Moral Absolutes

[Butters]

Can there really be any kind of moral absolute about anything? It feels like a moral absolute that murdering children (or anyone for that matter), rape, genocide or some other such horrible act is wrong, but isn't it just a construct. I'm not just talking about a cultural construct. Although different cultures have varying degrees of what is morally permisable, there is still a fairly large consensus on certain extreme behaviours. But could these be no more than an evolved response to maintain stability within a group, and therefore ensure survival?

 

Some animals will eat their young if given the opportunity, or their mates, but we would not describe these animals as immoral. If a human was to do the same thing, they would be condemned for it.

 

Although I realise we have to do so, is there really any point in debating the ethics of human activity when it is so flexible and often arbitrary once we remove emotion from it.

 

PS- Yes, I realise that emotion and conscience may be part of a moral compass, but I question again where these come from...

 

 

[jimmydasaint]

Great topic Butters. I want to kick off with a couple of moral absolutes. The first is lying. To my mind, telling the truth is the foundation of one's character and when that crumbles, it has a disastrous effect on what we call the personality (as I have personally seen). However, I have not managed to keep it as a moral absolute and have told 'little white lies' to protect people from embarrassment etc... So I fall short of the standards to which I aspire.

 

Secondly, being a slave to another human being. Again, in my opinion, I find it an anathema to be oppressed by another (faulty) human by the shackles of slavery. We can see it at first hand during female trafficking for prostitution in the West. I cannot think of a more degrading thing to put another human through.

 

Freedom, true freedom (IMHO) allows the human personality or ego to develop, flower and meet its true potential. Slavery/oppression robs the personality of coming to fruition in exactly the same way as a murder.

Edited July 27, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[Mr Skeptic]

Sure, there can be moral absolutes, but there's no guarantee they won't vary from place to place!

[jimmydasaint]

I don't agree with the latter part of this quotation (about anarchy) but, most of it still rings true today, as it did originally.

 

Freedom is the very essence of life, the impelling force in all intellectual and social development, the creator of every new outlook for the future of mankind. The liberation of man from economic exploitation and from intellectual and political oppression, which finds its finest expression in the world-philosophy of Anarchism, is the first prerequisite for the evolution of a higher social culture and a new humanity.

 

Rudolf Rocker

[pioneer]

There is a logical way to compare moral absolutes. It has to do with added social cost. The best moral absolutes do not create a lot of extra expense. If we add expense and/or need social mops to clean up after a moral code, we can create the illusion some second string morality is just as good. For example, if the children in a household share their toys, the expense and aggravation for the parents is less than if each child needs to have their own toys, fight and won't share. Both are possible but one needs a mop to work.

 

The number of social mops required in our culture reflects second string morality. If we took away these mops and let nature take its course, the first string would be easier to see. But as long as we support the extra cost needed for mops, one can create the illusion all codes are just as good. For example, say for one year we removed all treatment for STD's; no social mop. What types of sexual morality would still work even when the mop is gone? When the expense is zero we have an absolute.

 

Picture a culture that does not have all the modern wealth, but wishes to evolve. The best moral codes do not tie up that cultures small extra, making it available for that culture to grow and evolve. If it spend that on mops to support second string, it stagnates.

Edited July 27, 2010 by pioneer

[CharonY]

Define social cost in absolute terms, please.

[ydoaPs]

The first is lying. To my mind, telling the truth is the foundation of one's character and when that crumbles, it has a disastrous effect on what we call the personality (as I have personally seen). However, I have not managed to keep it as a moral absolute and have told 'little white lies' to protect people from embarrassment etc... So I fall short of the standards to which I aspire.

How do you solve the famous Nazi Dilemma?

[insane_alien]

what about lying to cover up a surprise for someone?

 

surely it would be more moral to avoid telling someone you were throwing them a surprise party(obviously until the point of the surprise party) so that they'd get greater enjoyment out of it.

 

i'm a pure moral relativist. ANY action can be the moral choice but the circumstances under which a choice becomes the moral one may be extremely limited.

[jimmydasaint]

How do you solve the famous Nazi Dilemma?

 

Can you please post back with what you mean by the Nazi dilemma. I could not find it with a quick search. Thanks buddy.

 

what about lying to cover up a surprise for someone?

 

surely it would be more moral to avoid telling someone you were throwing them a surprise party(obviously until the point of the surprise party) so that they'd get greater enjoyment out of it.

 

i'm a pure moral relativist. ANY action can be the moral choice but the circumstances under which a choice becomes the moral one may be extremely limited

 

I have wondered about this one. And yes I have told 'little lies' and still continue to do so. But if there is a moral absolute, then I regard truth as the most important; as a sort of Gold Standard' to which we can aspire. I don't know of a way to properly cover up a surprise if you want to hold on to truth as a moral absolute. Silence perhaps? Although silence has its own problems doesn't it?

[CharonY]

Can you please post back with what you mean by the Nazi dilemma. I could not find it with a quick search. Thanks buddy.

 

 

I n short, you have hidden Jews in the basement and Nazis come knocking on the door asking whether you have hidden someone.

Answering truthfully would result in the death of the Jews. The dilemma is based on situations where answering truthfully results in greater harm than lying.

[Butters]

The first is lying. To my mind, telling the truth is the foundation of one's character and when that crumbles, it has a disastrous effect on what we call the personality (as I have personally seen).

 

But if someone's personality is negatively affected by lying, isn't that still just the result of the society's standard of what is moral behaviour. Even if they were not discovered and made to feel guilt by outsiders, their own moral views are shaped by that society and thus they feel bad because they have been made to feel that they have done something that is 'wrong'.

 

Even when taking social costs into consideration, which is probably the best way to view the topic, social costs are relative anyway. In the Nazi dilemna, it would seem to us that it is a negative social cost to reveal the location of our Jewish stowaways, but to somebody who truly believed in the Final Solution it is a negative social cost to allow them to remain hidden. As horrible as that may be, there were people who felt like that. If people of a similar upbringing to me (as compared to a neolithic hunter-gatherer say) can have an opposite moral view to me, then surely ALL moral positions have to be relative.

 

Yes I realise it's dangerous and stupid to give one example to say it proves a rule! I would love to hear an argument that persuades me otherwise, as it is a bleak view of humanity to have!

[jimmydasaint]

In short, you have hidden Jews in the basement and Nazis come knocking on the door asking whether you have hidden someone.

Answering truthfully would result in the death of the Jews. The dilemma is based on situations where answering truthfully results in greater harm than lying.

 

Ah! In this case, I see no problem in lying to cover up the presence of the Jews in order to save their lives. That leaves the Gold Standard of truth as an absolute moral value in tatters. I cannot see that anyone would tell the truth in these circumstances.

 

 

But if someone's personality is negatively affected by lying, isn't that still just the result of the society's standard of what is moral behaviour. Even if they were not discovered and made to feel guilt by outsiders, their own moral views are shaped by that society and thus they feel bad because they have been made to feel that they have done something that is 'wrong'.

 

I thought about this before I went to bed last night and then when I woke up this morning and... I have to say that I cannot hold the truth as an absolute moral value but, instead, as an absolute moral standard. The truth cannot be seen as an absolute but society forces us to compromise all the time, and tell lies. I agree with you on this point.

 

However, the only way that truth can be held as an absolute moral value, only if society changes completely and truth is held as an ideal that is attainable by most of the people. If we collectively hold the truth to be an absolute virtue and the idea is soldwith the same relish as we sell fast foods - who knows?

 

Even when taking social costs into consideration, which is probably the best way to view the topic, social costs are relative anyway. In the Nazi dilemna, it would seem to us that it is a negative social cost to reveal the location of our Jewish stowaways, but to somebody who truly believed in the Final Solution it is a negative social cost to allow them to remain hidden.

 

I don't think that anyone who believed in the Final Solution would hide Jews anyway.

 

As horrible as that may be, there were people who felt like that. If people of a similar upbringing to me (as compared to a neolithic hunter-gatherer say) can have an opposite moral view to me, then surely ALL moral positions have to be relative.

 

Yes I realise it's dangerous and stupid to give one example to say it proves a rule! I would love to hear an argument that persuades me otherwise, as it is a bleak view of humanity to have!

 

I agree that the truth has to be seen in a moral relativist light, but I would like to see the question of slavery (without the permission of the victim) to be seen in a relativistic context. I cannot see it, at present. That is, unless you know differently.

[Severian]

All my morals are absolutes. If I think something is wrong, then it is wrong, period. I may still do it, but it is still wrong.

 

Of course, one has to be very careful how to define a particular moral. Or in other words, if your morality is not absolute, you have not defined it very well.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Severian

[Mr Skeptic]

Ah! In this case, I see no problem in lying to cover up the presence of the Jews in order to save their lives. That leaves the Gold Standard of truth as an absolute moral value in tatters. I cannot see that anyone would tell the truth in these circumstances.

 

And yet I've heard a story of people who did indeed hide Jews but with the condition that they would not lie to hide them. When asked they offered to tell the Nazis where they had hidden them, but since hiding Jews would have been a capital offense, apparently the Nazis thought they were joking and didn't go check. Don't know if it is a true story or not, and I couldn't find it just now when I searched for it.

 

Ever go around telling people true things on April Fool's Day? It's great fun.

[Butters]

I don't think that anyone who believed in the Final Solution would hide Jews anyway.

 

Well no. What I mean is that a true Nazi who knew of Jews being hidden and then subsequently reported that to the authorities would feel that they were doing the right thing. That is was a moral thing and a duty to report this breach. In their mind, they would feel that it was morally correct because they perceived that the result was for the greater good of the Reich.

 

All my morals are absolutes. If I think something is wrong, then it is wrong, period. I may still do it, but it is still wrong.

 

That's true. But I was wondering whether there is anything that could be described as a universal moral absolute. As in, something that applies to everybody, rather than a single person sticking to their own convictions of what they believe is right or wrong.

 

I agree that the truth has to be seen in a moral relativist light, but I would like to see the question of slavery (without the permission of the victim) to be seen in a relativistic context. I cannot see it, at present. That is, unless you know differently.

 

Okay this is a tricky one that goes against every fibre of my being, but I'll give it a go. Several hungered years ago, a white European male saw themselves as the pinnacle of cultural evolution. Far superior of course than the 'savages' of other continents. They had gunpowder, complex machinery and metal working skills far in advance of anything Africans or pacific islanders had. In their view, this technological superiority also gave them moral superiority. After all, their women weren't running around half-naked, and they didn't believe in ridiculous pagan gods. No, they believed in an unridiculous Christian God!

 

So quite apart from the biblical idea of man having dominion over all the creatures of the earth (including the inferior human races, as white Europeans were God's chosen people of course), they also could have seen slavery as an attempt to 'civilise' other races. People were not willingly separated from their homes and families, but for their own good, they could be civilised into the ways of Christianity, and modern social ideals and technology. They could never be equals, as they were deemed genetically inferior, but surely living in a modern civilisation was better than their primitive lives back home living in squalor and sin.

 

None of this is true of course, but the point is that the people who did this would have considered themselves to be very moral, Christian people. Some of them may even have freed their slaves once they had been sufficiently 'civilised' by their servitude.

 

I'm Australian for example, and up until the late 60's in my country Aboriginal people were classified as 'flora and fauna' by the government. They took children from their families by force and moved them into schools where they were taught white Australian values, whatever the hell that means. The hope was that the next generation would cast off their traditions and become anglicised. That is cultural genocide right there, as opposed to the actual genocide of the aboriginals that was comitted in Tasmania. There is not a single Tasmanian aboriginal left because they were hunted to extinction. Hunted because they were considered 'flora and fauna'.

 

Now although these things are pretty much as bad as a lot of what the Nazi's or the Khmer Rouge did, the people comitting these acts certainly did not consider themselves immoral. In the case of the stolen generation, they genuinely thought they were doing a very good thing in helping these children break free of their primitive lifestyle.

 

There. That was hard work trying to take such arguments seriously, but at the time, people did. Now I feel dirty. I'm going to go and have a shower...