”So the question is: when we all disagree, and we all claim that our determinations derive from Absolute Principles...which one of us is right”
I have offered a structure to agree or disagree on over the last few days. You have helped me to see how I can parse the structure in a way that can be argued.
I have asserted that we can observe ideals (absolute moral principle). We have not agreed on this.
We have agreed that we can identify individualized circumstances. We agree that individuals will have a unique perspective on circumstances. We agree that individuals may form different opinions about whether or not, or to what extent the situation is directed by the moral principle. We agree that conduct regarding situations and our opinions about situations with regard to some moral may be quite juxtaposed. We agree that the outcomes of our individual experience are difficult to judge as beneficial or not, regarding the short term; and perhaps impossible to assess on the basis of a whole picture.
”This is getting old: Again...you do not prove the existence of am ideal form by merely asserting it. You have simply been begging the question. On what basis should a moral principle enunciated by you or by anybody else be considered as deriving from an ideal form? Is it coherent? Human opinions may exhibit coherency. Is it functional and sensible? Human opinions may be functional and sensible. What does it have which proves (or even suggests) perfection, permanence, and extrahuman origin?
We can set some of these questions aside for the sake of Occam’s Razor, “The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed.”
This is more or less an existential argument. Even though we may have differing opinions about where morals come from, that does not advance the argument of whether or not they exist, or to what extent they exist. I have entertained questions about how an “absolute entity” might be involved and I understand that is a passion of yours; but as I have stated, I consider that line a tangent. You have proposed many thought provoking ideas about how or why things are the way they are, but our argument simply asks, “do these absolute ideas (absolute moral principles) exist or not?”
”Your naked belief does not create the fact of absolute morality nor the absence thereof. It is merely your opinion, and so long as you continue to make it without argument it continues to be unsupported opinion.”
I observe that my day is lighted. Someone could argue that there is not day light, that what I am observing is simply an absence of darkness. Some one else could argue against that proposition. My observation that there is light, is a belief that I am not being deceived by my mind or senses, and it is confirmed by my experience. I can navigate the side walk a little easier than when it is dark, etc.
So, when you say that I have a belief that absolute morality exists you are correct, but the statement that it is a naked belief is not correct. I am able to observe in the realm of ideas that ideal concepts exist. I am able to interpret experiences in reference to such ideas, and I am able to confirm with others that these references are directional.
”It was to restate that all the tribes and people who claimed moral absolutes often had entirely contradictory moral "principles" such as whom it was and was not "good" to kill, sacrifice, rape, and so forth.”
I want to point out here that your examples have been regarding the application of principles, which is not an argument about whether or not the principle exists. Quite the contrary, it confirms your observation that principles are there as a referent to opine about circumstances.
<<<"However, my argument has been that an absolute moral principle exists, as you put it, in the ether" >>>
”I know you have said that but you have made no argument for it.
I have given examples and discussed how they may be observed. You have attempted to demonstrate how principles when applied to circumstances may be viewed with relative subjectivity. I have not disagreed with that. You seem also concerned that we do not have resources to provide absolute proof regarding one person’s view of a circumstance vs another persons view. I have not argued that either. I agree that this is a human limitation. I argue that we can all observe the principle that persons are using as a reference for their opinions on good and bad.
”At the most, you may have argued that "ABC" is in my opinion a decent principle for people to live by.
I haven’t gone that far. I have said that “ABC” is a good idea. Charity is good, justice is good, injustice is bad, etc. are absolutes. Person or group “X” may hold the opinion that the conduct of “X”has been charitable, and person or group “Y” may argue that the conduct of person “X” does not qualify as charitable behavior. But the idea of charity remains unchanged as the reference.
”Therefore, because I believe that "ABC" is Absolutely good (ergo, not invented by humans but pre-existing in a universal slop-pail of ideas--good, bad, and indifferent) therefore "ABC" must be good and absolute or I would not have believed it to be so...and so on in that endless circle of belief.”
Yes. Except that the belief is supported by observable and confirmable things, known as ideas and experiences.
”This is rather scary as you would know then just which conduct constitutes good and bad behaviour and you would act accordingly within your power...
Somehow it all sounds rather familiar...
I don’t know why it would scare you that I wield power over the conduct of persons who are dependant on me to learn, grow and operate within this world. I definitely use the power of my influence to guide my children in what I consider to be good conduct. What I consider to be good conduct is in reference to what I have observed to be absolute morals; be kind, charitable, and just in your dealings with one another. I also don’t know why it would scare you to think that those entrusted with power over communities of human beings would reference moral ideas in their actions.
”Fine. Give me a sentence which uses the word justice and which is an ought, or an ought not...or whichever way you wish to phrase it. Then tell me why I should believe that that principle did not come from your experience and your assessments of values and such.
This sentence represents an absolute moral statement: “Be just in your dealings with human beings.”
This sentence represents an arguable, subjective opinion about the absolute moral principle: “It is just to put heinous criminals to death.” This is the kind of absolute statement about absolute moral principles that scares you (as it should scare all of us, IMO). I am not, nor have I argued that there should be absolute applications of absolute moral principles, or absolute conduct that is required of human beings. However, I have the right to my opinions regarding circumstances as they present themselves and generally make reference to the “ideals in the ether” when I do. I consider people who do that to be principled.
”I have never yet found an idea to issue from other than a sentient creature) these moral ideas enmeshed in the fabric of the universe most probably issued from the mind of a sentient creature. I mean, one thinks of glove and one thinks of hand, one sees hat and thinks of head...and so forth.
It appears that you are trying real hard to bring cause into the argument. I don’t mind once we establish the existence, or not, of the thing we are arguing about. Plenty of things issue from sentient human beings that did not come from sentient human beings. Yum that tater I et yesterday was fine…ooops what’s that issuing from me today…oh yea, the remnant of yesterday’s tater.
<<<"You did a good job of showing two things. 1) that you referenced the absolute principle." >>>
”No, I referenced principles and at times I referenced principles which you claim were enmeshed in the universe somehow or other. I have never referenced an Absolute Principle other than as an idea to pursue an argument.
And that is all that I have said about the existence of an absolute principle. That it is able to exist an idea that can be referenced.
”Naturally, I cannot prove a negative, but I regard it as extremely unlikely that there could exist Absolute Morality.”
You can prove that an idea is not absolute by showing that it is not an end that provides some sort of referent.
<<<"I have not been attempting to prove a Deity in this argument" >>>
”You may not be aware of it but it is extremely difficult to envision the existence of perfect ideas uncoupled from notions of judgment, intent and purpose. Again...glove goes with hand, etc.
You may be right. It does seem difficult, maybe impossible. I have not tried to do that so I have no difficulty in this area.
”One thing we know reasonably sure: People think, judge, and form principles...”
I see your point.
”So the question is: when we all disagree, and we all claim that our determinations derive from Absolute Principles...which one of us is right?
Individuals definitely disagree on applications of moral principle. I don’t think we disagree that much on the ideals of absolute moral principles. However, where we do, it should be our task to prove that the statement is not an end that can be referenced via our experience. |
