Why do we seek moral absolutes?

[murkrow]

I think people who need moral absolutes lack a certain kind of intelligence. Really. CHILDREN need moral absolutes. AUTISTIC PEOPLE need moral absolutes. Supposedly "normal" adults who need moral absolutes apparently have a hard time thinking for themselves.

I'm not saying that these people can't be intelligent in some form, but they're missing something in their frontal lobe.

Immanuel Kant needed moral absolutes
Plato needed moral absolutes
Even scepticism is a form of absolutism

I don't think it's a symptom of stupidity.

 

[Thalassa]

Immanuel Kant needed moral absolutes
Plato needed moral absolutes
Even scepticism is a form of absolutism

I don't think it's a symptom of stupidity.

I said it's a symptom of a lack of a certain kind of intelligence. Perhaps people who lack emotional intelligence versus IQ?

 

[murkrow]

sometimes its bc applying a judgement to different situations is too hard for them.

Tell me how you could make a judgment if you did not have an absolute to judge it by.

 

[Thalassa]

Tell me how you could make a judgment if you did not have an absolute to judge it by.

Contextual assessment. Circumstance. Mitigating factors. Sure, the absolute might be that killing another man is wrong, but *why* did that person do it makes all the difference in the world.

When I think "moral absolutes" I think of a parent who commands their child to do something "because I said so." I think of Roman Catholics who won't allow congregants to take communion because they've divorced, even if the divorce was because of serious physical and mental abuse.

Perhaps you and I are speaking of two different things, and if we are, I apologize for my error.

 

[murkrow]

I said it's a symptom of a lack of a certain kind of intelligence. Perhaps people who lack emotional intelligence versus IQ?

I agree that the development of a system to judge actions by could be a result of an unwillingness to rely on clearly inconstant and compromising sensations.

 

[nomadic]

Tell me how you could make a judgment if you did not have an absolute to judge it by.

For instance...

I think your comment shows that people do need absolutes to find gray areas. I don't even know what the heck it is I said. was that a judgement?

wat is a judgement anyways? haha

i think the bad part of "moral absolutism" is that its not good for dialogue. but if two people with extremely polar opposite views can carry a constructive dialogue, then whats the big deal?

 

[murkrow]

Contextual assessment. Circumstance. Mitigating factors. Sure, the absolute might be that killing another man is wrong, but *why* did that person do it makes all the difference in the world.

When I think "moral absolutes" I think of a parent who commands their child to do something "because I said so." I think of Roman Catholics who won't allow congregants to take communion because they've divorced, even if the divorce was because of serious physical and mental abuse.

Perhaps you and I are speaking of two different things, and if we are, I apologize for my error.

Why would a Catholic allow someone who has broken the sanctity of the church's sacraments to partake in the body of Christ?

The function of annulment is present in order for the church to forgive, if that function has not be used then clearly they do not forgive the transgression.

However I think we are talking about different things.

I am talking about moral absolutes which form the basis for moral judgments, the systems which define a person for example.

You are (I assume) talking about moral absolutes as in the judgments which follow (at times mistakenly) from what I am talking about, such as "Abortion isn't murder".

 

[Thalassa]

I agree that the development of a system to judge actions by could be a result of an unwillingness to rely on clearly inconstant and compromising sensations.

Please. That's oversimplifying emotional intelligence in an attempt to reduce it to something unnecessary, when in fact it a crucial part of our humanity and continued survival.

I'm not fooled by your hug smiley.

 

[Thalassa]

Why would a Catholic allow someone who has broken the sanctity of the church's sacraments to partake in the body of Christ?

The function of annulment is present in order for the church to forgive, if that function has not be used then clearly they do not forgive the transgression.

Divorcing an abusive spouse isn't "breaking the body of Christ, " and I find the very notion of excommunicating people decidedly UN-Christian, but that isn't the point here.

I'm not going to argue with someone with Catholic views, or anyone else who follows a strict schedule of seemingly arbitrary yet inflexible moral absolutes.

 

[murkrow]

I'm not Catholic and I don't follow a strict schedule of inflexible moral absolutes.

My motivation is to challenge the weak reasoning of others and invite the same challenge onto myself.

 

[Into It]

So we can make others into replicas of ourselves, maybe.

 

[onemoretime]

@onemoretime

The effect of forming a moral absolute is to restrict the actions of others.

However, you're right, the source of a moral absolute is always subjective, and that's the reason that these absolutes are incompatible.

The problem of the state in lawmaking is that it requires an absolute in order to operate. The one we're operating on now is opportunism. A law is given the right to exist not according to its utilitarian (probably the most powerful moral philosophy currently) validity but according to its potential to placate and attract positive attention from masses.

I do not seek a moral state, I seek a functional and pragmatic one. The idea of a philosopher-king, an enlightened despot, is a myth, dreamed up by Plato as a deus ex machina to impose the solutions to the very real problems of his philosophy.

The argument against majoritarian rule is usually the one that you state, that it would descend into a tyranny of the majority. However, isn't that the point for things such as the Bill of Rights? Isn't that why most Enlightenment governments had constitutions that were restrictive, not of the power of the people, but the power of the state? Isn't that also why the concept of the social contract was developed, so as all coercive action was undertaken with the collective consent of the coerced?

You must seek other moral absolutes if you cannot see the effectiveness of this arrangement, the idea of collegiality of all citizens, individual rights and collective responsibilities. Do I find this arrangement more moral than others? Absolutely not. Do I find it more effective? Yes.

Now, if you want to paint me into the corner of utilitarianism being a moral absolute, feel free. However, understand that this is not coming from philosophical speculation, but pragmatic observation. The inability of many to distinguish the two is a great failing of modern philosophy, in my estimation.

 

[Bubbles]

Divorcing an abusive spouse isn't "breaking the body of Christ, " and I find the very notion of excommunicating people decidedly UN-Christian, but that isn't the point here.

I'm not going to argue with someone with Catholic views, or anyone else who follows a strict schedule of seemingly arbitrary yet inflexible moral absolutes.

Annullment is available, you know... Basically that's the church saying, this marriage never existed in the eyes of God, you're free from any bond you were under. Poof. Lots of people do it. I know plenty of Catholics who have in my parish alone.

It's quite common. No one wants to see anyone suffer in a relationship like that, especially not in a faith that prizes marriage as a loving beautiful bond mirroring that of Christ's love of humanity.

 

[murkrow]

I do not seek a moral state, I seek a functional and pragmatic one. The idea of a philosopher-king, an enlightened despot, is a myth, dreamed up by Plato as a deus ex machina to impose the solutions to the very real problems of his philosophy.

The argument against majoritarian rule is usually the one that you state, that it would descend into a tyranny of the majority. However, isn't that the point for things such as the Bill of Rights? Isn't that why most Enlightenment governments had constitutions that were restrictive, not of the power of the people, but the power of the state? Isn't that also why the concept of the social contract was developed, so as all coercive action was undertaken with the collective consent of the coerced?

You must seek other moral absolutes if you cannot see the effectiveness of this arrangement, the idea of collegiality of all citizens, individual rights and collective responsibilities. Do I find this arrangement more moral than others? Absolutely not. Do I find it more effective? Yes.

Now, if you want to paint me into the corner of utilitarianism being a moral absolute, feel free. However, understand that this is not coming from philosophical speculation, but pragmatic observation. The inability of many to distinguish the two is a great failing of modern philosophy, in my estimation.

I am interested to know how you gauge effectiveness and how you've determined the value of effectiveness assigned to the current political structure.

I may have found myself a little far out in devil's advocate territory.

My issue with the current system is on grounds of efficiency as well as illegitimacy.

The only reason I even consider the moral validity of the state is that the state considers itself moral.