Absolute Morality

[The Question]

Well said, GeeYouEye.

KYFHO or KYHTY is a simple concept to describe, but damn hard for some people with collectivist tendencies to adhere to.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

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

I think there are certain absolute states, but these may be tendencies of the human spirit and Will rather than judgemental certainties. For instance, wouldn't you agree that virtually all individuals desire freedom, even if their concept of what freedom is may be different? I think, fundamentally, there is an underlying reason for this--and so, we can find things common to all humans, just not reached to a full potential, and sifted through the sands of perspective.

As always, one must be careful in philosophy of trying to apply an abstract to the real world. The real world is not a kind place for abstracts, but demands things which can be shown to function in it. That's my main problem with Kantian morality.

[GeeYouEye]

As always, one must be careful in philosophy of trying to apply an abstract to the real world. The real world is not a kind place for abstracts, but demands things which can be shown to function in it. That's my main problem with Kantian morality.

Oh I don't know about that. Just because the real world happens to be a pretty crappy place, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it a better one. If we can, we should try to change the world to make it a safe place for Kantian morality. Kantian morality can't be changed. The world can.

[UltraViolence83]

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.

I don't care what you think of my morality, or lack thereof as you'd put it. I have a condition that many may see as a weakness, or that makes me a monster: I can't find sympathy for people I don't know. I just don't care. It's my nature, and I don't want to change it. If I cared about others so much, I'd be broke from donating to charities. I care for people who deserve my love, not unknown strangers.

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.

There you go again with claiming that morality is correct, simply because it's based on objectivity. Aren't most morals based on something objective? Like how I said I don't like girls dressing like whores. It's objective the way they dress, but it means different things. I don't see any others' morality better or worse than the modern western ideals we have today. If I lived in the 1100's in France, I'd probably support the Crusades, and voice hatred of the English.

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.

I won't except an absolute morality because morality is subjective, and thus cannot be "absolute" as I've been saying all along. I never advocated the outlawing of whore-dress, because it's their right to dress the way they want. Just because I don't think of them highly doesn't mean I don't think they shouldn't exist. I'm a big advocate of KYHTYS however, and support it.

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.

Actually, despite their brutality, the Crusades were important to the world we live in today. They increased the flow of trade from the East and gave Europeans a taste of what it holds. Without the Crusades, we'd live in a somewhat different world right now. It had good and bad aspects, though the bad aspects did overweigh the good by a large margin I will admit. The Nazi experimentations, they gave us insight into human biology we wouldn't have otherwise. Now I find while cutting unwilling people open IS sick, it still had benefits. We also learn from our mistakes. If we didn't make them, we'd make them in the future.

In case you didn't realize, I'm not a humanist, so I don't consider their ideals to be the greatest. Humanism is one of the most stripped-down moral codes I've seen, because it follows the simple equation of pain=bad, so in that respect I guess it can be considered "better" becuase it doesn't carry as much baggage like other codes of ethics do.

What you don't seem to understand is that though it is based on objective ideas (such as life and death), the implementations of what they mean to you is subjective. I, and many others would relish in the drawing and quartering of the persons responsible for the WTC and Pentagon attacks, even though this involves pain and death. Understand?

I find "disrespect" to mean "Not minding your own business." Now many people find slavery to be abhorrent, and they should think that, but if the people enslaved aren't people I know, I don't care. If I tried to save a stranger the slave-owner would say "Keep your hands to yourself! Mind your own business!" and I would find myself in a moral dilemma because I violated my own code of conduct.*

I believe in the idea of "wealth to the strong, death to the weakling!" This doesn't mean I think that crippled people are "weak," quite the opposite: they are forced to survive in a world that function better than them, thus they must keep up. That makes them strong. My beef is with self-respectless will-less stains on society. If I see a stranger who is dying of a crack overdose, I will not help him. I will think "serves that weak-willed addict right!" and walk away.

*I'm an American, and I consider myself a Patriot because I hold the ideals of the Founding Fathers above all others. If slavery was being reintroduced intot he country again, I'd fight against it because it goes against what I was raised to believe in and what I uphold as a citizen, not because I find something objectively wrong with it. In contrast, slavery is very effecient objectively. This is one of the places where my ideals stray from the "real world."

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Oh I don't know about that. Just because the real world happens to be a pretty crappy place, doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it a better one. If we can, we should try to change the world to make it a safe place for Kantian morality. Kantian morality can't be changed. The world can.

Trying to change historical constants seems an impractical expenditure of one's life in a hopeless task. One should look at the history of the revolutions and tumults of the world, and through them determine what actually occurs, and the morality that is effectually found to operate within them (or be operable therein).

[Kuroneko]

Trying to change historical constants seems an impractical expenditure of one's life in a hopeless task. One should look at the history of the revolutions and tumults of the world, and through them determine what actually occurs, and the morality that is effectually found to operate within them (or be operable therein).

It's one thing to evaluate historical events in their own moral context in order to better understand historical events and the motivations behind them, but it's quite another to judge those events and motivations, once understood, from a purely moral perspective. The latter is what I believe GeeYouEye meant. As for practical expenditures... well, again, it is one thing to crusade for a change in the moral fibre of the entire society, and quite another to simply help the people around you to be more aware of ethics. I do not believe the latter to be a waste of effort at all.