Missing posts / members X
Philosophy Forums was hacked on September 6th. Due to the hacker, everything between July 24th and September 6th is permanently missing. Unfortunately, automated backups had to be turned off months ago because they were crashing the server. We're evaluating how to stop this from happening again. You may be able to find your own posts in a google cache to re-post them, if you want to.

Absolute moral truths

Absolute moral truths
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 462
Total Posts: 9781
#21 - Quote - Permalink
2 of 3 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 2:04 PM:

GodEmporerShaw wrote:

Ummm, ok. So you concede?

No.

You asked for an absolute moral truth. I replied that one is only acting morally if one is acting in regard for respect for people. I stand by that.
GodEmporerShaw
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2010

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 95
#22 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 3:58 PM:

nickbor wrote:
Ok. I have a question. I understand an absolute truth must apply to all people at all times, but does an absolute MORAL truth fit this, or does it only apply to those whom are morally inclined? Lets say for example that there was one person in the world whom believed the world was flat, surely that does not mean the earth being round is a relative truth, it's still an absolute truth despite this one persons belief. Likewise just because there is one persons who does not believe in morality doesn't that still mean there is moral truth in the world despite his/her belief?


What I mean when I refer to an absolute moral truth is a guiding moral principle which is universally true regardless of any conceivable circumstance. For example, for murder to be considered and absolute moral truth it would either have to be always evil, regardless of any conceivable circumstance, or, always good, regardless of any conceivable circumstance.

Now, as for you example, that one should "not always lie." Even though I can't think of a circumstance where one should always lie what your doing is basically saying that lying is amoral. In your example, lying is the guiding moral principle that I was referring to, and for me to accept your contention you need to demonstrate how always lying, or not, is either absolutely moral (good) or absolutely immoral (evil). Let me put it this way, if a person were to always lie there are bound to be instances when their lies serve a moral (good) purpose, or, an immoral (evil) one.I argue that not always lying is neither moral or immoral and therefore not an absolute moral truth. (I have to give you credit though. Of all the times I've asked this question, your answer really stumped me for a minute.)
GodEmporerShaw
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2010

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 95
#23 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 4:09 PM:

Banno wrote:

No.

You asked for an absolute moral truth. I replied that one is only acting morally if one is acting in regard for respect for people. I stand by that.


If you need not always demonstrate this respect for persons then it is not an absolute moral truth. Again what your offering is just a potential description of what it is to act morally, and, not an example of an absolute moral truth. Respect for persons is neither absolutely moral (good), or, absolutely immoral (evil). Therefore it is not an absolute moral truth.
creativesoul
Unapproachable
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 16, 2010
Location: The rock

Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 1271
#24 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 4:13 PM:

the OP:

Can anyone name one absolute moral truth?

Absolute moral truth being defined as any action which can be considered either moral (good), regardless of any conceivable circumstance, or, any action which can be considered immoral (evil), regardless of any conceivable circumstance.


Confining absolute moral truth to a criterion of "any action which can be considered good regardless of any conceivable circumstance" is pure self-defeating nonsense. It is to hold the identification of an action which is necessarily good hostage to that which is not. The measure of an absolute good action is had by virtue of it being good for all when universally put it into practice, not by whether or not it has been. The measure of practicality is had by virtue of whether or not it can be put to use, not by whether or not everyone wants to. The existence of wrongdoing, therefore, does not deny an absolute moral truth.

The absolute moral truth is that humans necessarily trust one another for our very survival. We enact trust long before we are able to understand what that means. From that it follows that humans are necessarily social creatures who trust and depend upon one another for our sustenance. These are empirical verifiable facts.

A hypothetical situation(Nazis at your door when Jews are in the attic) that is necessarily grounded upon the previous direct violation of the moral truth in question does not make the moral truth any less practical, valid, nor universal.
nickbor
Unmoderated Member

Usergroup: Unmoderated Member
Joined: Oct 04, 2010

Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 70
#25 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 4:39 PM:

creativesoul wrote:


Confining absolute moral truth to a criterion of "any action which can be considered good regardless of any conceivable circumstance" is pure self-defeating nonsense. It is to hold the identification of an action which is necessarily good hostage to that which is not. The measure of an absolute good action is had by virtue of it being good for all when universally put it into practice, not by whether or not it has been. The measure of practicality is had by virtue of whether or not it can be put to use, not by whether or not everyone wants to. The existence of wrongdoing, therefore, does not deny an absolute moral truth.

The absolute moral truth is that humans necessarily trust one another for our very survival. We enact trust long before we are able to understand what that means. From that it follows that humans are necessarily social creatures who trust and depend upon one another for our sustenance. These are empirical verifiable facts.

A hypothetical situation(Nazis at your door when Jews are in the attic) that is necessarily grounded upon the previous direct violation of the moral truth in question does not make the moral truth any less practical, valid, nor universal.



I agree, we can't just disregard "any concievable circumstance" as according to GodEmporerShaw's definition. I could redifine the word emancipate to fit what I beleive to be true and portray that definition as absolute truth when in reality I've just created a relative truth.
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 462
Total Posts: 9781
#26 - Quote - Permalink
1 of 1 people found this post helpful
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 4:51 PM:

GodEmporerShaw wrote:


If you need not always demonstrate this respect for persons then it is not an absolute moral truth. Again what your offering is just a potential description of what it is to act morally, and, not an example of an absolute moral truth. Respect for persons is neither absolutely moral (good), or, absolutely immoral (evil). Therefore it is not an absolute moral truth.

I think you mis the point.

If you are not showing respect for persons, you are not acting morally. This is universally true. So it is a universal moral truth.
GodEmporerShaw
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2010

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 95
#27 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 5:53 PM:

creativesoul wrote:

The existence of wrongdoing, therefore, does not deny an absolute moral truth.


I never meant to imply that it did. The purpose of this thread is the philosophical pursuit of absolute moral truth's. The criteria that I used to define an absolute moral truth were simply intended as a pre-emptive attempt to define what constitutes an absolute moral truth. Perhaps you can offer a better working definition.

creativesoul wrote:

The absolute moral truth is that humans necessarily trust one another for our very survival.


It is true that we are dependant on one another for our survival, but, to necessarily trust one another, without sound reason for doing so, is pure folly. You can give a person the benefit of the doubt, but, you would be a fool to necessarily trust them. But, that does not mean that trust is not absolutely moral. I can't think of an example where it could be considered immoral, foolish maybe, but, not immoral. Can't believe no ones ever suggested it before. Congratulations Creativesoul, I think you may have hit upon an absolutely moral guiding principle, even by my narrow definition, though I wouldn't suggest it to anyone. But, it begs the question, is it immoral to distrust?

GodEmporerShaw
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2010

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 95
#28 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 6:10 PM:

Banno wrote:

I think you mis the point.

If you are not showing respect for persons, you are not acting morally. This is universally true. So it is a universal moral truth.


No, I think your missing mine. Your describing what constitutes moral behavior. While it may be an accurate description (truth), it is not an example of an absolutely moral/immoral action (universal moral truth).
Banno
Tiff's bit of wruff.
Avatar

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Dow nunder

Total Topics: 462
Total Posts: 9781
#29 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 6:17 PM:

GodEmporerShaw wrote:

...it is not an example of an absolutely moral/immoral action (universal moral truth).

Why not?
GodEmporerShaw
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 27, 2010

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 95
#30 - Quote - Permalink
Posted Jan 18, 2011 - 6:43 PM:

Banno wrote:

Why not?


My torture example served to demonstrate that it could be moral to not show respect for persons, atleast in that scenario.
locked
Download thread as
  • 80/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5



This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.