Philosophy Discussions

[Phria]

I'd argue that the absolute moral is 'do not steal', where one can steal property and security. To steal is absolutely morally wrong but that's not to say it's not necessary.

Why would you argue that? What is the basis for this variety of absolute morality?

[West Leas Oros 2]

If morality is absolute, what is the standard that makes it absolute? Maximizing happiness? God? Nothing?

[Bombadil]

Do You Believe in Absolute Truth?

And?

This appears to be redirecting us to some theological website or other. I'd have thought religious discussions belong on one of the theological threads.

*snip*
Morality is different given it's a construct of being able to perceive. I'd argue that the absolute moral is 'do not steal', where one can steal property and security. To steal is absolutely morally wrong but that's not to say it's not necessary.

*snip*

It's like the old argument: Is it wrong for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family.

Stealing is wrong, except isn't it more morally wrong to set up circumstances so that children can be allowed to starve -- hence the premise of Les Miserables, and why Jean Valjean is such a sympathetic character.

Yes, I could argue greater theft occurs in leaving children starving, yet still say stealing the bread as an act in and of itself is wrong.

I'd argue that the absolute moral is 'do not steal', where one can steal property and security. To steal is absolutely morally wrong but that's not to say it's not necessary.

Why would you argue that? What is the basis for this variety of absolute morality?

I'd simply argue that if we remove religion from the equation then we could judge all our decisions of what is morally good around the concept of whether we're taking without permission. We can then get into relative considerations around the balance of what's being taken such as taking someone's liberty giving they're persistently taking from others to protect society from one individual.

It's an absolute lens through which we can divine good or bad.

I'm arguing it, I'm not nailing myself to the cross over it.

[Hanafuridake]

To paraphrase Nagarjuna, there is no absolute truth besides a lack of absolute truth.

[Iciaros]

To paraphrase Nagarjuna, there is no absolute truth besides a lack of absolute truth.

Ah, but how do we know that's absolutely true?

[Phria]

I'd simply argue that if we remove religion from the equation then we could judge all our decisions of what is morally good around the concept of whether we're taking without permission. We can then get into relative considerations around the balance of what's being taken such as taking someone's liberty giving they're persistently taking from others to protect society from one individual.

We certainly could and I would even argue the results wouldn't turn out to be too bad. But it is still as arbitrary a moral framework as any, when it comes to its foundation. That is my problem with the notion of absolute morality.

[Beggnig]

Do You Believe in Absolute Truth?

This is a very odd site. It asks the question of whether logic is made of matter? That's an interesting question, but it seems like a false dichotomy, and I fail to see how its answer confirms religion.

The point is that if it is made of matter that logic would then change over time like matter does, meaning that any logical argument fails. If it is immaterial then this implies that reductive materialism is false, and the Christian God is said to be immaterial and unchanging. Thus if logic is immaterial, which it needs to be in order to be unchanging, it is immaterial and unchanging, and as such logic (from the Greek 'Logos') points to an immaterial and unchanging reality to ground it.

[Beggnig]

Do You Believe in Absolute Truth?

And?

This appears to be redirecting us to some theological website or other. I'd have thought religious discussions belong on one of the theological threads.
*snip*

I simply thought of the website from the poll.

[Beggnig]

To paraphrase Nagarjuna, there is no absolute truth besides a lack of absolute truth.

Is that absolutely true?
Is it absolutely true that you know that to be absolutely true?
Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

[Phria]

The point is that if it is made of matter that logic would then change over time like matter does, meaning that any logical argument fails. If it is immaterial then this implies that reductive materialism is false, and the Christian God is said to be immaterial and unchanging. Thus if logic is immaterial, which it needs to be in order to be unchanging, it is immaterial and unchanging, and as such logic (from the Greek 'Logos') points to an immaterial and unchanging reality to ground it.

What good would an immaterial and unchanging logic be, if it never corresponded to what we empirically perceive in the material world?

[Bombadil]

I'd simply argue that if we remove religion from the equation then we could judge all our decisions of what is morally good around the concept of whether we're taking without permission. We can then get into relative considerations around the balance of what's being taken such as taking someone's liberty giving they're persistently taking from others to protect society from one individual.

We certainly could and I would even argue the results wouldn't turn out to be too bad. But it is still as arbitrary a moral framework as any, when it comes to its foundation. That is my problem with the notion of absolute morality.

I don't think it is, it's better than 'do not kill' for example, and it's better than 'cos God said', I think it's objectively better than those, the first being too narrow and the second being too made up.

We could certainly say it's the absolute moral truth because it's a standard we inherently set as opposed to absolute truth itself, which we have no real sway over. I'd say we could adhere to the idea that to steal is an absolute moral wrong and then prism events through that concept to determine things.

Again, for example, take homosexuality. In and of itself it takes nothing from no one, it is not morally wrong though the suppression of homosexuality is to steal self esteem, equal rights and etc., so that is morally wrong.

As I said it becomes necessary to steal when an individual, group or society overtly steals to the detriment of the whole but clearly we then need to take the most careful considerations when it comes to such questions. That's where we have a relative view of what is societally unacceptable while retaining the absolute that to steal is wrong.

I think it balances the Hume 'greatest benefit' thing as a maxim by placing parameters around that.

[Iciaros]

We could certainly say it's the absolute moral truth because it's a standard we inherently set as opposed to absolute truth itself, which we have no real sway over. I'd say we could adhere to the idea that to steal is an absolute moral wrong and then prism events through that concept to determine things.

I'm not sure I understand this correctly, so if I may ask: is what you're saying that any standard can be an absolute moral truth provided that humanity as a whole sets it?

[Bombadil]

We could certainly say it's the absolute moral truth because it's a standard we inherently set as opposed to absolute truth itself, which we have no real sway over. I'd say we could adhere to the idea that to steal is an absolute moral wrong and then prism events through that concept to determine things.

I'm not sure I understand this correctly, so if I may ask: is what you're saying that any standard can be an absolute moral truth provided that humanity as a whole sets it?

Yes and no, yes in that we could as a whole set an absolute moral, however that absolute is going to be subject to stress tests really and I am arguing that 'do not steal' is objectively broad enough and applicable enough that we can set it as an absolute moral.

It's a relatively Kantian approach though his take is 'that one should act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation', which I think is problematic in extremes. 'Do not steal' is less centred on individual actions yet broadly applicable as a lens to balance between the greater theft, and then theft from an individual and societal level.

[Phria]

Again, for example, take homosexuality. In and of itself it takes nothing from no one, it is not morally wrong though the suppression of homosexuality is to steal self esteem, equal rights and etc., so that is morally wrong.

One might argue that it takes away their ability to control other people's sexual practices, and thus 'steals' their right to do as they please. Why is their subsequent discomfort less important than the homosexual person's discomfort?

As I said it becomes necessary to steal when an individual, group or society overtly steals to the detriment of the whole but clearly we then need to take the most careful considerations when it comes to such questions. That's where we have a relative view of what is societally unacceptable while retaining the absolute that to steal is wrong.

Your absolute seems to shift from "to steal is wrong" to "causing the detriment of the whole is wrong". Basically some form of utilitarianism.

[Iciaros]

I'm not sure I understand this correctly, so if I may ask: is what you're saying that any standard can be an absolute moral truth provided that humanity as a whole sets it?

Yes and no, yes in that we could as a whole set an absolute moral, however that absolute is going to be subject to stress tests really and I am arguing that 'do not steal' is objectively broad enough and applicable enough that we can set it as an absolute moral.

It's a relatively Kantian approach though his take is 'that one should act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation', which I think is problematic in extremes. 'Do not steal' is less centred on individual actions yet broadly applicable as a lens to balance between the greater theft, and then theft from an individual and societal level.

I see, I understand the broadness requirement. I note earlier, though, that you mentioned that it can't be 'too made up', in reference to religion as the guiding framework; but (as Phria mentioned earlier) I'm not sure what makes this standard less made up than that of religion. If religion were to be accepted generally as the standard, and is broad enough to be applicable to a decently large spread of scenarios, then why would it be less acceptable than the standard you propose?

I guess what I'd like some clarification on is how 'made up'-ness works. When is something considered 'made up', and what factors influence to what extent it is considered to be so?

[Beggnig]

The point is that if it is made of matter that logic would then change over time like matter does, meaning that any logical argument fails. If it is immaterial then this implies that reductive materialism is false, and the Christian God is said to be immaterial and unchanging. Thus if logic is immaterial, which it needs to be in order to be unchanging, it is immaterial and unchanging, and as such logic (from the Greek 'Logos') points to an immaterial and unchanging reality to ground it.

What good would an immaterial and unchanging logic be, if it never corresponded to what we empirically perceive in the material world?

To even construct that criticism you have to assume things like the law of identity (that what you empirically perceive is what you empirically perceive), the law of non-contradiction (that it can't never correspond and always correspond at the same way at the same time), and that logic is unchanging in order to have a point. Plus, logic doesn't exist in the material world, you can't find the number three under a rock but only a collection of three things. But you have a larger problem, how do you know that your empirical perception is working correctly?

[Bombadil]

Again, for example, take homosexuality. In and of itself it takes nothing from no one, it is not morally wrong though the suppression of homosexuality is to steal self esteem, equal rights and etc., so that is morally wrong.

One might argue that it takes away their ability to control other people's sexual practices, and thus 'steals' their right to do as they please. Why is their subsequent discomfort less important than the homosexual person's discomfort?

Self-inflicted discomfort is secondary to objective theft of someone else's security.

As I said it becomes necessary to steal when an individual, group or society overtly steals to the detriment of the whole but clearly we then need to take the most careful considerations when it comes to such questions. That's where we have a relative view of what is societally unacceptable while retaining the absolute that to steal is wrong.

Your absolute seems to shift from "to steal is wrong" to "causing the detriment of the whole is wrong". Basically some form of utilitarianism.

It balances the individual right over the whole, utilitarianism places 'the good of the whole' as a prism, which is somewhat meaningless whereas 'do not steal' is a more fundamental prism through which we can discern what is the balance of good.

I see, I understand the broadness requirement. I note earlier, though, that you mentioned that it can't be 'too made up', in reference to religion as the guiding framework; but (as Phria mentioned earlier) I'm not sure what makes this standard less made up than that of religion. If religion were to be accepted generally as the standard, and is broad enough to be applicable to a decently large spread of scenarios, then why would it be less acceptable than the standard you propose?

I guess what I'd like some clarification on is how 'made up'-ness works. When is something considered 'made up', and what factors influence to what extent it is considered to be so?

Again, 'because God said so' is a meaningless prism through which to determine things. One thing to clarify is I noted that I feel this is more about whether we can determine absolute truth or morality not whether they exist, since if we cannot determine we cannot say whether they exist.

Even then.. to determine an absolute morality is not to say it physically exists or is a fundamental aspect of the universe. It's to say we can determine a prism that objectively and absolutely resolves our moral compass.

It's less made up because it can be judged on outcomes. We might argue whether spanking a child is moral. I might say the primary aspect is to steal security from the child, you might argue that a child misbehaving steals from a parents right to an orderly family. I might retort that the primary aspect to the individual is morally worse than the secondary aspect to the family in this case and research showing that spanking children leads to poor outcomes support my view.

Or the case above, the primary theft to the individual homosexual's rights to be treated equally as opposed to the secondary theft of the internal discomfort of someone who 'wants to control other people's sexuality' can be objectively assessed as to outcomes.

And it's not to say societal outcomes overcome individual where that individuals actions deprive society to a greater extent, such as murder or theft or generally being an asshole.

I'm as much feeling this thought out as I type through, I'm sure some philosopher has expressed this better than I.. or if not I'm either a genius or way off base..

Hence I cannot determine absolute truth at least

[Phria]

To even construct that criticism you have to assume things like the law of identity (that what you empirically perceive is what you empirically perceive), the law of non-contradiction (that it can't never correspond and always correspond at the same way at the same time), and that logic is unchanging in order to have a point.

I do assume them. Arbitrarily.

Plus, logic doesn't exist in the material world, you can't find the number three under a rock but only a collection of three things.

One could conceive of alternative logical and mathematical frameworks that are consistent, yet do not correspond to any reality.

But you have a larger problem, how do you know that your empirical perception is working correctly?

I don't claim to know that.

If I'm hungry and see that there's food in front of me, I go ahead and eat it. Would you propose a different course of action?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Truth is very often relative. Framed by a culture, by a society.

[Phria]

Even then.. to determine an absolute morality is not to say it physically exists or is a fundamental aspect of the universe.

Common ground reached!

It's to say we can determine a prism that objectively and absolutely resolves our moral compass.

That's quite ambitious.

[Iciaros]

It's less made up because it can be judged on outcomes. We might argue whether spanking a child is moral. I might say the primary aspect is to steal security from the child, you might argue that a child misbehaving steals from a parents right to an orderly family. I might retort that the primary aspect to the individual is morally worse than the secondary aspect to the family in this case and research showing that spanking children leads to poor outcomes support my view.

I see. I think that is called a consequentialist view in philosophy, which basically means that the goodness or badness of an act is judged by its outcome rather than its motivation or some inherent characteristic. Theft, however, is an action rather than an outcome, and it is really the deprivation of a particular thing (which is what is being stolen) that is the outcome. In that case, wouldn't it be better to frame the prism in terms of the result rather than the action? Your (quoted) argument seems to espouse an outcome-oriented approach, since the focus is not on the theft but rather weighing the poorness of the outcome to the child and family respectively.

Even then.. to determine an absolute morality is not to say it physically exists or is a fundamental aspect of the universe. It's to say we can determine a prism that objectively and absolutely resolves our moral compass.

I'm not quite sure I understand this particular quote, but perhaps to ask some questions:

1. What does it mean to 'objectively' resolve a moral compass?

2. Since I presume ideas of good and bad differ depending on who you ask, wouldn't it have to be that some moral compasses would not be absolutely resolved by the prism you propose?

[Uan aa Boa]

I'd argue that the absolute moral is 'do not steal', where one can steal property and security.

"From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this injunction thereby become an eternal moral injunction? By no means. In a society in which all motives for stealing have been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the preacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!" - Engels

The point here is that an absolute moral truth would presumably have to be true independently of any consideration of the needs and circumstances of the society it emerged from, and this seems unlikely.

[Bombadil]

It's less made up because it can be judged on outcomes. We might argue whether spanking a child is moral. I might say the primary aspect is to steal security from the child, you might argue that a child misbehaving steals from a parents right to an orderly family. I might retort that the primary aspect to the individual is morally worse than the secondary aspect to the family in this case and research showing that spanking children leads to poor outcomes support my view.

I see. I think that is called a consequentialist view in philosophy, which basically means that the goodness or badness of an act is judged by its outcome rather than its motivation or some inherent characteristic. Theft, however, is an action rather than an outcome, and it is really the deprivation of a particular thing (which is what is being stolen) that is the outcome. In that case, wouldn't it be better to frame the prism in terms of the result rather than the action? Your (quoted) argument seems to espouse an outcome-oriented approach, since the focus is not on the theft but rather weighing the poorness of the outcome to the child and family respectively.

Even then.. to determine an absolute morality is not to say it physically exists or is a fundamental aspect of the universe. It's to say we can determine a prism that objectively and absolutely resolves our moral compass.

I'm not quite sure I understand this particular quote, but perhaps to ask some questions:

1. What does it mean to 'objectively' resolve a moral compass?

2. Since I presume ideas of good and bad differ depending on who you ask, wouldn't it have to be that some moral compasses would not be absolutely resolved by the prism you propose?

First, thanks for the tone of questions.

To the first paragraph I think it's mutually compatible. If one applies this prism then one will see the outcomes justify the prism. They're a measure not the absolute moral prism. I'd be curious if one could share an example where the outcome doesn't justify the prism given real world studies.

For the two questions.

1. Essentially answered above
2. Good and bad are irrelevant to opinion, if you are stealing security or property (these terms need definition a bit) that is absolutely morally wrong in and of itself. However we can relatively determine the overall utility (this doesn't mean I'm talking to the maxim of 'the greater good' of utilitarianism) it balances the individual rights weighted over societal good.

One could take various issues.. abortion, immigration, corporal punishment.. and run them through this prism to determine, I think, an objective outcome. Even if not absolute I think it's certainly better than 'god did it'.

The initial question is who is the perpetrator and who is the victim of theft, then we can look at studies as to the outcomes and see of we can arrive at a conclusion that matches.

Take immigration.. does it steal jobs, increase criminal behaviour, add to a society, overload systems such as health.. who and where does it balance through the prism of who's stealing from who.

"From the moment when private ownership of movable property developed, all societies in which this private ownership existed had to have this moral injunction in common: Thou shalt not steal. Does this injunction thereby become an eternal moral injunction? By no means. In a society in which all motives for stealing have been done away with, in which therefore at the very most only lunatics would ever steal, how the preacher of morals would be laughed at who tried solemnly to proclaim the eternal truth: Thou shalt not steal!" - Engels

The point here is that an absolute moral truth would presumably have to be true independently of any consideration of the needs and circumstances of the society it emerged from, and this seems unlikely.

Ooh.. hence above I note we need to define property, I don't mind the idea that 'property is theft' in and of itself. I kind of think that unfairly acquiring property is kind of theft in that if one party has outsized knowledge or bargaining power then theft is involved.

Yet the prism remains true.

[Uan aa Boa]

It's less made up because it can be judged on outcomes. We might argue whether spanking a child is moral. I might say the primary aspect is to steal security from the child, you might argue that a child misbehaving steals from a parents right to an orderly family. I might retort that the primary aspect to the individual is morally worse than the secondary aspect to the family in this case and research showing that spanking children leads to poor outcomes support my view.

This is a very flexible use of the word "steal." If in addition to stealing security its possible to "steal from a right" so that any infringement of a right can be recast as theft then you probably will be able to describe a whole moral system that depends on stealing as its fundamental concept, but only at the cost of considerable vagueness. With what metric are we to compare the theft of security suffered by a spanked child with the theft of the rights of a parent with a misbehaving child? If you're going to answer that with an appeal to empirical data on real world outcomes then I'd suggest that you're moving towards a principle of "do what works" that is the very antithesis of absolutist morality (and all the better for it - no criticism there). To do that, however, you must have a pre-existing idea of what constitute "good" outcomes. If "good" in this sense is defined with reference to stealing being the absolute moral consideration then your justification becomes circular. If not then stealing actually never was the fundamental consideration in your moral outlook, since you're then settling moral questions with reference to some other criteria.

[Iciaros]

To the first paragraph I think it's mutually compatible. If one applies this prism then one will see the outcomes justify the prism. They're a measure not the absolute moral prism. I'd be curious if one could share an example where the outcome doesn't justify the prism given real world studies.

Well, to properly assess whether the outcome does or does not justify the prism, a comprehensive understanding of the prism itself would be required - in this case, I'm wondering whether everyone can fully agree on the meaning of the word 'steal'. It clearly can't just mean 'take' in general, because that would implicate someone, for instance, receiving a voluntary gift. 'Steal' connotes a measure of injustice, the intentional deprivation of someone else's entitlement or right (and I believe it is this meaning you intend, based on the rest of your comment). If it is this meaning of 'steal' that you mean, then it would be necessary to ascertain precisely what one has a right to or is entitled to. Using your earlier example, do parents have a 'right' to an orderly family? Or is this just something that they could have but are not entitled to? This process of determining what is and is not a right surely cannot be considered to be objective, or grounded in reality rather than opinion.

Conversely, if your meaning of 'steal' is indeed 'take', or 'receive', or generally denoting the transfer of a particular asset or detriment from one party to another party irrespective of fault or entitlement, then there are probably better words to use. Furthermore, does that then ground morality in the movement of some amenity or asset? If (putting aside the possibility in this instance that society has 'stolen' from the poor), a rich person walks past a starving beggar on the street without giving money, would the prism suggest that there is no moral wrong in that action, even if the beggar starves to death as a result? Or is there a meaning behind 'steal' that I'm not quite getting?

2. Good and bad are irrelevant to opinion, if you are stealing security or property (these terms need definition a bit) that is absolutely morally wrong in and of itself. However we can relatively determine the overall utility (this doesn't mean I'm talking to the maxim of 'the greater good' of utilitarianism) it balances the individual rights weighted over societal good.

But your previous statement said that a requirement of absolute morality is that it resolves our moral compasses. If a prism is unable to fully align with the way we see morality, would that not fail that test? Or when you say 'resolve', do you mean that the prism is meant to reorient our moral compass rather than match or explain it?

First, thanks for the tone of questions.

Thank you! I hope I'm not coming off in this comment as hostile or dismissive, because that's not what I'm trying to do. Every view and argument deserves a fair shake and a chance to explain itself, and I'm only trying to properly grasp the contours of the offered opinion, not pass judgement in any way.