Absolute Morality

[GeeYouEye]

note: I had more, but my browser quit on me (lesson #... eh, too tired to think up a number - never use a beta browser, especially a nightly).

It exists, or to be more specific, there us a hierarchy of morality, which for better, not worse (for much better, actually - the holocaust shows that people are most certainly fallible, and tyranny and persecution by mob/democratic rule is still tyranny and persecution) is NOT set by the majority but is instead absolute. Moral relativism is a great evil, as is following a false moral hierarchy (KKK, Nazis, 1800's [esp. pre-1865] USA and the like).

Action should be taken where possible to promote the realization and action based on this morality, all other concerns (like respect for other cultures and noninterference directives) aside.

Discuss.

[Kuroneko]

I assume by "absolute morality" you mean objectivist morality. I'm not quite sure what you meant, since you imply that there is a a single absolute morality to be judged with without stating what it is.

Moral relativism is a great evil, as is following a false moral hierarchy... Action should be taken where possible to promote the realization and action based on this morality, all other concerns (like respect for other cultures and noninterference directives) aside.

Unless respect itself is part of such absolute morality. I'm sure Kant would agree, although his view on what it means to respect a person is a bit different from everyday usage (e.g., according to Kant, you disrespect a murderer by not executing him).

Furthermore, you imply that one of the reasons moral relativism is unacceptable is because it exra-cultural judgements should not take into consideration the mores of that culture... I do not see any possible reason why a moral relativist is obligated to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures at all.

[UltraViolence83]

There is no "right" or "wrong" morality. That's like saying there's a "right" and "wrong" style of music in the world.

It's easier just to say: "If you're a prick for no reason, people will dislike you."

[GeeYouEye]

I assume by "absolute morality" you mean objectivist morality. I'm not quite sure what you meant, since you imply that there is a a single absolute morality to be judged with without stating what it is.

Yeah, that's right. Used "absolute" instead of "objectivist" mostly to drive home the point about moral relativism. As for what it is, that's the real problem, isn't it? Figuring out just what that is is not an easy task. It's very difficult to absolutely say "1. X, 2. Y, 3. Z...". An easier way of determining it is by comparing every scenario to every other scenario, a near-(if not completely) impossible task. One relatively good guideline is "keep your hands to yourself." If what you're doing violates that, it's probably (but not necessarily) immoral.

Unless respect itself is part of such absolute morality. I'm sure Kant would agree, although his view on what it means to respect a person is a bit different from everyday usage (e.g., according to Kant, you disrespect a murderer by not executing him).

Oh, I'd agree that there is some level of respect in that hierarchy, but it is hierarchal; the wiping out of the Indians was a terrible thing, and killing them when they had committed no crime towards the Americans is inexcusable, and they really should have been generally left alone, but had some tribe practiced slavery, every effort should have been made to stop them from continuing that practice.

Furthermore, you imply that one of the reasons moral relativism is unacceptable is because it exra-cultural judgements should not take into consideration the mores of that culture... I do not see any possible reason why a moral relativist is obligated to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures at all.

Either I didn't make myself clear, or you're missing something. Moral relativists will refer to a practice we might find barbaric (such as scapegoating in the African-tribe-sacrificing-a-person-for-the-sins-of-the-villiage-that-year sense) as just another way of looking at things, declaring it just as moral as any idiosyncrasy our Western culture might have.

[GeeYouEye]

There is no "right" or "wrong" morality. That's like saying there's a "right" and "wrong" style of music in the world.

It's easier just to say: "If you're a prick for no reason, people will dislike you."

Sure there is. The KKK believed they were following some moral code by lynching blacks. I'd argue that whatever moral guidelines they followed were wrong.

[UltraViolence83]

Oh, I'd agree that there is some level of respect in that hierarchy, but it is hierarchal; the wiping out of the Indians was a terrible thing, and killing them when they had committed no crime towards the Americans is inexcusable, and they really should have been generally left alone, but had some tribe practiced slavery, every effort should have been made to stop them from continuing that practice.

If they practice it, then slavery isn't immoral to them. Why should anyone else butt into their business?

[UltraViolence83]

Sure there is. The KKK believed they were following some moral code by lynching blacks. I'd argue that whatever moral guidelines they followed were wrong.

If you're arguing from a "killing people because of race is bad" standpoint, then yes. But to argue it is wrong from an objective angle is flawed.

[GeeYouEye]

Oh, I'd agree that there is some level of respect in that hierarchy, but it is hierarchal; the wiping out of the Indians was a terrible thing, and killing them when they had committed no crime towards the Americans is inexcusable, and they really should have been generally left alone, but had some tribe practiced slavery, every effort should have been made to stop them from continuing that practice.

If they practice it, then slavery isn't immoral to them. Why should anyone else butt into their business?

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A on moral relativism.

Let me provide a more extreme, and less hypothetical example. The Aztecs. Killed something like 10,000 people a year to keep the sun rising. Would you agree that that is an immoral act? Or perhaps we should move to the Nazis. Got the idea yet? The Germans didn't think it was immoral to enslave Slavs and enslave and kill Jews. Should we not have "butt[ed] into their business"?

It is far more moral to interfere with the affairs of others than it is to sit idly by and watch people suffer no matter what you call it (sitting around, noninterference, respect for other cultures, etc.)

[Kuroneko]

Oh, I'd agree that there is some level of respect in that hierarchy, but it is hierarchal; the wiping out of the Indians was a terrible thing, and killing them when they had committed no crime towards the Americans is inexcusable, and they really should have been generally left alone, but had some tribe practiced slavery, every effort should have been made to stop them from continuing that practice.

But that's the point--in the Kantian objectivist framework, respect is practically the sum of morality. The difference being in how respect is applied--Kant would likely say the Americans were disrespecting the Indians, and such actions were immoral. Futhermore, if Kant's position on murderers and the like is any indication, a third party would be disrespecting the Americans by not correcting their immoral acts!

Furthermore, you imply that one of the reasons moral relativism is unacceptable is because it exra-cultural judgements should not take into consideration the mores of that culture... I do not see any possible reason why a moral relativist is obligated to be tolerant of the moralities of other cultures at all.

Either I didn't make myself clear, or you're missing something. Moral relativists will refer to a practice we might find barbaric (such as scapegoating in the African-tribe-sacrificing-a-person-for-the-sins-of-the-villiage-that-year sense) as just another way of looking at things, declaring it just as moral as any idiosyncrasy our Western culture might have.

Why? Suppose morality is relativist and I (or my group, or society, or whatever is most relevant to the particular flavor of relativism) don't (doesn't) value tolerance. Certainly such a scenario is possible; if no value judgement is fixed, tolerance itself isn't (otherwise tolerance would be an absolute, which is contradictory to the whole relativism premise). There is certainly no moral obligation for me to be tolerant of moral views disagreeing with me in such a case.

[GeeYouEye]

Sure there is. The KKK believed they were following some moral code by lynching blacks. I'd argue that whatever moral guidelines they followed were wrong.

If you're arguing from a "killing people because of race is bad" standpoint, then yes. But to argue it is wrong from an objective angle is flawed.

How so? If you can make a few basic assumptions (such as "killing is bad", "torture and causing suffering are bad", "healing and inducing pleasure are good", stuff like that.) about the hierarchy of morality, then no, it isn't wrong to argue it from an objective angle.

[GeeYouEye]

Oh, I'd agree that there is some level of respect in that hierarchy, but it is hierarchal; the wiping out of the Indians was a terrible thing, and killing them when they had committed no crime towards the Americans is inexcusable, and they really should have been generally left alone, but had some tribe practiced slavery, every effort should have been made to stop them from continuing that practice.

But that's the point--in the Kantian objectivist framework, respect is practically the sum of morality. The difference being in how respect is applied--Kant would likely say the Americans were disrespecting the Indians, and such actions were immoral. Futhermore, if Kant's position on murderers and the like is any indication, a third party would be disrespecting the Americans by not correcting their immoral acts!

Admittedly I haven't studied Kant, but from what I gather, it would also be disrespecting the hypothetical tribe by allowing them to continue practicing slavery.

Either I didn't make myself clear, or you're missing something. Moral relativists will refer to a practice we might find barbaric (such as scapegoating in the African-tribe-sacrificing-a-person-for-the-sins-of-the-villiage-that-year sense) as just another way of looking at things, declaring it just as moral as any idiosyncrasy our Western culture might have.

Why? Suppose morality is relativist and I (or my group, or society, or whatever is most relevant to the particular flavor of relativism) don't (doesn't) value tolerance. Certainly such a scenario is possible; if no value judgement is fixed, tolerance itself isn't (otherwise tolerance would be an absolute, which is contradictory to the whole relativism premise). There is certainly no moral obligation for me to be tolerant of moral views disagreeing with me in such a case.

Okay, I see; you're confusing moral relativism with pursuit of a false morality or false moral code. There is a rather significant difference. The KKK, Nazi's, pre-1865 USA, etc. are examples of pursuit of a false morality (wether they thought it was an absolute moral code is irrelevant; it wasn't the absolute (or objectivist, if you like) morality), whereas UltraViolence83 here is an example of a moral relativist.

EDIT: holy crap it's 2:30 AM! Good night!

[Kuroneko]

Admittedly I haven't studied Kant, but from what I gather, it would also be disrespecting the hypothetical tribe by allowing them to continue practicing slavery.

Quite so.

Okay, I see; you're confusing moral relativism with pursuit of a false morality or false moral code. There is a rather significant difference. The KKK, Nazi's, pre-1865 USA, etc. are examples of pursuit of a false morality (wether they thought it was an absolute moral code is irrelevant; it wasn't the absolute (or objectivist, if you like) morality), whereas UltraViolence83 here is an example of a moral relativist.

Oh no, I'm not confusing anything. Anyone who claims that moral relativism necessitates tolerance of differing moral views quite simply does not understand the definition of moral relativism. Examine it closely: if moral relativism dictated any particular value, then that value would be an absolute. Moral relativism would defeat itself by transforming into a particular kind of moral objectivism.

Now, it just so happens that the Western culture values tolerance, hence the moral relativist living in such conditions would be obligated to be tolerant, but her/his tolerance does not follow from the mere fact that s/he is a moral relativist.

[AdmiralKanos]

There are no absolutes, but there are values which are nearly universal among humans, and for good reason (such as "killing is bad").

[kojikun]

There are no absolutes, but there are values which are nearly universal among humans, and for good reason (such as "killing is bad").

Except when its beneficial, killing is bad.

[AdmiralKanos]

There are no absolutes, but there are values which are nearly universal among humans, and for good reason (such as "killing is bad").

Except when its beneficial, killing is bad.

Killing is always bad. It is only justified when it would stop even more killing (or perhaps suffering; that would be more of a gray area), thus making it into a "lesser evil".

[The Question]

There are no absolutes, but there are values which are nearly universal among humans, and for good reason (such as "killing is bad").

Appeal to consensus.

[kojikun]

Killing is always bad. It is only justified when it would stop even more killing (or perhaps suffering; that would be more of a gray area), thus making it into a "lesser evil".

But that makes it morally right to do so by nature of it being immoral to not do so.

*edit* I would also add the bit where someone WANTS to be killed. Granted, they're fucking nutz, but its not morally wrong to ill someone at their request.

[Yuri Prime]

There are no absolutes, but there are values which are nearly universal among humans, and for good reason (such as "killing is bad").

Appeal to consensus.

I don't suppose that you would like to suggest something else...

[Kuroneko]

There are no absolutes, but there are values which are nearly universal among humans, and for good reason (such as "killing is bad").

Appeal to consensus. :roll:

A fallacy? Where? The "the are no absolutes" part? That's not an argument, and thus cannot be fallacious (could be false, though). Or is it the "there are values which are nearly universal among humans, ..." part? That's a not an argument either, but simply a descriptive statement. Since neither one implies the other (or even claimed to do so by Mr. Wong), the whole thing is also not an argument.

[UltraViolence83]

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A on moral relativism.

Let me provide a more extreme, and less hypothetical example. The Aztecs. Killed something like 10,000 people a year to keep the sun rising. Would you agree that that is an immoral act? Or perhaps we should move to the Nazis. Got the idea yet? The Germans didn't think it was immoral to enslave Slavs and enslave and kill Jews. Should we not have "butt[ed] into their business"?

It is far more moral to interfere with the affairs of others than it is to sit idly by and watch people suffer no matter what you call it (sitting around, noninterference, respect for other cultures, etc.)

I don't think it is. Granted I'm a pretty nice guy in real life and I hate to see people "disrespected," as Kant would put it, but I've felt that my kindness is my weakness. If it were up to my intellect alone, I wouldn't care at all about the sufferingr of strangers. I'm not a hero; I'm not the guy to come blazing through the sky with a shiny red cape to fight oppression and crime. I simply do not care.

Why should I care at all what the Aztecs do? I've no friends or family affected. If I were born in Rome in say 100 B.C., I probably wouldn't find slavery immoral. If I were raised on a plantation in Georgia back in 1835, I'm pretty sure the same mentality would be prevalent. Only that I was raised and indoctrinated into our modern morality systems do I find slavery a tad upsetting. If I were in a country that still practiced slavery I wouldn't come rushing in and saving the slaves. It's their laws and ethics, no more flawed than our own.

Morality is simply too subjective to argue over which system is better. Example: I personally think that women who wear bare midriff tops and miniskirts dress like whores, even though they may not be slutty. But is there anything objectively wrong with the way they dress? I don't think so. See what I mean? You take objective observations and place them into artificial boundries. That's why I don't adhere to any one system of morality, and rather pick and choose my beliefs since they're all relative anyway.

By the way, don't say that "Germans" liked to enslave Jews and Slavs. The people who embraced Nazism were in the minority.

[Darth Wong]

There are no absolutes, but there are values which are nearly universal among humans, and for good reason (such as "killing is bad").

Appeal to consensus.

A fallacy? Where? The "the are no absolutes" part? That's not an argument, and thus cannot be fallacious (could be false, though). Or is it the "there are values which are nearly universal among humans, ..." part? That's a not an argument either, but simply a descriptive statement. Since neither one implies the other (or even claimed to do so by Mr. Wong), the whole thing is also not an argument.

It's quite clear that his debating style is to sit on the sidelines and wait for opportunities to take cheap shots.

[GeeYouEye]

Admittedly I haven't studied Kant, but from what I gather, it would also be disrespecting the hypothetical tribe by allowing them to continue practicing slavery.

Quite so.

Good. I get the feeling we may be arguing semantics then.

Okay, I see; you're confusing moral relativism with pursuit of a false morality or false moral code. There is a rather significant difference. The KKK, Nazi's, pre-1865 USA, etc. are examples of pursuit of a false morality (wether they thought it was an absolute moral code is irrelevant; it wasn't the absolute (or objectivist, if you like) morality), whereas UltraViolence83 here is an example of a moral relativist.

Oh no, I'm not confusing anything. Anyone who claims that moral relativism necessitates tolerance of differing moral views quite simply does not understand the definition of moral relativism. Examine it closely: if moral relativism dictated any particular value, then that value would be an absolute. Moral relativism would defeat itself by transforming into a particular kind of moral objectivism.

Until you view it from an objective standpoint. If you can say a particular thing is right or wrong, depending on what culture or race or whatever is doing it, then it's moral relativism. Also consider that moral relativism does not necessarily mean tolerance; the KKK (who, incidentally, fit into both relativism and pursuit of a false morality) believed that if a white man raped a black girl, it was an embarrassment, and shameful, but were the inverse to happen, it was a cause for lynching. No, tolerance is not the hallmark of moral relativism, and while I failed to provide examples of the opposite until now, I never meant that it was.

Now, it just so happens that the Western culture values tolerance, hence the moral relativist living in such conditions would be obligated to be tolerant, but her/his tolerance does not follow from the mere fact that s/he is a moral relativist.

It can follow from it, depending on the beliefs of the relativist in question; if they believe that if a culture that practices slavery is okay simply because they are respecting (in the non-Kant sense of the word) the culture's beliefs, then yes it does. Conversely yet likewise, if they are in a capitalist society, for example, and they believe that all other capitalist societies are bad, then their intolerance follows from the fact that s/he is a moral relativist.

PS. Sorry it took so long to respond here... Real Life? got in the way.

EDIT 1: UBB
EDIT 2: That "?" after Real Life should be a "tm", but the board's software doesn't recognize that character, apparently.

[Kuroneko]

Oh no, I'm not confusing anything. Anyone who claims that moral relativism necessitates tolerance of differing moral views quite simply does not understand the definition of moral relativism. Examine it closely: if moral relativism dictated any particular value, then that value would be an absolute. Moral relativism would defeat itself by transforming into a particular kind of moral objectivism.

Until you view it from an objective standpoint. If you can say a particular thing is right or wrong, depending on what culture or race or whatever is doing it, then it's moral relativism.

Right.

Also consider that moral relativism does not necessarily mean tolerance; the KKK (who, incidentally, fit into both relativism and pursuit of a false morality) ...

Which is precisely what I've been arguing all along. In which case, your suspicious of this being an argument over semantics is likely to be completely correct. I think the only disagreement is over the distinction with "the pursuit of false morality," as you call it. You seemed to insist on it as a semi-separate category; I did not make such a distinction, and simply considered it a subtype of relativism. Heh. Semantics, indeed.

Now, it just so happens that the Western culture values tolerance, hence the moral relativist living in such conditions would be obligated to be tolerant, but her/his tolerance does not follow from the mere fact that s/he is a moral relativist.

It can follow from it, depending on the beliefs of the relativist in question; if they believe that if a culture that practices slavery is okay simply because they are respecting (in the non-Kant sense of the word) the culture's beliefs, then yes it does.

But then it does not follow just from the fact that s/he a moral relativist, but from that and also from the beliefs of the relativist in question; it is quite possible for a relativist to lack such beliefs. That's all I meant. Semantics, again, it seems.

[GeeYouEye]

Ladies and gentlemen, exhibit A on moral relativism.

Let me provide a more extreme, and less hypothetical example. The Aztecs. Killed something like 10,000 people a year to keep the sun rising. Would you agree that that is an immoral act? Or perhaps we should move to the Nazis. Got the idea yet? The Germans didn't think it was immoral to enslave Slavs and enslave and kill Jews. Should we not have "butt[ed] into their business"?

It is far more moral to interfere with the affairs of others than it is to sit idly by and watch people suffer no matter what you call it (sitting around, noninterference, respect for other cultures, etc.)

I don't think it is. Granted I'm a pretty nice guy in real life and I hate to see people "disrespected," as Kant would put it, but I've felt that my kindness is my weakness. If it were up to my intellect alone, I wouldn't care at all about the sufferingr of strangers. I'm not a hero; I'm not the guy to come blazing through the sky with a shiny red cape to fight oppression and crime. I simply do not care.

That's your choice, though I certainly can't call it a moral or (acc. to Kant) respectful one. You don't have to go looking for slaves to free (though it would be a great thing to do), but it would be far more respectful to try to free those you did come across.

Why should I care at all what the Aztecs do? I've no friends or family affected. If I were born in Rome in say 100 B.C., I probably wouldn't find slavery immoral. If I were raised on a plantation in Georgia back in 1835, I'm pretty sure the same mentality would be prevalent. Only that I was raised and indoctrinated into our modern morality systems do I find slavery a tad upsetting. If I were in a country that still practiced slavery I wouldn't come rushing in and saving the slaves. It's their laws and ethics, no more flawed than our own.

Absolutely wrong. "Our" ethics and morals are better (or rather, closer to that elusive absolute/objectivist morality), though by no means perfect. Furthermore, I'd argue that the USA in the 1990's and beyond is/was a good deal more moral (with laws to that effect) than the USA in 1835, and that the two radically different societies be judged using the same standards of morality.

Morality is simply too subjective to argue over which system is better. Example: I personally think that women who wear bare midriff tops and miniskirts dress like whores, even though they may not be slutty. But is there anything objectively wrong with the way they dress? I don't think so. See what I mean? You take objective observations and place them into artificial boundries. That's why I don't adhere to any one system of morality, and rather pick and choose my beliefs since they're all relative anyway.

Not if you accept that there is an absolute morality. But you do bring up an interesting point: where do certain less obvious things lie in the hierarchy? This is one of those cases where using the "Keep Your Hands To Yourself" guideline is beneficial. If it doesn't violate that guideline, then it is probably moral. Another good test is to see if a hypothetical solution to a perceived immorality does more harm than good; in this case the "solution" of making laws prohibiting that kind of dress certainly doesn't help anyone, and it can be argued that it hurts by violating their right to free speech/expression. The "solution" violates KYHTY to a far greater magnitude (violating the right of freedom of speech) than the problem (no violation). As for the question: which is more moral between miniskirts, etc. and Burkhas?, the answer is that they are equally moral, of course ensuring neither (and nothing in between, of course) is prohibited. Indeed any law which would prohibit dress, of any fashion, is immoral.

By the way, don't say that "Germans" liked to enslave Jews and Slavs. The people who embraced Nazism were in the minority.

Not as small a minority (if one at all) as you might think, but I will provide other examples anyway: how's the Crusades as an example? The Crusaders conquered (or tried to anyway), pillaged, plundered, killed, and raped; and yet they most certainly had very popular support back home. If some external force could have intervened and stopped the Crusades, they absolutely should have. Or perhaps an example where the populous was less removed from the event: witch hunts. Killing the witches was certainly popular, but should it have happened? Of course not.

[GeeYouEye]

Also consider that moral relativism does not necessarily mean tolerance; the KKK (who, incidentally, fit into both relativism and pursuit of a false morality) ...

Which is precisely what I've been arguing all along. In which case, your suspicious of this being an argument over semantics is likely to be completely correct. I think the only disagreement is over the distinction with "the pursuit of false morality," as you call it. You seemed to insist on it as a semi-separate category; I did not make such a distinction, and simply considered it a subtype of relativism. Heh. Semantics, indeed.

Oh I think there's still need for a distinction. The KKK were, admittedly, a better example of relativism than pursuit of a false morality. Since I can't think of an example from history (which is a good thing in this case), consider a hypothetical alien race who believed in an absolute/objectivist moral hierarchy, but what they thought was moral (killing, slavery, torture, etc.) was most certainly not. Yet they apply the principles derived from this (very warped) view of morality equally, among their own people and to the planets they visited. One could not call them moral relativists, since they apply their morality equally, disregarding species, race, or culture, and so in a case like this a semi-separate category (pursuit of a false morality) is needed. Fortunately, this hypothetical alien species with that warped a view of morality would have wiped themselves out long ago. True though, on Earth, anyone who you could conceivably put in that category would also fall under the moral relativist category.

It can follow from it, depending on the beliefs of the relativist in question; if they believe that if a culture that practices slavery is okay simply because they are respecting (in the non-Kant sense of the word) the culture's beliefs, then yes it does.

But then it does not follow just from the fact that s/he a moral relativist, but from that and also from the beliefs of the relativist in question; it is quite possible for a relativist to lack such beliefs. That's all I meant. Semantics, again, it seems.

Works for me. I suppose I should have made that clearer; the beliefs (or to be more specific, yet blunt about it: wherever the relativist is a hypocrite or granting special privileges to one group or all but one group) matter, but you won't find a tolerant-because-of-culture person or an intolerant person without finding a moral relativist. One simply cannot exist without the element of moral relativism (hypothetical alien species aside).