Are humans always morally equally valuable?

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

I tend to agree with you OutOfBreath, at least with the 'relative' part. My first impression is the fact that morality is different from one culture to another and varies within a given culture over time. Wouldn't this fact extinguish the notion that morals are absolute? It comes down to the absolutists claiming a hypothesis contrary to direct observation and experience which imposes a rather high burden.

You always have such a balanced perspective

Baraka,

Do you believe the existence of God is also relative?

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Baraka,

Do you believe the existence of God is also relative?

This is a tough one for me, ffg and I know where you are going with this, as my husband as already tried to 'corner' me with this argument (we had a 'spirited debate about this not too long ago). I imagine that you feel morals are absolute, is this the case? As far as your question, I honestly do not know the answer, although I tend to lean towards the notion that the concept of God is relative.

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

This is a tough one for me, ffg and I know where you are going with this, as my husband as already tried to 'corner' me with this argument (we had a 'spirited debate about this not too long ago). I imagine that you feel morals are absolute, is this the case? As far as your question, I honestly do not know the answer, although I tend to lean towards the notion that the concept of God is relative.

I believe that morals are absolute, yes. However, I believe morals extend from human purpose which is not entirely consistent across all cultures. Because of this, I can certainly get on board with cultural differences in moralities to a certain extent. But the core moral vaules of life and happiness are very much absolutes, IMO.

What I don't understand about moral relativism is why it's valued externally but not internally. Why have I never heard someone discuss the relativity of morality in the context of pro-lifers, or racists, for instance? As a concept, moral relativism seems a bit cart-before-the-horse for my tastes.

If you lean "towards the notion that the concept of God is relative", then you're definitely consistent there, since those beliefs also vary by culture. Personally, I think God exists or it doesn't. I can't logically justify God's existence as being dependent on beliefs.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

I believe that morals are absolute, yes. However, I believe morals extend from human purpose which is not entirely consistent across all cultures. Because of this, I can certainly get on board with cultural differences in moralities to a certain extent. But the core moral vaules of life and happiness are very much absolutes, IMO.

So you believe morals are absolute, except in some cases? Not sure I follow you. It seems to me that the arguments for absolute morality comes down to the idea that morality has always existed or it has been created by a supernatural "creator."

farfromglorified wrote:

What I don't understand about moral relativism is why it's valued externally but not internally. Why have I never heard someone discuss the relativity of morality in the context of pro-lifers, or racists, for instance? As a concept, moral relativism seems a bit cart-before-the-horse for my tastes.

How is it NOT valued internally? Do you mean there are folks that except the fact that others have a different moral code, but do not 'believe' their moral code internally? Perhaps you can expound.

farfromglorified wrote:

If you lean "towards the notion that the concept of God is relative", then you're definitely consistent there, since those beliefs also very by culture. Personally, I think God exists or it doesn't. I can't logically justify God's existence as being dependent on beliefs.

I can dig this. I will say, imo, the sets of moral values cultures possess today have evolved largely by trial and error - more or less keeping what works and rejecting that which does not work. However, such process does not distinguish between absolute and relative morals though the fact that the evolution occurs would seem to support relativism.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

You did show me. You believe my statement was false. You even demonstrate that here:

"Or, it could just be a statement."

That doesn't mean your statement is false.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

That doesn't mean your statement is false.

Of course it does. Why else would you have said "or"?

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

Of course it does. Why else would you have said "or"?

Lol, this is getting trivial. "Or", if anything, as in "either/or."

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

So you believe morals are absolute, except in some cases? Not sure I follow you. It seems to me that the arguments for absolute morality comes down to the idea that morality has always existed or it has been created by a supernatural "creator."

Not really, no. I don't believe morals are absolute, "except in some cases". Rather, I believe morals are directly related to human values. There are values consistent across all humanity (life, happiness, esteem, etc). Then there are other values unique to certain parts of humanity, dictated by unique circumstances.

I certainly don't believe that morality has always existed or was created by a supernatural "creator". I believe morality is created by each man who lives, relative to his or her own values. This actually may sound like a "moral relativism" argument, but it's really not. Men do not exist in vacuums and their values and methods for achieving those values are inextricably linked to the objective world. That is how morality stands as an absolute.

Morality is similar to mathematics. My usage of math may be different than your own, depending on cultural differences. However, the underlying laws of identity and operation are exactly the same. And if either of us violates those laws in our usage, we are acting "immorally".

How is it NOT valued internally? Do you mean there are folks that except the fact that others have a different moral code, but do not 'believe' their moral code internally? Perhaps you can expound.

I certainly believe that most people don't believe their own BS, so to speak, on morality. I see evidence of this everyday. Many people will go on and on about "moral relativism" and the validity of all moral stances. Then they will turn around and condemn the racist or the bigot or the holder of certain moralities different than their own. And not that I'm trying to defend racists or bigots. They are immoral. However, I can't understand how violent cannibals on far away coasts can be moral while bigots are immoral.

I can dig this. I will say, imo, the sets of moral values cultures possess today have evolved largely by trial and error - more or less keeping what works and rejecting that which does not work. However, such process does not distinguish between absolute and relative morals though the fact that the evolution occurs would seem to support relativism.

Why would it support "relativism"? Things evolving largely by "trial and error" would seem to imply an absolute standard against which actions are measured and deemed either successful or unsuccessful.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

Lol, this is getting trivial. "Or", if anything, as in "either/or."

So in other words you meant that my statement was true, as was the original statement I took issue with?

OutOfBreath

baraka wrote:

You always have such a balanced perspective

Thank you. I do try.

Peace
Dan

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Not really, no. I don't believe morals are absolute, "except in some cases". Rather, I believe morals are directly related to human values. There are values consistent across all humanity (life, happiness, esteem, etc). Then there are other values unique to certain parts of humanity, dictated by unique circumstances.

I certainly don't believe that morality has always existed or was created by a supernatural "creator". I believe morality is created by each man who lives, relative to his or her own values. This actually may sound like a "moral relativism" argument, but it's really not. Men do not exist in vacuums and their values and methods for achieving those values are inextricably linked to the objective world. That is how morality stands as an absolute.

Morality is similar to mathematics. My usage of math may be different than your own, depending on cultural differences. However, the underlying laws of identity and operation are exactly the same. And if either of us violates those laws in our usage, we are acting "immorally".



I certainly believe that most people don't believe their own BS, so to speak, on morality. I see evidence of this everyday. Many people will go on and on about "moral relativism" and the validity of all moral stances. Then they will turn around and condemn the racist or the bigot or the holder of certain moralities different than their own. And not that I'm trying to defend racists or bigots. They are immoral. However, I can't understand how violent cannibals on far away coasts can be moral while bigots are immoral.



Why would it support "relativism"? Things evolving largely by "trial and error" would seem to imply an absolute standard against which actions are measured and deemed either successful or unsuccessful.

Your argument sounds suspiciously like objectivism. I have to get to work so I will be brief.

There is no question that morality can be "discovered" by rational thought but using the word "discovery" does not to imply existence independent of mind. In fact, I suggested the adoption of a particular set of morals may have survival value for the species. Others claim that morality is "discovered" by authority or the supernatural.

If you claim that morals exist independent of mind and are absolute then you must provide evidence that they do in fact exist outside the mind and independent of mind. I have neither seen nor heard evidence to support that notion. Your arguments look more like rationalizatons than an appeal to rational (i.e., objective in your parlance) thought (with regard to moral absolutes).

Interesting debate. I'll be back later, perhaps

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Your argument sounds suspiciously like objectivism. I have to get to work so I will be brief.

Hehe..."suspiciously"?? It is objectivism.

There is no question that morality can be "discovered" by rational thought but using the word "discovery" does not to imply existence independent of mind. In fact, I suggested the adoption of a particular set of morals may have survival value for the species. Others claim that morality is "discovered" by authority or the supernatural.

Certainly it is possible that "morality" is nothing more than an invention of the mind. It is also entirely possible that "genocide" and "sufferring" and "unhappiness" are nothing more than inventions of the mind as well.

If you claim that morals exist independent of mind and are absolute then you must provide evidence that they do in fact exist outside the mind and independent of mind. I have neither seen nor heard evidence to support that notion. Your arguments look more like rationalizatons than an appeal to rational (i.e., objective in your parlance) thought (with regard to moral absolutes).

Interesting debate. I'll be back later, perhaps

If you want evidence that morality exists independent of the mind, try this:

STEP 1: Value life.
STEP 2: Burn down your house.
STEP 3: Poison your food.
STEP 4: Give away all your water.
STEP 5: Continue living.

baraka

farfromglorified wrote:

Hehe..."suspiciously"?? It is objectivism.



Certainly it is possible that "morality" is nothing more than an invention of the mind. It is also entirely possible that "genocide" and "sufferring" and "unhappiness" are nothing more than inventions of the mind as well.



If you want evidence that morality exists independent of the mind, try this:

STEP 1: Value life.
STEP 2: Burn down your house.
STEP 3: Poison your food.
STEP 4: Give away all your water.
STEP 5: Continue living.

Ah, I got 'sucked' back in to this debate. Let me just ask you this: Is abortion murder or not? Is gay marriage an offense or not? Are illegal immigrants just criminals or not? We can't even agree what a plain piece of text means (Second Amendment to the US Constitution). So, if there are absolute morals nobody knows what they are and there is no lack of self important preachers to give you conflicting opinions about them.

I don't feel like your example above proved your case. In my view you can't prove anything except from some assumed premises, not in mathematics, philosophy or anywhere else. That's all proof means, to derive something logically from something else. So if you have a "proof" that absolute morals exist then I ask what are the premises which you assume in order to reach that conclusion. And your premises seem to be more like wishful thinking.

OK, I'm really off to work now!

farfromglorified

baraka wrote:

Ah, I got 'sucked' back in to this debate. Let me just ask you this: Is abortion murder or not?

No. Abortion is not murder. Murder is the willful destruction of one human life by another. A fetus is not another human life. It is a life entirely part of and dependent on the life of its "murderer".

However, that is my opinion. Abortion is a moral tightrope. I believe it is morally ok, but I'd never actually want to be party to an abortion since it is far closer to murder than I'd ever want to get.

Is gay marriage an offense or not?

Gay marriage cannot be "immoral". Homosexuality could be made out to be immoral, I suppose, but that would make heterosexuality immoral as well.

Homosexuality is not a moral issue. It is an issue of disgust for some people. Disgust and morals are two very different things.

Are illegal immigrants just criminals or not?

Yes, in the sense they are breaking the law. Immigration as a whole is not really a moral issue either. The individual motivations for immigration are moral issues.

We can't even agree what a plain piece of text means (Second Amendment to the US Constitution). So, if there are absolute morals nobody knows what they are and there is no lack of self important preachers to give you conflicting opinions about them.

And this is entirely valid. Accessing an objective morality is as difficult as accessing esoteric objective mathematical principles. But human failures of discernment do not imply non-existence.

I don't feel like your example above proved your case. In my view you can't prove anything except from some assumed premises, not in mathematics, philosophy or anywhere else. That's all proof means, to derive something logically from something else. So if you have a "proof" that absolute morals exist then I ask what are the premises which you assume in order to reach that conclusion. And your premises seem to be more like wishful thinking.

OK, I'm really off to work now!

Certainly there are assumed premises in the view that morality exists objectively. There are assumed premises required in any view that anything exists objectively, including the mind from which subjectivity would stem. The fundamental assumption of objectivism is the law of identity. We can sit around all day and discuss whether or not that assumption is correct, but we already assume it is by a) communicating with each other and b) assuming that we have distinct identifiable minds in the first place.

And how are my premises "wishful thinking"? What am I wishing for?

Ahnimus

We are as alive as the wind.

Beneath our superior exterior and complex behaviors, we are the sum of billions of parts, gears and what-not moving in tandem to create our selves. In this regard we are no more morally valuable than a grain of sand. No more morally valuable than a fish. However, to us and our self-servant megalomaniacal nature, we are the most important species 'alive'. So much so, that we idolize mythical deities who's sole purpose is us.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

We are as alive as the wind.

Beneath our superior exterior and complex behaviors, we are the sum of billions of parts, gears and what-not moving in tandem to create our selves. In this regard we are no more morally valuable than a grain of sand. No more morally valuable than a fish. However, to us and our self-servant megalomaniacal nature, we are the most important species 'alive'. So much so, that we idolize mythical deities who's sole purpose is us.

So how does your desire to change the world fit into this??????

Ahnimus

farfromglorified wrote:

So how does your desire to change the world fit into this??????

I'm not sure what your question is.

farfromglorified

Ahnimus wrote:

I'm not sure what your question is.

Numerous times you've proclaimed a desire to see this world change, specifically the behavior of people. Those proclamations imply that such changes would be good, as opposed to bad.

Yet here you proclaim that humans are "no more morally valuable than a grain of sand".

I'm having trouble reconciling these things. Hence, my question.

gue_barium

farfromglorified wrote:

So in other words you meant that my statement was true, as was the original statement I took issue with?

No. If you want to call it true, that's your prerogative.

farfromglorified

gue_barium wrote:

No. If you want to call it true, that's your prerogative.

What would you call it then?