Can Moral Absolutism Be Proven Through the Concept of the Philosopher King?

[Dmstifik8ion]

Tide, here's my understanding of relativism and moralism. (Since I'm not particularly sure what you're arguing, I want to do a little overview)
Relatvisim, which I think is your position, basically holds the concept of morality is purely a human concoction and therefore any individual can declare what is right or wrong. This leads to the conclusion that everything is OKAY because, short of a supreme creator, there's no reason for it not to be. Essentially, this is denying the existence of morality. (Michel Foucault)
Moralism, which tends to be my general view, holds that that certain actions (or all/most acts) have inherent characteristics of being right or wrong. These views are strictly humanistic and are arrived at by logical and empirical arguments. (George Holyoake)
Theistic humanism is the same as Moralism, but usually appeals to a supreme being and/or creator as the source of morality. (St. Aquinas)
Arguments? Comments? Short Rants?

Now were getting warm.
What theistic humanism (seems somewhat contradictory) lacks is the ability to tie reasoning to our requirements, as dictated by our physical and intellectual nature and how to enter into mutually beneficial relationships, as opposed to the dictates of an undefined being who purpose can only be assumed. This must be due to a lack of understanding of our nature and therefore what those requirements are.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

aren't rules just a way of enforcement?
all of our present attempts at attaining a "moral society" have been implemented from without; that is, they have enforced moral behavior as rule, with punishments according to "rule-breaking".
none, yet, have set to bring about moral behavior from within, as an unforced and natural disposition of being-with.
it seems that we are lacking in some very fundamental areas of education; self-governance. (of course, this would mean trouble for those invested in police forces, policy institutions, military, judicial and executive institutions, prison systems, ... the list seems to go on and on). basically, the self-actualization of the individual is a threat to the present institutions of big-business and government; imposed authority, in general, who thrive on conflict.
if we are not educated properly, early on, to be in understanding of truths of wisdom, how can we proceed to a moral and peaceful society? afterall, isn't it prejudice and ignorance that have lead so many out of peace?
where do we go from here? if not educating the young, we are imposing the the historical, societal will on them... with all of its prejudice and lack of care for wisdom and virtue, and the cycle never ends.
where do we go now?

We must learn that unjust rules are not enforceable. We cannot ignore the requirements of human nature in dictating the rules. People have a great capacity for suffering but in the end if the moral code laid down by those in power is not livable we must change them or if change is not permitted we must rebel or die trying to abide by a morality that does not correspond to the absolute of reality.

 

[Tide]

This leads to the conclusion that everything is OKAY because, short of a supreme creator, there's no reason for it not to be.

No. The relativist recognizes and uses logic and reason but also recognizes that morality can change over time and space.

Moralism, which tends to be my general view, holds that that certain actions (or all/most acts) have inherent characteristics of being right or wrong.

How about some specifics? If morality is absolute then you should be able to come up with an example or two in which a moral principle is always right. :)

 

[Smurf]

No. The relativist recognizes and uses logic and reason but also recognizes that morality can change over time and space.

Yes, but what I'm trying to clarify is that relativism does not recognize any specific way that a person should or should not act. It sees morality as an idea that changes as the whim of society/people change. It rejects deonology in other words.

How about some specifics? If morality is absolute then you should be able to come up with an example or two in which a moral principle is always right. :)

Depriving a person of life or liberty. For example.

 

[Tide]

It sees morality as an idea that changes as the whim of society/people change. It rejects deonology in other words.

"Whim" is a bit of oversimplification. Relativism recognizes that not everyone (globally and temporally) shares the same values. That is not to say they have no morals or standards. Also, I presume you meant "deontology."

Depriving a person of life or liberty. For example.

You would not deprive a serial killer his liberty? You would not deprive someone of life who is in the act of using lethal force against you or a loved one?

 

[Smurf]

"Whim" is a bit of oversimplification. Relativism recognizes that not everyone (globally and temporally) shares the same values. That is not to say they have no morals or standards. Also, I presume you meant "deontology."

Yeah, that's what I said, and yes I meant deontology.

You would not deprive a serial killer his liberty? You would not deprive someone of life who is in the act of using lethal force against you or a loved one?

What I would "do" and what I would recognize as being inherently ungood (evil) are quite different things. You can justify an act without it being morally good.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

"Whim" is a bit of oversimplification. Relativism recognizes that not everyone (globally and temporally) shares the same values. That is not to say they have no morals or standards. Also, I presume you meant "deontology."
You would not deprive a serial killer his liberty? You would not deprive someone of life who is in the act of using lethal force against you or a loved one?

Initiating the use of force against another individual who has not threatened your life or liberty equally negates the your right to life and liberty. Liberty does not entail the ‘right’ to abuse the rights of others.
If a further explanation is required then this certainly deserves consideration. I will attempt to address this need later. Got to go now but I’ll be back. Fascinating discussion!

 

[selfAdjoint]

Initiating the use of force against another individual who has not threatened your life or liberty equally negates the your right to life and liberty. Liberty does not entail the ‘right’ to abuse the rights of others.
If a further explanation is required then this certainly deserves consideration. I will attempt to address this need later. Got to go now but I’ll be back. Fascinating discussion!

This is evidently a part of the Dmstifik8ion code of morality. Various world thinkers have disagreed.

An important feature of any selfAdjoint code of morality would be "Every requirement I lay on my neighbor, I lay on myself, and every permission I grant myself, I grant to my neighbor."

And my neighbor consists at least of every living human being.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

This is evidently a part of the Dmstifik8ion code of morality. Various world thinkers have disagreed.
An important feature of any selfAdjoint code of morality would be "Every requirement I lay on my neighbor, I lay on myself, and every permission I grant myself, I grant to my neighbor."
And my neighbor consists at least of every living human being.

Not just world thinkers but world leaders as well. Disputes between individuals, groups and nations arise when they are unable to agree on what constitutes a fair and equitable moral code. Unless and until a moral code can be demonstrated to arise out of a reality-based necessity, such disputes will necessarily continue indefinitely without any real and lasting resolution.
I recognize that everyone requires the same essential rights and privileges as me. I also realize that these rights and privileges must be extended to each of us to satisfy the requirements of existence imposed by our nature and the nature of the reality in which we live. All other rights and privileges must be earned and won by mutual consent devoid of any threat of violence.
I impose no requirement on my neighbor except that they demand nothing of me except that which we have agreed is in our mutual self-interest. Reality makes the demands and I comply by meeting the requirements imposed by it. If anyone requires anything not available by cooperative exchange with another than it is to reality that they must conform, not me to them or them to me. My only obligation to my neighbor is to assume the responsibility that is mine for the consequences of my actions and to defend their rights as they do mine.
If this seems harsh then your gripe is with reality, not me. My neighbors know me to be a kind and generous spirit and respect and honor my personal rights as I do theirs. What more could anyone reasonably ask for accept that the world at large do likewise. This can only be achieved when the rights of all are understood and are equally acknowledged and defended.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Reality makes the demands and I comply by meeting the requirements imposed by it

the "Reality" is in your own mind. The harshness, if carried out, is on your own head.

Another element of selfAdjoint morality: "Your reality is not my reality. We must learn to live together in spite of that."

 

[Tide]

Yeah, that's what I said, and yes I meant deontology.


What I would "do" and what I would recognize as being inherently ungood (evil) are quite different things. You can justify an act without it being morally good.

I seem to be hearing subtle tones of relativism! :)

 

[Tide]

Initiating the use of force against another individual who has not threatened your life or liberty equally negates the your right to life and liberty.

Are we discussing morality or rights? I don't think they are the same.

Liberty does not entail the ‘right’ to abuse the rights of others.

The question was, in essence and in the context of absolute morality, whether another person's "immoral" act which will cause you harm is superceded by a different moral standard. I.e., the stated absolute moral position that "depriving another of life or liberty is always wrong" appears to have exceptions.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

the "Reality" is in your own mind. The harshness, if carried out, is on your own head.
Another element of selfAdjoint morality: "Your reality is not my reality. We must learn to live together in spite of that."

Reality is what I endeavor to understand since I have no choice but to live within its laws and principles along with everyone else. The quality and value of our lives depends on how well we, collectively as well as individually, conform to it. How well we live together in it depends on how well we understand it and derive value from it so that we have something of value to offer each other. From what I have seen so far, there is nothing of value we have to exchange. Nevertheless I respect your rights, (among them the essential right to believe as you wish), even if you refuse to define them or even acknowledge that they exist.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Are we discussing morality or rights? I don't think they are the same.

Not exactly the same but interrelated; "morality", (compliance with a valid moral code), is the complete set of which "rights" are members. The concept “morality” subsumes the various concepts “rights”.

The question was, in essence and in the context of absolute morality, whether another person's "immoral" act which will cause you harm is superceded by a different moral standard. I.e., the stated absolute moral position that "depriving another of life or liberty is always wrong" appears to have exceptions.

Yes, this is an incomplete moral precept in that its limitations are not defined.

 

[Smurf]

I seem to be hearing subtle tones of relativism! :)

Not really, I just didn't feel like answering. Regardless, you still havn't responded to barely anything I said and asked you.

Do you want a detailed explanation of how I would view those situations you cited?

 

[Tide]

Not really, I just didn't feel like answering. Regardless, you still havn't responded to barely anything I said and asked you.
Do you want a detailed explanation of how I would view those situations you cited?

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I had answered your questions. Sometimes I reply to several posts at once rather than posting individual replies to each so I may not have addressed one or two specifically to you.

 

[Curious3141]

Moral absolutism is a given if the existence of an absolute moral authority is presupposed. Most commonly, that authority is 'god'. God defines certain actions as immoral, the rest are OK. Just don't indulge in the former, and you'll be assured of a comfortable, climate controlled dwelling in the eternal hereafter.

Of course there could be argument about the exact nature of those actions that would fall under the 'immoral' category. But that's a problem of lucidity of the written versions of divine law. Often, the bible, the koran, etc. are internally inconsistent, simultaneously sanctioning and condemning a particular action. While this is a problem, it is possible to assume that there is in fact a 'correct' interpretation of absolute moral divine law (the one that god would have wanted us to follow), and these accounts written by man are merely imperfect representations thereof. (It's a bit more of a problem for the koran since muslims believe that the koran is the inerrant literal word of their god).

Without an absolute moral law giver, there can be no moral absolutism. We are left with moral relativism, which is an eminently human construct.

BTW, I believe nothing to be more dangerous than moral absolutism (and in fact, fundamentalist religion is a very dangerous thing). Thank god for moral relativism.

 

[JonahHex]

The Hebrews have been released from bondage in Egypt. God leads them to the Promised Land. They find there are a whole bunch of other people already there. God tells them to drive these people out, using whatever force is required. When war is required, He goes so far as to cause the sun to stand still in the sky so the Hebrews are better able to kill them.

Discuss God's morality. Did He advise the current residents to leave? When they first arrived and found the place empty, did He notify them that they were trespassing? He was capable of hardening and softening Pharoh's heart. Was He not also capable of creating a desire in the trespassers to leave rather than fight? If so, why did He chose killing them over this alternative? Presumably Hebrews also died in the war to reclaim the land. What do you think of bringing your "chosen people" to the "promised land" and allowing them to die before they get it? What is your opinion of parents who require their children to fight to the death in order to get the presents that are under the Christmas tree?

While it was true that the trespassers worshipped false gods, were they aware of this? God had interacted with the Hebrews for centuries. When the Hebrews broke God's laws they were punished. Had God given the idoliters any notification of His wishes or the errors of their ways? Or was their punishment just "out of the blue?"

Was God following a credo of "Do as I say, not as I do"?

 

[Dawguard]

This isn't a discussion about specific religions, and I do not intend to argue for one religion over the other. My opinion has always remained simple, that moral relativism logicaly leads to the belief that each person can create their own moral code, thereby nullifying itself. It is inherently self-denying and thus cannot be true.
This leads to the logical conclusion that one of two things must be true; either morals do not exist or they are absolute. Neither one can be proved and this alone is that which results in moral relativism. It is nothing more then the response to the unprovability of morals themselves.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This isn't a discussion about specific religions, and I do not intend to argue for one religion over the other. My opinion has always remained simple, that moral relativism logicaly leads to the belief that each person can create their own moral code, thereby nullifying itself. It is inherently self-denying and thus cannot be true.

Welcome to the discussion Dawguard. Could you outline for us in what way the proposition that everyone can make up their own moral code nullifies itself? I can see how it might nullify the concept of morality, but that is not quite the same thing.

But for example we could state: "It is observed that each human being interprets whatever moral code they have received individually." Does this destroy morality?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

one of two things must be true; either morals do not exist or they are absolute.

You are bewitched by your language. If morals exist, what are they like, and where do they exist? Do they have beginnings and ends, or are they eternal? Morals certainly are not physical objects--they can't be seen or detected with scientific instruments. So if they are not in this universe, do they exist in some Platonic realm of the Forms? If so, how can we ever hope to learn anything about them?

There is a third option: moral realism. Moral claims are either true or false. We learn the definitions of right and wrong ostensively from our mothers; this provides an empirical foundation for ethics that is consistent with physicalism. In this way, the useless ontological quagmire of what morals actually are is entirely avoided.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

You are bewitched by your language. If morals exist, what are they like, and where do they exist? Do they have beginnings and ends, or are they eternal? Morals certainly are not physical objects--they can't be seen or detected with scientific instruments. So if they are not in this universe, do they exist in some Platonic realm of the Forms? If so, how can we ever hope to learn anything about them?
There is a third option: moral realism. Moral claims are either true or false. We learn the definitions of right and wrong ostensively from our mothers; this provides an empirical foundation for ethics that is consistent with physicalism. In this way, the useless ontological quagmire of what morals actually are is entirely avoided.

Do you mean before, during or after birth. How does this explain the mother who comes to witness her sons extinction on death row upon being convicted of rape/murder? I can only guess that she would gladly take his place for believing that morals are hereditary.
Morality is a matter of life and death, not only for individuals but for civilization as well. Important stuff deserves important consideration.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Dmstifik8ion, your writing style baffles me. By "Do you mean before, during or after birth[?]" I assume you are referring to learning about right and wrong ostensively at a young age--in which case the learning would take place after birth.

"How does this explain the mother who comes to witness her sons extinction on death row upon being convicted of rape/murder?" I guess you mean here that the son would not be on death row if the mother had properly taught her son the difference between right and wrong. In which case there are at least three explanations: (1) she did not properly teach her son causing her son to grow up a moral cripple; (2) she did properly teach her son, but he suffers from some sort of neurological problems; (3) she did properly teach her son, but for whatever sociological or personal reasons the son chose to do evil. What's the relevance, though? The mere fact that some people are evil does not eliminate the difference between right and wrong.

By this mystifying sentence, "I can only guess that she would gladly take his place for believing that morals are hereditary" I can only assume you misunderstood me when I wrote "learned ostensively". I should have been more clear. An ostensive definition is where one learns how a word is used by showing, rather than through other words. If you want to learn what 'yellow' means, you have to have someone show you. Same with the earliest development of morality within a child. Ostensive definitions have nothing to do directly with genetic heredity.

Then this statement, "Important stuff deserves important consideration" --which is rather ironic in a thread consisting of 56 sound bites--I assume you are implying that I have not given due consideration to this "stuff". This is a false accusation, however, as you can see for yourself if you also care about morality:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98081

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

Dmstifik8ion, your writing style baffles me. By "Do you mean before, during or after birth[?]" I assume you are referring to learning about right and wrong ostensively at a young age--in which case the learning would take place after birth.
"How does this explain the mother who comes to witness her sons extinction on death row upon being convicted of rape/murder?" I guess you mean here that the son would not be on death row if the mother had properly taught her son the difference between right and wrong. In which case there are at least three explanations: (1) she did not properly teach her son causing her son to grow up a moral cripple; (2) she did properly teach her son, but he suffers from some sort of neurological problems; (3) she did properly teach her son, but for whatever sociological or personal reasons the son chose to do evil. What's the relevance, though? The mere fact that some people are evil does not eliminate the difference between right and wrong.
By this mystifying sentence, "I can only guess that she would gladly take his place for believing that morals are hereditary" I can only assume you misunderstood me when I wrote "learned ostensively". I should have been more clear. An ostensive definition is where one learns how a word is used by showing, rather than through other words. If you want to learn what 'yellow' means, you have to have someone show you. Same with the earliest development of morality within a child. Ostensive definitions have nothing to do directly with genetic heredity.
Then this statement, "Important stuff deserves important consideration" --which is rather ironic in a thread consisting of 56 sound bites--I assume you are implying that I have not given due consideration to this "stuff". This is a false accusation, however, as you can see for yourself if you also care about morality:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=98081

My apologies for my thinking out loud without providing context writing style. What seems perfectly clear to me is evidently confusing to you. I share with you in this dilemma as I have difficulty myself with your writing style; (this is not meant as a criticism of your style, just an explanation). Please consider all responses as an attempt to arrive at understanding and truth rather than a pointed refutation of your position.

There is a third option: moral realism. Moral claims (as opposed to moral absolutes which are necessarily true) are either true or false. We learn the definitions of (I would change this to for since definitions as given are not necessarily accurate) right and wrong ostensively from our mothers; this provides an empirical foundation for ethics that is consistent with physicalism. In this way, the useless ontological quagmire of what morals actually are is entirely avoided.

Perhaps the confusion can be deciphered by an understanding of my method (or madness if you prefer). I do not attempt to drag reality out of a quagmire of false premises and fuzzy (if not faulty) logic. Also confusion can arise out of an inability to distinguish whether a statement is of ones position or to refute another’s. Sometimes (and it seems to me more often that not) we need to start with a clean slate and define, or at lest reaffirm, the basics.
Once these are established we are in a position where ironing out the details becomes possible. If we can not agree at least on the basics then further exploits quickly degenerate in incoherence.

I am providing the following because this is the best I have to offer for the moment. I hope it is a little better slop than the slop I left you with last time.

Morality first arises as the availability of a choice and the means to choose becomes a reality. Next a basis for making the best possible choice must be established.
Morality has as least two primary interrelated and coexisting paradigms; personal and interpersonal morality.

On a personal level it involves the reasoning that leads to making the best possible choice in the face of an alternative; the most primary alternative of all and obviously the most important, life and death but beyond this the ultimately achievable quality of life.

Interpersonal morality has two main derivative but related branches; relationships between two individuals and the relationship between different individuals in a group; this group might be an association or society, humanity, as a whole.

When morality involves more than one person, agreement upon the rules is essential to the success of a moral code and the resulting success in the case of humanity of civilization. It would be ideal if everyone could agree on such a moral code. Up until this moment in history unanimous agreement seems unlikely if not impossible so a more reasonable goal might be to have as wide ranging an agreement as possible with no more restrictions placed upon individuals or groups than is absolutely necessary. In this framework where it becomes necessary to enforce certain moral precepts upon those for whom agreement is not appreciated for its inherent value, the more people who appreciate the justification for a given moral precept, the more people will stand behind it and the easier and less costly in terms of human suffering it will be to enforce.

No moral precept should limit individual freedom beyond an absolute necessity and tolerance should be viewed as a benefit to us all in respect to enjoying our individual freedoms.

This brings us to a point where it becomes essential to define what is and what constitutes an absolute necessity. Life stands out as an obvious precondition for, let alone an absolute standard for establishing morality. Choice quickly follows as an obvious precondition since without choice there would be no need for or the ways and means to determine what those standards are.

 

[russ_watters]

I realize I haven't participated in this thread, but this caught my eye:

Moral absolutism is a given if the existence of an absolute moral authority is presupposed.

True, but irrelevant, because...

Without an absolute moral law giver, there can be no moral absolutism. We are left with moral relativism, which is an eminently human construct.

Not true. There are absolute physical laws of the universe as well (gravity) - does that require that there is a law-giver for physics? Certainly not.

BTW, I believe nothing to be more dangerous than moral absolutism (and in fact, fundamentalist religion is a very dangerous thing). Thank god for moral relativism.

Well, consider this: one of my best friends is an athiest and a moral absolutist. He recognizes the logic in, for example, the fact that murder is detrimental to society and is thus morally wrong. If it is religion that you are afraid of, then you are making a logical leap that is not necessary. If you set aside your preconception of religious implications and consider the morality on its logical and functional basis alone, you may find that you will agree that absolute morality works through logic alone. That is what happened in these seminars I went to in college, that I've discussed in other threads: most people start with a knee-jerk rejection of moral absolutism because they don't like the religious (and know-it-all-ist) implications of it. But the seminars force them to examine moral absolutism absent of any religious context and as a result, most eventually conclude that moral absolutism works and moral relativism is self-contradictory and fatally flawed.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to the discussion Dawguard. Could you outline for us in what way the proposition that everyone can make up their own moral code nullifies itself? I can see how it might nullify the concept of morality, but that is not quite the same thing.

I think that's probably what Dawguard was going for. Either way, that is what I have argued in the past: if morality is truly relative, then there is no basis for any person to tell any other person that what they are doing is wrong. The basis for societal laws (not to mention international relations) goes out the window - the US Constituiton is not just a contract, it is also based on "self-evident truths": moral absolutes. The founding fathers recognized that moral relativity -> anarchy. If we live in a moral relativistic society, then this society is a house of cards, ready to collapse the moment a person asserts individual relative morality as a justification for a crime in court. The closest we've come, however, is people arguing for religous free exercise as a justification for crimes (ironic, since it's a religious justification for relative morality...). Such arguments always fail because it is a fundamental component of our Constitution that the moral code on which it is based trumps even individual religious freedom.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

the US Constituiton is not just a contract, it is also based on "self-evident truths": moral absolutes. . . . The closest we've come [to moral relativity], however, is people arguing for religous free exercise as a justification for crimes (ironic, since it's a religious justification for relative morality...). Such arguments always fail because it is a fundamental component of our Constitution that the moral code on which it is based trumps even individual religious freedom.

Actually, the reference to self-evidence comes from the Declaration of Independence--not the Constitution. And the truth it refers to is that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". Yet judging by your sardonic comments regarding believers, you yourself must not believe that 'rights are God-given' to be self-evident.

So just what do you mean by "self-evident moral absolutes"?

Perhaps you think that moral absolutes are analytically self-evident, but surely not in the sense of 'bachelors are unmarried males'. We wouldn't want moral absolutes to rest on definitional fiat. The other possibility is that moral absolutes are self-evident in the same sense that '2 + 2 = 4' or '~(p & ~p)' are self-evident. But in that case, how can moral absolutes have anything concrete to say about the real world of blood, sweat, and tears that we humans live in?

So maybe moral absolutes are empirically self-evident--sort of like how 'it is raining' or perhaps 'if you've ever been mistreated then you know just what I'm talking about' are self-evident. When people are on the receiving end of mistreatment, it's pretty self-evident to them. Indeed, the vast majority of the Declaration is a long list of grievances against the King of England, suggesting this is the kind of self-evidence that the Founding Fathers had in mind. Yet, I sense that you would not be satisfied with an empirical account of moral "absolutes". After all, it is sunny at my location as I write this, but why deify this fact by calling it an "Absolute"? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You all keep referring to "Moral Absolutes", yet none of you has yet said what a "Moral Absolute" actually IS.

BTW it is unconstitutional to make the free exersize of religion a crime (1st Amendment).

 

[WarrenPlatts]

OK, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what a Moral Absolute actually IS. . . . Probably will have to wait forever. . . .

 

[Dawguard]

OK, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me what a Moral Absolute actually IS. . . . Probably will have to wait forever. . . .

It is impossible to say, "here is a moral, and it is absolute." The truth of the matter is that morals must be believed, and never proved. While this seems to contradict most people's logical inclanation we must also consider the opposite. To not believe in morals simply becuase they cannot be proven will result in catastrophe. Do you want an entire society thinking anything is OK so long as they get away with it? I know that this directly opposite the common idea that we should believe what we know and no more; but sometimes something has to be believed in even though it might not exist and can never be proven. Morals are one of these things, and whether you say they came from God, Karma, or ourselves, the most essential thing is that we agree they are real. Moral relativism erodes this belief, for reasons I have stated elswhere, and therefore I am forced to hold with absolutism.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Dawguard, I couldn't agree more with your sensible post. Let me add a couple of additional points:

• Morals are a society phenomena, not primarily an individual one
• Morals vary over a society, with partisans, opponents, and a more tepid center
• Morals are always in flux, over a decade major changes can be seen

To illustrate these points consider divorce, abortion, and gay marriage. A century ago the great majority of Americans would have agreed that all three were unthinkably immoral. Fifty years ago divorce was accepted (gingerly) but abortion and gay marriage remained beyond the pale. Today the situation is as we all know: abortion is bitterly controversial but accepted (gingerly) as a fact by a majority, while the majority still is very disapproving of gay marriage. I cite these examples not to suggest a trend or predict the future, but just to show that deeply felt moral values can change over time.

 

[Dmstifik8ion]

The problem with moral absolutes is that once discovered and defined most people fear being confined to practicing them. Funny thing about this is that we suffer the benefits of following them and the consequences of not following them whether we define them or not. In a very real and inescapable way one is responsible for the consequences of ones actions, (a moral absolute), again, whether they choose to acknowledge this or not. One real benefit of defining and proving moral absolutes is that it demonstrates the justification for defending and protecting individual rights and freedoms in a court of reason.

 

[arildno]

Dawguard, I couldn't agree more with your sensible post. Let me add a couple of additional points:

• Morals are a society phenomena, not primarily an individual one
• Morals vary over a society, with partisans, opponents, and a more tepid center
• Morals are always in flux, over a decade major changes can be seen

To illustrate these points consider divorce, abortion, and gay marriage. A century ago the great majority of Americans would have agreed that all three were unthinkably immoral. Fifty years ago divorce was accepted (gingerly) but abortion and gay marriage remained beyond the pale. Today the situation is as we all know: abortion is bitterly controversial but accepted (gingerly) as a fact by a majority, while the majority still is very disapproving of gay marriage. I cite these examples not to suggest a trend or predict the future, but just to show that deeply felt moral values can change over time.

And a follow-up in the other direction so that it becomes clear that there isn't just a trend in terms of "loosening of morals":
1. Corporal punishment of kids
This was considered both effective and morally acceptable (within proper limits).
It was seen as essential that children were corrected, so that they did not become spoiled and/or "soft".

2. Slapping your wife at times if she was a nag or pest

 

[WarrenPlatts]

OK, so you're making a little progress. As far as I can tell, you all are saying that a moral is a sentence, containing a moral predicate like good or evil or right or wrong. You believe that such sentences have a truth-value, but such sentences are not provable at least in the logical sense of proof. Moreover, the truth-values of such sentences are subject to change over time, am I right? If I understand you correctly, then, why add the qualification 'absolute' to your definition of morals as sentences? What further use does 'absolute' serve? In other words, how does your version of moral absolutism differ from the more ordinary moral realism of Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, for example?

 

[Dawguard]

The inherent properties of morals, i.e. their insubstantiality, make them impossible to prove. Therefore no one moral can be completely proven to be absolute. However, there are very few alternitives to absolutism. Relativism will lead to the belief in no morals, for reasons I have said otherwhere; a belief in no morals certanly is the last thing I want; so that left absolutism. While we must discover what they are by simply experimenting and hitting on the best result, the simple belief that they are absolute will sustain them while nothing else can. Such absolutes were found in statements like, "All men are created equal". Certanly this is moraly correct, and to believe it isn't will lead only to suffering. Moral realism seems like a middle ground between absolutism and relativism. What it does is ignore the fact that absolutism never claims to know what all the absolutes are, only that they do, in fact, exist. We have certain foundations and we learn from there, as does everything in human history. Thus, little by little and with each passing age we make progress and discover what our absolute morals are and how to apply them to society.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Relativism will lead to the belief in no morals, for reasons I have said otherwhere; a belief in no morals certanly is the last thing I want!

So what? Neither the world nor society is in business to make you (or me) feel good.