Absolute Morality

Originally posted by LemonJello
There are also many different ways this can be put forth. It could be simply a descriptive anthropologic claim that, in fact, differing groups have adopted and do adopt differing sets of social norms; or it could be a metaethical thesis that the truth values of moral claims are relative to the beliefs, practices, etc., of these differing groups; or it co ...[text shortened]... So, yeah, I agree with you that it's considerably more complicated than jammer's initial post.

Yes, there's no doubt moral relativism can be understood in many ways. And it was about time someone mentioned metaethics which isn't the same as normative ethical theories.

If you think of it from the point of view of everyday consciousness who is always a moral agent, a moral relativist sees that morality doesn't have a universal basis. And what kind of moral relativist you turn out to be depends on how you take this relativistic truth. Perhaps the most common solution is to act AS IF the sublime moral truths of the ruling ideology were universal and correct (just to mention one form of consciousness; of course, it must be said, we often are moral relativist without knowing it).

Actually, I may have shot Jammer's formulation down too hastily. There is, as a matter of fact, a moral relativist, or a nihilist really, who thought that the morality of the present culture doesn't support Life and an individual should set new values on his (not her) own. I'm referrering to the nietzschean overman. Jammer's definition of moral relativism could be understood in this respect. However, we must remember, as Nietzsche himself emphasized, that it's not that easy to be an overman (in fact, after Foucault we can argue that it's impossible). The problem here is that this nietzschean approach isn't necessarely relativism: isn't Nietzsche just trying to universalize his perspectivism, to make his overman an incarnation of "absolute" and universally acceptable moral position?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Does the atheist have an absolute moral framework? Or does morality simply depend on personal preference?

What is an absolute moral framework? Would the Golden Rule suffice?

By the way, does the Bible say that you can't eat other people?

Originally posted by Climacus
However, we must remember, as Nietzsche himself emphasized, that it's not that easy to be an overman (in fact, after Foucault we can argue that it's impossible).

Why's that?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Why's that?

What exactly?

Well, Nietzshe thought that the cultural atmosphere he lived in was so corrupted and ruined by christian slave morality that only a few, special individuals (that is Nietzsche himself and Richard Wagner at some point) were able to rise above this given morality. Nietzsce gets never tired of reminding his contemporary readers that he's writing for the future generations.

And Foucault's argument is, I think, that nobody can "beat the system" in a nietzschean sense. There is no subject, only products of structures and history. The rising above the given values requires - the given values. The overman needs the culture he lives in in order to be an overman, the one who abandons the moral framework of the culture; and because he needs it, paradox warning, he cannot really (by definition) be an overman.

I'm sorry for making complicated issues too simple.

Did I even answer your question Bosse?

Originally posted by Climacus
Did I even answer your question Bosse?

Yes, thanks, quite nicely. I had forgotten, being under the corrupting influence of mystagogues like Baudrillard.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
I would simply love to hear what your idea of an 'absolute' moral framework is. If you could lay it out for me (remember I'm quite simple), a list would do....

I would say it is an unchanging moral framework based upon an unchanging point of reference.

In the case of the theist, God alone is the only absolute unchanging point of reference, by which all other things can be measured.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I would say it is an unchanging moral framework based upon an unchanging point of reference.

In the case of the theist, God alone is the only absolute unchanging point of reference, by which all other things can be measured.

He means which moral aspects fit into your framework.

Would you consider the blatant and murderous god of the old testament to be the same moral being in the new testament?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I would say it is an unchanging moral framework based upon an unchanging point of reference.

In the case of the theist, God alone is the only absolute unchanging point of reference, by which all other things can be measured.

The only problem being that God has not made the moral framework available in a clear indisputable form and thus most theists still have a relative and not absolute moral framework.

I have met many theist who state that they would not actually accept a moral framework passed down by God unless it coincides with theirs to a high degree. For example statements similar to: "I cant believe in a God who supports that".

Does anyone have a good definition for morals. There is a distinct difference between our actions and what we believe to be morally acceptable.

Whoever asked about cannibalism, it seems the Bible is in favor of it.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/cannibalism.html

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Whoever asked about cannibalism, it seems the Bible is in favor of it.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/cannibalism.html

I can't say I pick up a tone of approval from those passages, but cannibalism doesn't appear to be explicitly outlawed.

Originally posted by Bad wolf
Should we legalise necrophilia then?

Its all cultural. So the idea of moral relativism is 'go with the flow'
Which is to say, if the culture has been doing X for hundreds of years maybe there is a survival trait in it. Necrophilia I can't imagine as a survival trait considering 50% of the parters are dead🙂 but maybe some hidden culture values it somewhere in a jungle. Disgusting as it sounds to us, I don't think it actually hurts anyone unless there are diseases transmitted after death, not a subject I have delved into I am afraid....
For instance, in Nazi Germany, Jews were killed by the millions in the holocaust, of course we all know and hate that. But what if it was found that out of the billions of people on the planet, a certain ethnic group was found to harbor a disease so deadly it threatens the life of the entire human population. So in this atheist world, wouldn't it be alright to commit genocide? In fact absolutely vital to do so? So in certain circumstances, almost anything we consider repugnant is on the table.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Its all cultural. So the idea of moral relativism is 'go with the flow'
Which is to say, if the culture has been doing X for hundreds of years maybe there is a survival trait in it. Necrophilia I can't imagine as a survival trait considering 50% of the parters are dead🙂 but maybe some hidden culture values it somewhere in a jungle. Disgusting as it sounds ...[text shortened]... do so? So in certain circumstances, almost anything we consider repugnant is on the table.

Which is to say, if the culture has been doing X for hundreds of years maybe there is a survival trait in it. Necrophilia I can't imagine as a survival trait considering 50% of the parters are dead🙂 but maybe some hidden culture values it somewhere in a jungle. Disgusting as it sounds to us, I don't think it actually hurts anyone unless there are diseases transmitted after death, not a subject I have delved into I am afraid....

- I don't think it is disgusting, if proper protective measures were taken and it was safe, go for it man; you should try it sometime. 😕



For instance, in Nazi Germany, Jews were killed by the millions in the holocaust, of course we all know and hate that. But what if it was found that out of the billions of people on the planet, a certain ethnic group was found to harbor a disease so deadly it threatens the life of the entire human population. So in this atheist world, wouldn't it be alright to commit genocide? In fact absolutely vital to do so? So in certain circumstances, almost anything we consider repugnant is on the table.

- I don't think it is a good idea to speculate on such an abstract situation, the fact is that such a situation almost certainly wouldn't arise, not by natural causes anyway...
besides such a question can become quite a slippery slope if we aren't careful...
do you have a more palatable example?

Originally posted by Bad wolf
[b]Which is to say, if the culture has been doing X for hundreds of years maybe there is a survival trait in it. Necrophilia I can't imagine as a survival trait considering 50% of the parters are dead🙂 but maybe some hidden culture values it somewhere in a jungle. Disgusting as it sounds to us, I don't think it actually hurts anyone unless there are diseas ...[text shortened]... ome quite a slippery slope if we aren't careful...
do you have a more palatable example?

Well what about Tay Sac's disease or other ethnic based stuff? Obviously there is no threat to humanity and in fact those ethnic so-called diseases have some other protective factor for something else.
I was just trying to come up with worse case scenerio's. Other than what I mentioned, I can't see any reason for ethnic cleansing that has already gone on in the name of religion....I think its clear a lot of the ethnic cleansing AKA genocide is in the name of some god or other.
Atheists don't do that sort of thing.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Well what about Tay Sac's disease or other ethnic based stuff? Obviously there is no threat to humanity and in fact those ethnic so-called diseases have some other protective factor for something else.
I was just trying to come up with worse case scenerio's. Other than what I mentioned, I can't see any reason for ethnic cleansing that has already gone on i ...[text shortened]... ing AKA genocide is in the name of some god or other.
Atheists don't do that sort of thing.

We agree. 🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is simply not true. (the requires you to know everything bit).
A strong atheist (like me) does not necessarily have solid proof that God does not exist. We merely believe that he doesn't. I also believe that proof in the real world (outside of mathematics) does not exist.

Are you saying that belief in anything or the belief that something does no ...[text shortened]... c about Santa Claus? Elves and fairies? Unicorns? Why does that not require infinite knowledge?

[/b][/b]A strong atheist (like me) does not necessarily have solid proof that God does not exist. We merely believe that he doesn't. I also believe that proof in the real world (outside of mathematics) does not exist.

This obfuscation again?! Your horse has been flogged to dust, and yet you ride on! Your epistemology is in a bigger mess than Michael Moore's diet. Yet again you show your dodgy reasoning:

First you claim that you believe that proof in the real world (excluding math) does not exist (aside: as a statement of propositional truth, this is self-defeating -- since how do you prove that proof doesn't exist?). The question arises: how else then do you arrive at such a conclusion? By arbitrary force of will? Flip a coin? Decide that you're in that mood, therefore you don't believe objective proof exists?

Then you claim to be a "strong atheist", which requires a firm belief that deities don't exist*. This is not merely an agnostic or weak-atheist position where you find the evidence insufficient to merit a belief, but an affirmation of a universal negative**.

Let me use my "little green men" analogy again, since my previous use of it was lost on you:

Let's say I assert that there are little green men somewhere in the universe. For you to assert to the contrary, you will need to have examined every nook and cranny; every planet and galaxy; every moon and comet. Not only that, but you'd have to examine them all at the same time, since the little green men could have moved from one location to the other if you examine them sequentially. So… for you to reasonably believe that no little green men exist anywhere the universe, you will need to be omniscient.

"Ah", you say, "I can believe in whatever I want without infinite knowledge". This brings me to the point of your epistemology; how then do you derive your beliefs? A reasonable person would take the position of agnosticism on any given proposition where they have insufficient proof to merit a position for, or against it.

You however, don't believe in proof -- except math, of course -- but somehow have taken to strong atheism. Again, I have to question your methodology. On the one hand you assert no proof is possible, but then on the other hand you take a position which assumes objective propositional truth. This is absurd. Based on your epistemology, your position of strong atheism is irrational, meaningless, useless, unmerited -- and priceless.

P.S. Taken from a purely logical POV, strong atheism is a universal negation and assumes omniscience (there is that small matter of disbelieving in a qualified deity -- but your arguments have hardly ever strayed from fairies to The Problem of Evil, so I can safely assume that your reasons for asantaclausianism are the same for atheism); it is as presumptuous as claiming that no extra-terrestrial intelligence exists.

* http://www.answers.com/strong%20atheism
** http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Aristotle/AristotelianLogic.html