quote:An absolute moral code is one that comes from an (allegedly) external source.
Also, this is false too. An absolute moral code is simply one that is true absolutely and objectively for all people and all situations. It does not need to come from an external source. It can also simply be, or even come from an internal source.
For instance, as I understand it, Mormons usually believe in an absolute morality that is independent from God, not created by Him. I could be mistaken about this though - the LDS on this forum could probably explain better.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This is precisely why the failure to believe in an absolute morality leads to self-righteousnesss and an unwillingness to refine one's moral beliefs... because if there is no absolute morality against which to judge your morality then your morality is infallible, no matter what it says.
Well, when you encounter an idea that goes against your current moral beliefs, you can try to be very attentive to your involuntary thoughts and emotions and think about whether you would really achieve a more peaceful inner state if you lived by the new idea.
You might also decide, when you feel some involuntary inner prompting to do something, that it would give you more inner peace overall just to ignore it. For instance, it might be the case that you would be happier and more at peace not to help the poor (spending all money you would give to the poor on yourself) and just get into the habit of defusing any urges you might have to help the poor until those urges disappear altogether. I know that that will sound harsh to many of you, but if on balance you'd be better off not helping the poor, why would you help them? The questions are whether you really can prevent yourself from feeling bad for the poor, whether not helping the poor might make it less likely for you to get help if you ever become poor, and whether not helping the poor might harm you more now by creating societal unrest.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:How can one moral code be "better" than any other if there is no absolute moral truth with which to determine what is "better"? Why is fairer better? Why is "effective" better?
It's better for a given value of "better," of course. But I would assume that it's inarguable that, given the stated goals of any ethical systems, it is possible to evaluate their effectiveness at achieving those goals -- even using their own measurements.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Has anyone, thoughout recorded history, ever posited an "Absolute Moral Code" as you described without refering it to some ultimate being or source (or...God)? I'm not talking about an off-hand reference, in passing, as was yours (no offence, but it was what...two sentences?) I'm talking about a philosophical presentation on "Absolute Morality." Let's say, at least a half-page's worth of discourse. Anything?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those stated goals: how can we decide whether they are good goals?
You answered that with "effective"; but you didn't say effective toward what end. Benefiting oneself? "Cheat everyone you can without getting caught" is pretty effective for that. Benefiting others? Why should I? Answering that puts us back into evaluating a "moral" code by reference to another standard.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Effective at maintaining society. That's what a moral code is for. If you found yourself stranded in a deserted island, would morality be necessary? Who would you apply it to?
So to answer why people shouldn't just steal if they think they won't be caught think about this: Would you want everyone who thinks they could start stealing without being caught to do so? Wouldn't that make you trust your fellow man much less, wouldn't a society of thieves be a bad place to live in?
Posts: 459 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wouldn't all of this depend on what you believe the nature of man is? If he is naturally bad or good? So if you trusted man to do the right thing, then our codes would be trusting. If you didn't trust man to do the right thing, it would be much more restrictive.
In other words, if you take your family and move to an isolated island with no other contact, will the children ever learn how to do bad things?
I think religion, particularly Christianity, assumes that the children will choose to do bad things.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Cheat everyone you can without getting caught" is pretty effective for that.
The question here is "what are you attempting to achieve by cheating?" If there are other options which are more effective at achieving this goal and less detrimental in other ways, an ethical system built around this concept is seriously flawed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean, it is more effective to build and grow by cooperating, rather than by cheating? What if the person's goal was to destroy everything?
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there are probably better ways to do that, if that's really a goal. Although I don't think that's the case.
In general, DOING things -- like cheating, or cooperating, or destroying things -- isn't the focus of a code of ethics. Rather, the decision to do or not do something springs from a higher-order appeal to an ideal of some sort. If, for example, someone believes that the world is a distracting illusion preventing us from realizing our true potential as spirit beings, he might well choose to put that ideal into practice by attempting to destroy everything. But he might not.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Has anyone, thoughout recorded history, ever posited an "Absolute Moral Code" as you described without refering it to some ultimate being or source (or...God)?"
Sswyak- I have. I spent about 18 months battling with David Bowles here about morality.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rather than me asking all the questions that I'm sure you've already answered...you got a link?
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My claim was that, given intelligence, there would be a single code of behavior that could be derived through logic and science that would minimize harmful conflict while not hindering positive interaction.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should i actually have to find it? My argument was simply that there IS one. I think there is a strong chain of logic that leads to the statement I made, and so its reasonable, even if I can't fill in all the details.
David also convinced me that there are better terms for the above then "absolute morality."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
All this about benefiting society begs the question. Why should I want to benefit society? When you answer that, you appeal to another moral standard.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see why you would want to benefit society if it wouldn't benefit you yourself in some way.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
My argument was simply that there IS one. I think there is a strong chain of logic that leads to the statement I made, and so its reasonable, even if I can't fill in all the details.
