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

[octelcogopod]

Can you understand something absolute from a relative reference point?
All human perception and thought will inherently be relative, I mean how can a persons viewpoint be absolute.

 

[LionShare]

applied definitions!

Moving Finger, that would depend on how one applies the definition of absolute. If you apply it to mean the whole of existence, then it would be incompatible with "good". Good is a concept which exists in the value system we refer to as morality. It would be a contradiction in terms, as you say.

However, the word "absolute" is routinely and correctly used to define things within a particular realm. And not the whole of existence. Which is how he meant it!

Mathematicians use it for sets of numbers. Biologist use it to describe things which can only occur within certain species. Physicists use it to describe the nature of certain forces or atoms. In other words, what they can absolutely do or not do, given their "nature".(of atoms, or creatures or definition of numbers)

From this point of view, that question takes on new life. If we really want to answer the question and stop all this definition nonsense, we quickly start to realize one thing. The real question that is being asked is,

Does good exist at all?

Since "good" is a concept defined in a value system we refer to as "morality", the extremely deep question that is being asked is this, "Is morality Objective?"

All this could have been avoided had he postulated the question in a different way, ie "Is there such thing as objective good" or, Is morality objective!

But c'mon, give the kid a break! Look at the original post from over two years ago! He is struggling with these matters. Not definitions! Should he decide to come back and read up, let's and put forth a valiant effort and answer the question behind the question. Is Morality objective? You tell me!

Lionshare

 

[Moridin]

Can you understand something absolute from a relative reference point?
All human perception and thought will inherently be relative, I mean how can a persons viewpoint be absolute.

Perception is infallible. If perception is true, it is true. The only way you can say that your perception where fallible, is if you knew what the truth was, but that would make your perception true.

 

[moving finger]

If we really want to answer the question and stop all this definition nonsense

I am sorry, Lionshare, but the definitions which you call "nonsense" form the basis of all communications. If we cannot agree on the way that we define the terms we use then any attempt at communications is pointless.

There are many definitions of "absolute" to choose from. One example is "independent of arbitrary standards of measurement". Would you agree with this definition? (until we can agree what we mean when we use the word "absolute", there is little point in continuing the discussion).

Is Morality objective? You tell me!

all morality is subjective.

 

[LionShare]

Yes

I could not agree with you more!

Without agreeing on the definitions of words, we get very little done. As is evident in this case. But, if I say to the kid, "your question is a contradiction in terms, go on about your business", when it is clear what he is actually asking, that would be an even greater crime committed against the goal of successful communication than not agreeing on definitions.

So now, on to the matter at hand.

with that statement, "all morality is subjective." Do you meant to say that good and evil do not exist?

For example, Does that mean that a man who kills his own child, willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die, is not wrong for doing so? Is it good? Is it neither? Are there any conditions one can put, or situations one can be in that would make it wrong? Or good for that matter?

 

[JoeDawg]

Does that mean that a man who kills his own child, willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die, is not wrong for doing so?

You're loading this hypothetical question with value judgments.

Among other problems with your question:
Is a man who would kill his child 'to see him die' in his right mind?
I'd say no, so it really negates the idea of 'will'.

This is what they call a straw man argument.

 

[LionShare]

No straw man here..

this isn't a straw man setup!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I'm asking him a question and awaiting his response.

In the straw man setup, I mis represent his point of view (say he means something I know he doesn't mean) then refute it. Usually, this is done with the goal of misleading a third party. For example, when a presidential candidate says so-and-so means X when he says Y which is wrong because of W, so vote for me!

So-and-so may have said Y but doesn't mean X (and you know this to be so) then refute it with W which convinces the people(who don't know any better) to vote for you.

In this situation, I structured the question in that way to eliminate misunderstanding. I mention that he is doing it willingly, so that it is understood that the father is not being coerced. For example, a terrorist may say to him, "kill your son, or I'll kill your son and wife).

I say that he does it "for no particular reason than to see him die", in case the son has some terminal illness that causes him considerable pain and asks the father to kill him.

I could have said, "One man kills another. Is this wrong?" But then the inevitable "well, it could be self defense" comes up.

BTW, people smoke and do a number of harmful drugs. Any of which can and have killed. The equivalent of playing Russian roulette with ones life (something people also do). All, acts done out of free will. Are they crazy?, Definitely. Can you argue it is not done out of their free will? I doubt that. Some may be ignorant, others know full well the implication and still do it. I do agree that a father who kills his son, is crazy. That however, is not the matter in question, the question is, if it's wrong. Crazy or not!

So, now that I've cleared it up. What do you think? Is it wrong?

 

[moving finger]

with that statement, "all morality is subjective." Do you meant to say that good and evil do not exist?

For example, Does that mean that a man who kills his own child, willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die, is not wrong for doing so? Is it good? Is it neither? Are there any conditions one can put, or situations one can be in that would make it wrong? Or good for that matter?

"good" and "evil" (I would prefer to call it "right" and "wrong") in this context are value judgements placed upon a particular act or scenario by an observer, based upon that observer's value system. Most, if not all, humans would probably consider the willful killing of another human for no reason other than for pleasure to be "wrong", because most of us value a "human life" much higher than we value "selfish pleasure" (and most of us would consider the idea of getting pleasure by killing another human to be perverse anyway).

None of this means that morality is not subjective. It just means that it is possible to find some cases where almost all humans would agree on the rightness or wrongness of the situation.

But look at it from a bug-eyed green Martian perspective, if such Martians place a very low value on the individual lives of humans then he/she/it might say there is nothing wrong with a human killing its own child simply for pleasure.

 

[JoeDawg]

this isn't a straw man setup!

From your wikipedia reference:
"Oversimplifying an opponent's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked."

In this situation, I structured the question in that way to eliminate misunderstanding.

No you didn't, you used a self-contradicting analogy. As I pointed out. You tried to get around specific arguments before they were even made, by setting up an overly simplistic representation of those arguments.

You should also try looking up the phrase 'loaded question' in wikipedia.
That's another logical fallacy that you are using here.
I'm hoping you just have poor debating skills. We all have things to learn.

So, now that I've cleared it up.

Cleared up? If I was misunderstanding you, wouldn't that be my call?
Once again you resort to rhetoric.
You didn't address my objection, you ignored it. You just used more words than most.
Nice dodge, but not very original.

 

[JoeDawg]

None of this means that morality is not subjective. It just means that it is possible to find some cases where almost all humans would agree on the rightness or wrongness of the situation.

This is something that seems to confuse a lot of people. The fact you can't find many people to disagree with you, doesn't mean you have truth in any kind of objective sense. It just means you have a consensus opinion.

 

[LionShare]

no strawman not loaded or making them unnecesarily long

it is not over simplification, it is clarification. I'm trying to make sure he is clear on the implications of his one liner statement "all morality is subjective". I'm doing that, by posing a horrible scenario that is not left to chance. If he answers "Yes, even that is subjective." then I know he means it.

this is not a loaded question either! looked it up also ...

It gives him information about an act that occurs, then poses the question.

The equivalent of me saying, "A man wearing a black pants kills another man willingly and for no particular reason, is not wrong for doing so?"

The fact that I added the guy was wearing black pants and does it for no particular reason, doesn't make it a loaded question!

me including "not wrong" makes it a leading question ... at best! Which does not really matter in such a horrible scenario.

What I asked ..

Does that mean that a man who kills his own child, willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die, is not wrong for doing so?

Could have easily been this.

A man kills his own child. He does this willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die!
Is this wrong?

Nothing has changed! Still same scenario! Still same question! Still not an over simplification or a loaded question of his one-liner statement.

BTW even if the guy is crazy, it doesn't matter. Crazy people may not be able to judge right from wrong. But if morality is objective, it would still be wrong! "willingly" also rules out the accident scenario. Adding stuff doesn't take anything away from the question that IS being asked!

I thought I had cleared up my intentions and that we could move forward to answering the question. It seems that I have not. I'll pose it again. Since I'm posing the theoretical scenario, I get to decide said scenario

Theoretical scenario:

Suppose there were only two people on planet Earth and the whole of existence. These two people are a father and a son. The father kills the son willingly and for no particular reason than to see him die! Is this wrong?

Moving finger, objectivity is not based on observers, that would make it subjective. In my new scenario I made them the only two people in existence. But I think I get your point of view. That being that it would NOT be wrong (let me know if I am mistaken here). JoeDawg if you want to say your point of view, I welcome it. If you still think it is a straw man, loaded question or something else, not sure what to say. I feel that I have to add "willingly" and "for no particular reason than to see him die" since I'm trying to clarify things by making it a "yes" or "No" question. Which does not in itself make it a loaded question since by adding those stipulations there ARE only two possibilities. At least, that I can think of.

Lionshare
Jesus Christ that was long.

 

[moving finger]

Moving finger, objectivity is not based on observers, that would make it subjective.

Did I say objectivity is based on observers? I think I said something along the lines that ethical value judgements (ie what is right or wrong) are based on observers - which makes them subjective.

In my new scenario I made them the only two people in existence.

In which case, who is to judge whether the act is right or wrong?

Maybe the son loves the father so much that he (the son) is willing to be sacrificed in order to please his father (improbable I agree, but not impossible - after all didn't God command Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac for no good reason other than to show his love for God?) - in which case the act would not be wrong in the son's eyes.

 

[JoeDawg]

"Does that mean that a man who kills his own child, willingly and for no particular reason other than to see him die, is not wrong for doing so?"

Sure its a loaded question. You are allegedly inquiring about subjectivity.

But you're not asking if its subjective, you're asking if its "wrong".
Subjective or not, most people would say its wrong.
So the question you are asking has nothing whatever to do with whether it is subjective.
You are challenging the person you are asking to say that its 'not wrong'.
You imply that, for it to be subjective, the answer would have to be: No its not wrong.

Its a loaded question. There is no clarity here, only an attempt at rhetorical slight of hand.

 

[LionShare]

for the sweet love of God.

JoeDawg, I'm trying to clarify his one liner statement. If he answers "No, it is not wrong" then I'm clear on the view and can continue with the argument. So just let it go. I'm not trying to use any tricks here. He didn't seem to have an issues with it.

Moving Finger, the scenario is a hypothetical event. How we got there, doesn't really matter to the question at hand. But if you need to know, It could be in the future. We could be those green aliens you spoke of and not "people". IT DOES NOT MATTER for the issue at hand! It's a hypothetical I'm using to make sure I'm clear on your position "all morality is subjective"

I have never posted anything anywhere aside from technical questions, I'm starting question why I even began.


Lionshare

 

[JoeDawg]

JoeDawg, I'm trying to clarify his one liner statement. If he answers "No, it is not wrong" then I'm clear on the view and can continue with the argument.

Or you could just admit it was a bad question, instead of backpedaling and blaming me.

 

[moving finger]

Moving Finger, the scenario is a hypothetical event. How we got there, doesn't really matter to the question at hand. But if you need to know, It could be in the future. We could be those green aliens you spoke of and not "people". IT DOES NOT MATTER for the issue at hand! It's a hypothetical I'm using to make sure I'm clear on your position "all morality is subjective"

Of course its hypothetical - I understand that. Am I questioning how we got there? And no , I don't need to know - why do you think it matters?

Let's try and assess the very general case - to make any kind of judgement of right or wrong, one must first have a set of values - one agent's values will not necessarily be the same as another agent's values - therefore the judgement of right or wrong is subjective, based on the agent's values. If it is subjective, it cannot be absolute.

 

[ripcurl1016]

morality exists along with mathematical truth, beauty, and the good in the platonic mathematical "world of forms" as Plato would put...

 

[LionShare]

agent values

Moving Finger, what if the values had to be same! Would morality be objective then?

 

[LionShare]

I got the thread .. open

.. So, moving finger.. my question still stands! That being, What if the values had to be same! Would morality be objective then?

 

[moving finger]

.. So, moving finger.. my question still stands! That being, What if the values had to be same! Would morality be objective then?

I don't understand the question.
Do you mean the values of right and wrong should be the same - thus the only way to decide on what is right and what is wrong would be to toss a coin?

Or do you mean that everyone's values should be the same as everyone elses - thus everyone would have the same idea of what is right and what is wrong. But why would this arise in practice? (and we are not just talking about the values of all humans, but the values of all agents in the universe). In such an extreme case (an hypothetical universe where every agent's values were identical with every other agent's values) then one could argue that morality is the same for everyone. But that is not the same as saying it is objective, because it might happen that tomorrow in that universe an agent is born with a different set of values - in which case morality would no longer be the same for everyone.

There is a subtle difference between an objective morality on the one hand (one which is truly independent of all perspectives), and a uniform morality on the other by virtue of the fact that everyone has the same perspective.

 

[LionShare]

all agents in the universe...

it almost seems like we should include all agents in the universe. But there is a reason we don't. For example, we don't consider it immoral when a lion eats a gazelle. Why is that the case? It could be subjective as you say. But let's suppose, for a minute, that you agree that morality is objective. Just for one moment. Why would a person that holds morality is objective, consider it perfectly moral for an animal to kill another animal and immoral for a person to kill another person? It may be difficult for you, since you do not hold that view, but ponder it for some time and see if you come up with anything.

This is the key. The answer to the riddle. At least in my view. I struggled with that question for a long time, until I ran into the answer. Can't claim it as original since it wasn't mine. It's like individual rights? Are they an actual "rights"? Or is it something we more or less agree upon, but is not objective and therefore not actual "rights".

Lionshare

 

[moving finger]

it almost seems like we should include all agents in the universe. But there is a reason we don't. For example, we don't consider it immoral when a lion eats a gazelle. Why is that the case? It could be subjective as you say. But let's suppose, for a minute, that you agree that morality is objective. Just for one moment. Why would a person that holds morality is objective, consider it perfectly moral for an animal to kill another animal and immoral for a person to kill another person? It may be difficult for you, since you do not hold that view, but ponder it for some time and see if you come up with anything.

Because the killing of one of your own species is in a different category to the killing of another species (especially if the latter is killed for food).

 

[LionShare]

inter species feasting

There are a number of species that kill their own for any given number of reasons. Plenty of species kill their young when they are born, or at least try to. That has nothing to do with feeding purposes. We don't consider those practices immoral.

On the other hand, one human killing another (even for food) is considered immoral. The question is, What does one use to judge? How did we get to the idea that a human killing another is immoral? We could have done it arbitrarily. Maybe even through some trial and error system that ends up with what is most acceptable to any given population. It seems clear to me that the "immoral" label has been attached to many things using such systems.

Does this, however; eliminate the possibility that some things are moraly objective? What about our individual rights? Those seem to overlap with the issue of morality. If I have a "right" to life, then you can't violate my "rights" by killing me. Are individual rights, objective "rights"? Or just a general consensus of what our "rights" should be?

Both systems use the same standard. A standard which is the same for all and objective. Which therefore leads to objective morality. Morality is object, we just need to understand how it is so. To discover it. Similar to how any existence who understands the concepts of "1", "2" and "addition", will always end up with 1+1=2! This standard sets a framework! A framework that can be used (through reasoning) to devise our individual rights and morality.

Lionshare