these areas. the US has less of a food problem and longer live expectancy than North Korea, for example. Then you can examine what the successful societies have in common, and what the failed societies have in common.

One thing the successful societies have in common is a certain kind of moral code. Societies that have lots of violence end in shambles. Peaceful societies prosper. Thus, murdering being a nono in your moral code is a good idea. Societies with slavery and tyranny are much worse off than societies with freedom. It is not difficult to illustrate the causal relationship between our sense of morality, and what most would agree is a successful society. Thus, even though morals are subjective, it is not wrong to favor one over another if you can demonstrate that the one you favor leads to a better society.

Schnevets

Morality is defined by the society in which you live.

I tend to agree with Socha in that the only moral truth is to keep yourself alive. If you're dead you no longer matter.

So there is nothing worth dying for?

Actually, I feel like my idea means the opposite, because death has a value. Whereas a egoist would think the purpose of life is not to die, I think people just fear death because they do not understand the unknown (regardless of what religion/beliefs assure them). It is the absolute moral, but to say it should be everyone's most valuable is like saying you must respect your mother above anyone else since she gave you life. In reality, it is a vessel from which other morals developed, and these may take precedence based on a person's beliefs. A man may eventually value his family over his life, and would die to ensure their peace. Another person may risk life for fame or art. Still others may death as an escape, although this is without question a break of the ultimate moral, along with foolishly throwing away your life with excessiveness or just plain ignorance (although those are more relative).

On the issue of slavery, I do not think that this absolute moral justifies such mistreatment. When early humans formed villages, the foundations were "Don't Die" and what we now know as the golden rule. In such a group, people were expected to cooperate whenever needed and do unto each other as they would like treated. Don't steal your neighbor's yams, and hopefully they'll agree not to steal yours. However, as people migrated, groups split, supernatural beliefs formed, and people saw themselves as superior to others, justifying slavery. Now, I believe the world (or at least egalitarians) are trying to establish the golden rule amongst all people. Hence, in our modern society, slavery is despised, since your people could be the slave tomorrow.

Many people are trying to establish the golden rule as something absolute, even though it is not naturally. Hence, we try to ignore that other morals like slavery are actually superficial and not absolute, since admitting that slavery could exist has the potential to digress society away from an equal utopia.

gomidog

One thing the successful societies have in common is a certain kind of moral code. Societies that have lots of violence end in shambles. Peaceful societies prosper. Thus, murdering being a nono in your moral code is a good idea. Societies with slavery and tyranny are much worse off than societies with freedom. It is not difficult to illustrate the causal relationship between our sense of morality, and what most would agree is a successful society. Thus, even though morals are subjective, it is not wrong to favor one over another if you can demonstrate that the one you favor leads to a better society.

It's not that simple. What about nations that practiced colonialism and slavery and became successful because of it? To be honest, part of the US's current prosperity is because we stole land from the Indians, farmed it with slaves, and even now we get a lot of profit from exploiting third world nations. In fact, I would argue that some of what you are referring to as successful "societies with freedom" are often only possible because of injustices perpetrated elsewere. So a "free" nation that enslaves another nation across the world with very few civil liberties? Does that count?

Look at America and Rome. Very free internally, very aggressive externally.

Wyatt

Morality is based on each person's individual perception. Two people can watch the same event and are impacted in two very different ways. That's why this stuff falls into the realm of soft science. Their are no Laws in Psychology only trends.

However, I do think it is easier to get agreement on a discussion of favorable and unfavorable results. For example, it's easier to get people to agree that living is better than dying. Abundance of food is better than hunger. Health is better than sickness. Those sorts of things that can sort of be objectively measured.

Survival isn't really a question of morality. What you have to do and who you do it to in order to survive is. If I was some how lost in the woods and all I could find to eat is Raptor eggs and Bald Eagle, I would hope I packed some salt. Cannibalism as a hobby isn't widely accepted. Yet cannibalism can be morally justified as a mean of survival and suddenly it's OK.

Scott now that you're recently a slave owner. You may see what you did as needed in order to provide a safe and health environment for you and your family. You slave may disagree with you. History will show that your moral code did not provide the best outcome for the most number of people. So things changed.

Society changes even when people don't want them to. I really think that it's the conflict between different believes that drives the Burning Wheel,,, I mean World forward ^_^ Sometimes it SUCKS but as long as we keep pushing forward. We'll be alright. I've started to wonder "What would we do in a perfect world?" I've got the feeling it's going to be kind of dull.

I do think their are some things worth dying for, few things worth killing for and nothing worth killing yourself over.

TheWhaleShark

One thing the successful societies have in common is a certain kind of moral code. Societies that have lots of violence end in shambles. Peaceful societies prosper. Thus, murdering being a nono in your moral code is a good idea. Societies with slavery and tyranny are much worse off than societies with freedom. It is not difficult to illustrate the causal relationship between our sense of morality, and what most would agree is a successful society. Thus, even though morals are subjective, it is not wrong to favor one over another if you can demonstrate that the one you favor leads to a better society.

It's not that simple. What about nations that practiced colonialism and slavery and became successful because of it? To be honest, part of the US's current prosperity is because we stole land from the Indians, farmed it with slaves, and even now we get a lot of profit from exploiting third world nations. In fact, I would argue that some of what you are referring to as successful "societies with freedom" are often only possible because of injustices perpetrated elsewere. So a "free" nation that enslaves another nation across the world with very few civil liberties? Does that count?

Look at America and Rome. Very free internally, very aggressive externally.

In fact, I argue that one of the reasons that China is becoming such an economic powerhouse is that they have a flagrant disregard for human rights and worker's rights. It keeps overhead ridiculously low and keeps profits up very high. A lot of countries have gotten where they are by the exploitation of various groups. So, I'd agree that it's pretty damned effective.

Quality of life is a different matter and far more subjective.

Apreche

I'm not talking about measuring success in terms of the economic size of a society/country or its military or political might. I'm talking about measuring the the life of the average preson in that society. Sure, the US might be big and bad, and China might also be big and bad. However, the people of the US are doing pretty well, the people of China, not as well overall.

If the US ignored morals, and just started conquering stuff, and enslaving people, sure it would boost the economy and such. But the actual citizens would be displeased. China's exploitation might help it economically, but people aren't really lining up to move to China. Money and power might be the result of amoral acts past and present, but people's desire to actually participate in a society has more to do with their agreement of the principles upon which the society is founded.

Cremlian

I'm not talking about measuring success in terms of the economic size of a society/country or its military or political might. I'm talking about measuring the the life of the average preson in that society. Sure, the US might be big and bad, and China might also be big and bad. However, the people of the US are doing pretty well, the people of China, not as well overall.

If the US ignored morals, and just started conquering stuff, and enslaving people, sure it would boost the economy and such. But the actual citizens would be displeased. China's exploitation might help it economically, but people aren't really lining up to move to China. Money and power might be the result of amoral acts past and present, but people's desire to actually participate in a society has more to do with their agreement of the principles upon which the society is founded.

The Chinese don't seem to have a problem with it :-p

TheWhaleShark

I'm not talking about measuring success in terms of the economic size of a society/country or its military or political might. I'm talking about measuring the the life of the average preson in that society. Sure, the US might be big and bad, and China might also be big and bad. However, the people of the US are doing pretty well, the people of China, not as well overall.

If the US ignored morals, and just started conquering stuff, and enslaving people, sure it would boost the economy and such. But the actual citizens would be displeased. China's exploitation might help it economically, but people aren't really lining up to move to China. Money and power might be the result of amoral acts past and present, but people's desire to actually participate in a society has more to do with their agreement of the principles upon which the society is founded.

I would argue that since an individual defines morality for themselves, success is the ability of that individual to live out their life the way they deem proper. That's the definition of a truly free society.

Being that a society is a collection of individuals, you're going to have multiple moral codes, arguably as many as there are people, and some of those codes may come into conflict.

This is natural selection. Competing ideas fight for the same resources, and will either be driven to inhabit different niches (which is what we have now) or one will be eliminated completely (which has happened in the past and is continuing to happen today). This is the case of China, where competing ideas were forcibly quashed and all are now subject to one overriding moral code. It works for that society; maybe the individuals don't like it, but they don't matter at that point, as their individual moral codes have been destroyed.

Thus, I argue that if we live as truly free individuals, divisiveness is the natural result. The only way to bring humanity together as one, then, would be to unite everyone under a single moral code, whatever that code may be.

Think about the Sranc: they have no personality but collectively gave birth to the No-God. A collective giving rise to a single, fundamentally true idea.

The only way to live together peaceably, in other words, is to define and accept certain absolute moral truths and unite everyone under them. The trick is to define as few things as necessary, in order to give as much freedom as is reasonable. Define too much and you have a society where the illusion of free will is gone and life blows for pretty much everyone. Don't define enough and you have constant struggle and divisiveness.

EDIT: I posit that the most successful societies would practice a sort of dynamic objectivism. That is, a society would have a given moral code (reflected by laws and so forth) that applies totally to all members of that society. This calls back to a discussion Rym, Scott, and I were having one night about stuff like this, in which the idea of total enforcement of laws was brought up.

This moral code must be enforced totally at all times or else it is ineffective. Once a different moral code starts competing for the same resources (people who adhere to that code), the two codes duke it out until one has more resources. The successful society will then shift its moral code to the new one, and start enforcing it totally.

A society based on periodic shifting of absolutely applied morals would be the most successful in the long run.

Ilmarinen

I'm not talking about measuring success in terms of the economic size of a society/country or its military or political might. I'm talking about measuring the the life of the average preson in that society. Sure, the US might be big and bad, and China might also be big and bad. However, the people of the US are doing pretty well, the people of China, not as well overall.

If the US ignored morals, and just started conquering stuff, and enslaving people, sure it would boost the economy and such. But the actual citizens would be displeased. China's exploitation might help it economically, but people aren't really lining up to move to China. Money and power might be the result of amoral acts past and present, but people's desire to actually participate in a society has more to do with their agreement of the principles upon which the society is founded.

The Chinese don't seem to have a problem with it :-p

There are tons of rebellions happening in China all the time. They aren't happy with their situation at all.