Killing is absolutely immoral. As conscious, knowledgeable beings we should nurture all forms of life and only eat what dies naturally.
It's absolutely immoral to interfere with species to breed qualities we prefer, and absolutely despicable to knowingly use species (or their environment) to their extinction.
The process of bringing shark-fin soup to the table...
Killing is absolutely immoral. As conscious, knowledgeable beings we should nurture all forms of life and only eat what dies naturally.
It's absolutely immoral to interfere with species to breed qualities we prefer, and absolutely despicable to knowingly use species (or their environment) to their extinction.
The process of bringing shark-fin soup to the table...
archy can we assume that you are a pacifist?
Actually I think I might agree that somethings are absolutely (adverb) immoral. It is moral absolutes (noun) that I do not accept.
Absolute = a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
To be honest I don't think the term moral absolutes makes much sense. Any moral stricture must be qualified. See your example it is qualified as applying only to 'conscious, knowledgeable beings'. How knowledgeable? How conscious does a being have to be before this 'absolute' applies? Because we can ask such questions it is a relative not an absolute value.
Yes. Aren't we all? I was surprised to see someone state they were not, in one of these threads, but I put it down to a typographical error.
Actually I think I might agree that somethings are absolutely (adverb) immoral. It is moral absolutes (noun) that I do not accept.
I hoped to show that some things can be seen as absolutely immoral to strengthen the argument that absolute morality is not really possible and we must decide a decent moral code for the circumstances at the time and place. Circumstantial morality if you like.
Absolute = a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
To be honest I don't think the term moral absolutes makes much sense. Any moral stricture must be qualified. See your example it is qualified as applying only to 'conscious, knowledgeable beings'. How knowledgeable? How conscious does a being have to be before this 'absolute' applies? Because we can ask such questions it is a relative not an absolute value.
No. The absolute applies regardless and we justify our inability to adhere to absolute morality by various excuses such as lack of knowledge or understanding, inconvenience etc..
I'm not too clear on it myself. Just putting it out for consideration really.
Actually I think I might agree that somethings are absolutely (adverb) immoral. It is moral absolutes (noun) that I do not accept.
Absolute = a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
Whilst I am aware it is a highly criticised viewpoint, I'll try and fight my corner. But before I need to, perhaps you could accept that there is absolute human morality ? In this way we can avoid thinking about the aliens
Killing is absolutely immoral. As conscious, knowledgeable beings we should nurture all forms of life and only eat what dies naturally.
It's absolutely immoral to interfere with species to breed qualities we prefer, and absolutely despicable to knowingly use species (or their environment) to their extinction.
The process of bringing shark-fin soup to the table...
You see I would completely agree with this and so would say if something is absolutely immoral, then why is the opposite not absolutely moral ?
I think some philosophy can take us down very dangerous paths. The morals we speak of are human morals. What is the point of talking about anything other ?
If anyone can tell me if it is ever right to cut the fin off a live shark and throw the shark back into the sea just because a person decides they like the taste of it I will change my stance.
The thing is that I'm already familiar with the views of Sam Harris. I believe his fundamental physicalist assumptions are wrong. His particular anti-religious stance, and the images he presents are totally irrelevant.
In a more direct answer to that particular video I would say that there is something for the Dalai Lamai to be really right about and Ted Bundy to be really wrong about that "admits of a real argument". I've already been making it. His argument is loaded in favour of objective expertise and external authority. Mine is in favour of internal spiritual authority, recognising and addressing the issues of conflicting ego interference, and unity or union with God or higher Self. To a degree he is right with regard to specific aspects or cults of religion and ideologies but not real spirituality which he has effectively rejected and assumed to be non existent because he has excluded it in favour of the "facts" that are, not surprisingly, objective and physicalist in nature.
Maybe the only difference in our thinking is that you believe in 'God' and I don't. Nothing will ever get over that gulf.
I suspect you think that I don't know what you mean when you discuss your beliefs, but I do. I can imagine all sorts of things.
The simple matter is that for me to feel I am leading a credible life , I need to base it on what we know actually exists. We are biology, chemistry and physics. It works pretty well.
I receive nearly all the spiritual nurturing I need from things such as love , music and the beautiful sights of the world. That is only nearly enough . What would complete it, is to know where it all came from. But I won't make it up just to satisfy the piece that is lacking.
Maybe one day you will be proved to be right, but not so far and in my view there is no chance of that with your transcendence ;-). Until that time, I will just wait and accept that certainly in my life time I will never know the whole truth.
My question to you would be, how can you be so certain your explanation is right ? What process got you to your belief ? On what do you base your assumptions ?
Lucky you are to accept your truth . Just remember about us poor beggars who believe in material things and have to keep waiting for some scientific genius to come along and sort out the rest of our yearnings
You see I would completely agree with this and so would say if something is absolutely immoral, then why is the opposite not absolutely moral ?
It is true, but only if all possible absolute immoralities are completely absent. Nouns v adjectives, as Richard said. Try to define 'absolute immorality'.
I think some philosophy can take us down very dangerous paths. The morals we speak of are human morals. What is the point of talking about anything other ?
It was just a bit of an aside about 'absolute morality' which I feel sure would have to include the absolute 'sanctity' of all life. Not a viable state for life as we know it...
If anyone can tell me if it is ever right to cut the fin off a live shark and throw the shark back into the sea just because a person decides they like the taste of it I will change my stance.
Is the man who's father and father's father always made a living that way - who's children will starve if he doesn't get a good haul of fins - who may even think the sharks will grow their fins back - is he absolutely immoral? Or is the one who sincerely believes it's the only cure for their terminal disease.
Is the man who's father and father's father always made a living that way - who's children will starve if he doesn't get a good haul of fins - who may even think the sharks will grow their fins back - is he absolutely immoral? Or is the one who sincerely believes it's the only cure for their terminal disease.
Tricky things absolutes.
The act itself is absolutely immoral. The reason a man has to do such a thing because his children are starving is absolutely immoral. It is absolutely moral to assist a person to be able to feed his family in a different way.
The act itself is absolutely immoral. The reason a man has to do such a thing because his children are starving is absolutely immoral. It is absolutely moral to assist a person to be able to feed his family in a different way.
My corner's getting a bit shaky. Some rhino horn tea should sort me out. I'll be back.
I've come to the conclusion that education is immoral. If you give a man some fish he can feed his family for a day, but if you teach him to fish and he teaches his family and friends - before long there are no fish for you or anyone.
If you teach a man to use a chainsaw...
Education can put people off their dinner, which could have dire consequences for everyone.
I would call it a moral imperative. I would call it something that should be enforced globally even on people who don't think slavery is wrong. I would call it a human right not to be enslaved and therefore much more important than any moral absolute.
I interpret a moral absolute as something that must apply to all species; in all galaxies; at all times. Hence it cannot have been devised by man. It must have been imposed by something on us. I don't believe there is any such authority hence I reject the concept of moral absolutes. Until I hear a better argument anyway.
BTW Perhaps I can illustrate that slavery is not a moral absolute and is only applied by us to humans. We keep livestock; pets etc in virtual slavery and not only do we regard it as morally OK we often regard it as a kindness.
I think you know where `I stand on this one. While I would reject the idea that moral absolutes are imposed on us by an external authority (though I don't have a problem with theists thinking that way) I do feel that moral absolutes seem to exist that are not of our devising. The notion of 'good' seems to be a moral absolute - as does the idea that kindness is inherently to be sought after.
We seem to regard such precepts as self- evident - we don't regard ourselves as brainwashing our children when we encourage them in their direction.
^^ "Good" you say? Isn't that more quality statement than moral absolute?
Reminds me of Pirsig's Lila: An Inquiry into Morals,
The ''good dog" at the end of it particularly.
Is a tree 'bad' if it bears no fruit (and isn't a conifer)?
I'm pretty convinced on the knowledge thing. If they know not what they do - how can they be immoral? Absolute morals require absolute knowledge and absolute certainty of a required outcome. But I'm just splashing around in the dark really. Need input from those in touch with higher realities, if we are to pursue higher or non local morals/maybes.
I've come to the conclusion that education is immoral. If you give a man some fish he can feed his family for a day, but if you teach him to fish and he teaches his family and friends - before long there are no fish for you or anyone.
If you teach a man to use a chainsaw...
Education can put people off their dinner, which could have dire consequences for everyone.
Absolute morals require absolute knowledge.
By now you may have read something of Kant's notion of 'goodwil' with regard to absolutes. I find his writing difficult to grasp, but you might make better of it than me. I pluck some of his notion of goodwill for my argument.
Education given which is based on goodwill is not immoral despite the consequence. However once a fisher is aware that his actions are detrimental, they become self serving . Self serving in itself is not immoral , it would only become so if education was given which demonstrated that a change of behaviour had a better outcome for the fish, himself and others (and of course he had the option to change ) .
The promotion of managed fishing without knowledge of a better way to improve the outcome becomes the moral absolute if it is based on goodwill.
It is absolutely moral to seek knowledge that will reduce harm and suffering and in turn educate others in our findings if this is motivated by 'goodwill' and not self serving. It does not matter if you invent a vaccine which sets out to protect from disease and its actual consequence is that millions die, provided that your motivation was goodwill alone your action was a moral absolute.
We are able to reason. It is possibly our greatest evolutionary trait. Why kick it out of the window with regard to morality and yet look at it so highly with regard to other areas to which we apply it ?
Is a tree 'bad' if it bears no fruit (and isn't a conifer)?
I don't entirely understand the exclusion unless you are wanting to ensure people don't digress into the complex ambiguities of a phrase like "pine for the fjords"...?
Whilst I am aware it is a highly criticised viewpoint, I'll try and fight my corner. But before I need to, perhaps you could accept that there is absolute human morality ? In this way we can avoid thinking about the aliens
I fear even that does not make sense to me. Nearest I can get is that I do think some of the same basic instincts that where present in humans throughout time are present in us. These would among other things include instincts that helped cement social groupings etc. I think such things are the origin of our more complex moral values. They can certainly look like moral absolutes. e.g do not randomly kill other pack members; play fair etc. These look like the origins of our moral strictures on murder and of the Golden Rule perhaps.
NB Similar instincts also underlay aggressive/evil behaviour I think.
I do think that at any given point in human history there is an ongoing debate about what is moral. I think the concept of moral absolutes can be a reactionary one in this context. Your moral absolutes may consist of things like not making shark fin soup for others it may be divorce. For others adultery and these convictions might enable them to justify the most inhumane penalties.
I would rather argue against cutting off shark fins on the basis of extending our empathy to other creatures than rely on a moral absolute.
I think you know where `I stand on this one. While I would reject the idea that moral absolutes are imposed on us by an external authority (though I don't have a problem with theists thinking that way) I do feel that moral absolutes seem to exist that are not of our devising. The notion of 'good' seems to be a moral absolute - as does the idea that kindness is inherently to be sought after.
We seem to regard such precepts as self- evident - we don't regard ourselves as brainwashing our children when we encourage them in their direction.
Hi droogie; see my post above; does that help explain why we appear to hold moral absolutes that we did not devise i.e. these things are extensions of basic instincts that where never consciously devised but are utilitarian traits that evolved by natural selection.
Cognition and reflection and language and self consciousness (and religion) etc has of course transformed these instincts into elaborate codes; laws; philosophies and even diversity policies. Some more universal than others.
I do think that at any given point in human history there is an ongoing debate about what is moral. I think the concept of moral absolutes can be a reactionary one in this context. Your moral absolutes may consist of things like not making shark fin soup for others it may be divorce. For others adultery and these convictions might enable them to justify the most inhumane penalties.
I think we presume (wrongly) to be able to judge all things by a moral standard. To me this comes from religious indoctrination which appears to have a moral stand point on every action.
I would argue that morality is based on one thing and that is intention. A person either intends to cause harm or not. This can be applied to all cultures and is an absolute.
If a person decides to divorce with the only intention of causing harm then it is immoral. If this is not the case it is not subject to morality.
Hi droogie; see my post above; does that help explain why we appear to hold moral absolutes that we did not devise i.e. these things are extensions of basic instincts that where never consciously devised but are utilitarian traits that evolved by natural selection.
Cognition and reflection and language and self consciousness (and religion) etc has of course transformed these instincts into elaborate codes; laws; philosophies and even diversity policies. Some more universal than others.
Yes - I could go for that - it's actually important for my worldview that moral absolutes as seen as emanating from a God parallel exactly moral absolutes as seen as evolved instincts. You pick your paradigm and take your choice as to what, pragmatically, helps you live a fruitful life. It's not an either/or for me.
It would be fascinating to know how utilitarian traits have evolved over mankind's existence - if at all. You may remember that my other bugbear in all this is the potentially fallacious comparison of morals across place and history. When we transgress moral codes we have a tendency to feel guilty - I can imagine perhaps living in a more brutish society where we felt weighed down by guilt but people native to that time felt as guiltless as we do in our present day existence.
Then, in what sense could we say we live in a more moral society? What are we using as our absolute reference?
And, if 'absolute moral values' are evolved traits then we cannot assume what they may be in the future. Evolution has no direction so in what sense do we create our own direction for morality and on what basis?
I do see what you're saying - but there are aspects to this that still puzzle me.
It's not that your testament isn't good enough for me but rather that it doesn't prove anything about whether crime is up in certain areas due to multiculturalism or lack of religion to anyone who lives in London as I do and hasn't personally experienced this rise in violent crime. The stats you posted said it had only gone up in less than fifty percent of boroughs, suggesting that the other fifty percent plus have seen crime go down or stay the same.
What did you mean by asking earlier whether I would disagree with anything instead of addressing the points in the post?
Yes, exactly.
Wasn't going to add anything to this but, after another incident last night, I thought I would.
In my leafy corner of safe, immigrant free, bucolic, idyllic, affluent Cornwall, we have several HMOs and have had trouble with drug dealing, noise, violence and even a violent rape.
It's a long term problem and that doesn't make me thing this happens everywhere in the UK or it isn't worse in other areas because the causes of such things have many strands to them and aren't even interconnected, necessarily. But none of that in this street is caused by the Eastern European men who live in the street who work for low wages at daffodil picking etc or the Turkish families who have moved in. Or the decline in church going.
To blame immigrants is scapegoating and worse despite Farage's attempts to make it respectable. And I didn't leave London because of immigrants but because my family are here and I love the sea and because of the house prices in London. Not everyone has the same attitudes.
And, on another point, it's great that many people have long-term durable remission from cancer and I hope we, who are early in the process, are lucky enough to have the same or some of it. It still won't be a cure and I personally still find it glib to think of it as god's way of getting rid of people.
I think we presume (wrongly) to be able to judge all things by a moral standard. To me this comes from religious indoctrination which appears to have a moral stand point on every action.
I would argue that morality is based on one thing and that is intention. A person either intends to cause harm or not. This can be applied to all cultures and is an absolute.
If a person decides to divorce with the only intention of causing harm then it is immoral. If this is not the case it is not subject to morality.
My worry there is that makes a lot of mass murderers moral beings. e.g. Some religious suicide bombers think they are doing good; preventing harm whatever.
Comments
It's absolutely immoral to interfere with species to breed qualities we prefer, and absolutely despicable to knowingly use species (or their environment) to their extinction.
The process of bringing shark-fin soup to the table...
Perhaps I should have said successfully treated.
archy can we assume that you are a pacifist?
Actually I think I might agree that somethings are absolutely (adverb) immoral. It is moral absolutes (noun) that I do not accept.
Absolute = a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things.
To be honest I don't think the term moral absolutes makes much sense. Any moral stricture must be qualified. See your example it is qualified as applying only to 'conscious, knowledgeable beings'. How knowledgeable? How conscious does a being have to be before this 'absolute' applies? Because we can ask such questions it is a relative not an absolute value.
Yes, but do not smoke it.
I hoped to show that some things can be seen as absolutely immoral to strengthen the argument that absolute morality is not really possible and we must decide a decent moral code for the circumstances at the time and place. Circumstantial morality if you like.
No. The absolute applies regardless and we justify our inability to adhere to absolute morality by various excuses such as lack of knowledge or understanding, inconvenience etc..
I'm not too clear on it myself. Just putting it out for consideration really.
Adding foreign substances to someone's drugs is definitely absolutely immoral. ;-)
Whilst I am aware it is a highly criticised viewpoint, I'll try and fight my corner. But before I need to, perhaps you could accept that there is absolute human morality ? In this way we can avoid thinking about the aliens
You see I would completely agree with this and so would say if something is absolutely immoral, then why is the opposite not absolutely moral ?
I think some philosophy can take us down very dangerous paths. The morals we speak of are human morals. What is the point of talking about anything other ?
If anyone can tell me if it is ever right to cut the fin off a live shark and throw the shark back into the sea just because a person decides they like the taste of it I will change my stance.
Maybe the only difference in our thinking is that you believe in 'God' and I don't. Nothing will ever get over that gulf.
I suspect you think that I don't know what you mean when you discuss your beliefs, but I do. I can imagine all sorts of things.
The simple matter is that for me to feel I am leading a credible life , I need to base it on what we know actually exists. We are biology, chemistry and physics. It works pretty well.
I receive nearly all the spiritual nurturing I need from things such as love , music and the beautiful sights of the world. That is only nearly enough . What would complete it, is to know where it all came from. But I won't make it up just to satisfy the piece that is lacking.
Maybe one day you will be proved to be right, but not so far and in my view there is no chance of that with your transcendence ;-). Until that time, I will just wait and accept that certainly in my life time I will never know the whole truth.
My question to you would be, how can you be so certain your explanation is right ? What process got you to your belief ? On what do you base your assumptions ?
Lucky you are to accept your truth . Just remember about us poor beggars who believe in material things and have to keep waiting for some scientific genius to come along and sort out the rest of our yearnings
It was just a bit of an aside about 'absolute morality' which I feel sure would have to include the absolute 'sanctity' of all life. Not a viable state for life as we know it...
Is the man who's father and father's father always made a living that way - who's children will starve if he doesn't get a good haul of fins - who may even think the sharks will grow their fins back - is he absolutely immoral? Or is the one who sincerely believes it's the only cure for their terminal disease.
Tricky things absolutes.
The act itself is absolutely immoral. The reason a man has to do such a thing because his children are starving is absolutely immoral. It is absolutely moral to assist a person to be able to feed his family in a different way.
If you teach a man to use a chainsaw...
Education can put people off their dinner, which could have dire consequences for everyone.
Absolute morals require absolute knowledge.
I think you know where `I stand on this one. While I would reject the idea that moral absolutes are imposed on us by an external authority (though I don't have a problem with theists thinking that way) I do feel that moral absolutes seem to exist that are not of our devising. The notion of 'good' seems to be a moral absolute - as does the idea that kindness is inherently to be sought after.
We seem to regard such precepts as self- evident - we don't regard ourselves as brainwashing our children when we encourage them in their direction.
Reminds me of Pirsig's Lila: An Inquiry into Morals,
I'm pretty convinced on the knowledge thing. If they know not what they do - how can they be immoral? Absolute morals require absolute knowledge and absolute certainty of a required outcome. But I'm just splashing around in the dark really. Need input from those in touch with higher realities, if we are to pursue higher or non local morals/maybes.
By now you may have read something of Kant's notion of 'goodwil' with regard to absolutes. I find his writing difficult to grasp, but you might make better of it than me. I pluck some of his notion of goodwill for my argument.
Education given which is based on goodwill is not immoral despite the consequence. However once a fisher is aware that his actions are detrimental, they become self serving . Self serving in itself is not immoral , it would only become so if education was given which demonstrated that a change of behaviour had a better outcome for the fish, himself and others (and of course he had the option to change ) .
The promotion of managed fishing without knowledge of a better way to improve the outcome becomes the moral absolute if it is based on goodwill.
It is absolutely moral to seek knowledge that will reduce harm and suffering and in turn educate others in our findings if this is motivated by 'goodwill' and not self serving. It does not matter if you invent a vaccine which sets out to protect from disease and its actual consequence is that millions die, provided that your motivation was goodwill alone your action was a moral absolute.
We are able to reason. It is possibly our greatest evolutionary trait. Why kick it out of the window with regard to morality and yet look at it so highly with regard to other areas to which we apply it ?
I fear even that does not make sense to me. Nearest I can get is that I do think some of the same basic instincts that where present in humans throughout time are present in us. These would among other things include instincts that helped cement social groupings etc. I think such things are the origin of our more complex moral values. They can certainly look like moral absolutes. e.g do not randomly kill other pack members; play fair etc. These look like the origins of our moral strictures on murder and of the Golden Rule perhaps.
NB Similar instincts also underlay aggressive/evil behaviour I think.
I do think that at any given point in human history there is an ongoing debate about what is moral. I think the concept of moral absolutes can be a reactionary one in this context. Your moral absolutes may consist of things like not making shark fin soup for others it may be divorce. For others adultery and these convictions might enable them to justify the most inhumane penalties.
I would rather argue against cutting off shark fins on the basis of extending our empathy to other creatures than rely on a moral absolute.
This is a context question . Therefore I dismiss the point as irrelevant to the existence of absolutes.
Hi droogie; see my post above; does that help explain why we appear to hold moral absolutes that we did not devise i.e. these things are extensions of basic instincts that where never consciously devised but are utilitarian traits that evolved by natural selection.
Cognition and reflection and language and self consciousness (and religion) etc has of course transformed these instincts into elaborate codes; laws; philosophies and even diversity policies. Some more universal than others.
I think we presume (wrongly) to be able to judge all things by a moral standard. To me this comes from religious indoctrination which appears to have a moral stand point on every action.
I would argue that morality is based on one thing and that is intention. A person either intends to cause harm or not. This can be applied to all cultures and is an absolute.
If a person decides to divorce with the only intention of causing harm then it is immoral. If this is not the case it is not subject to morality.
Yes - I could go for that - it's actually important for my worldview that moral absolutes as seen as emanating from a God parallel exactly moral absolutes as seen as evolved instincts. You pick your paradigm and take your choice as to what, pragmatically, helps you live a fruitful life. It's not an either/or for me.
It would be fascinating to know how utilitarian traits have evolved over mankind's existence - if at all. You may remember that my other bugbear in all this is the potentially fallacious comparison of morals across place and history. When we transgress moral codes we have a tendency to feel guilty - I can imagine perhaps living in a more brutish society where we felt weighed down by guilt but people native to that time felt as guiltless as we do in our present day existence.
Then, in what sense could we say we live in a more moral society? What are we using as our absolute reference?
And, if 'absolute moral values' are evolved traits then we cannot assume what they may be in the future. Evolution has no direction so in what sense do we create our own direction for morality and on what basis?
I do see what you're saying - but there are aspects to this that still puzzle me.
Wasn't going to add anything to this but, after another incident last night, I thought I would.
In my leafy corner of safe, immigrant free, bucolic, idyllic, affluent Cornwall, we have several HMOs and have had trouble with drug dealing, noise, violence and even a violent rape.
It's a long term problem and that doesn't make me thing this happens everywhere in the UK or it isn't worse in other areas because the causes of such things have many strands to them and aren't even interconnected, necessarily. But none of that in this street is caused by the Eastern European men who live in the street who work for low wages at daffodil picking etc or the Turkish families who have moved in. Or the decline in church going.
To blame immigrants is scapegoating and worse despite Farage's attempts to make it respectable. And I didn't leave London because of immigrants but because my family are here and I love the sea and because of the house prices in London. Not everyone has the same attitudes.
And, on another point, it's great that many people have long-term durable remission from cancer and I hope we, who are early in the process, are lucky enough to have the same or some of it. It still won't be a cure and I personally still find it glib to think of it as god's way of getting rid of people.
My worry there is that makes a lot of mass murderers moral beings. e.g. Some religious suicide bombers think they are doing good; preventing harm whatever.