• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Why do we seek moral absolutes?

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
Why do we seek moral absolutes?

Let’s consider the moral argument that is often rendered to justify making abortion illegal.

The argument goes something like this: murder (killing an innocent person) is morally and legally prohibited, the fetus is an innocent person, abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion is murder.

This argument turns on the premise that the fetus is a person. The category person must be absolutely and universally understood and fixed to make this argument work. The category (concept) person must be either value-neutral or it must be based upon some absolute value. If such is not the case then each time we consider this matter, person can take on a different meaning.

If each “application of the concept determines its meaning, either (1) we would need a rule for applying the concept in various cases (and this would be the same as saying that the meaning of ‘person’ is fixed), or (2) we would be left with the possibility that different people might apply the concept differently.”

If the category person is a function of our personal value system then we can expect that our view of this matter would vary accordingly. We might avoid this variability if the concept person is value neutral and thus does not depend upon our personal value system. Another way is to claim that we all have access to some absolute or ultimate value that is binding upon each of us.

Without absolute truths we recognize that we must depend on the judgment of fallible, and frail creatures living within constantly evolving communities; non critical individuals who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations.

“In sum, moral absolutism is motivated by a very widespread human longing for clarity, certainty, order, and constraint in a world that confronts us constantly with change, obscurity, doubt, contingency, and aggression.”

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
Pro life is a religious argument in disguise. If it were really a "pro life" argument those same people would not be in favor of the death penalty or guns.

The "moral absolute" is a result of people believing it is absolutely wrong (in the eyes of god) to kill and unborn fetus. I'm not familiar with the specific religious doctrine, but somewhere in there is probably a way to justify the death penalty and maybe the right to bare arms.

Pro choice is just that, a choice, not an absolute.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
Pro life is a religious argument in disguise. If it were really a "pro life" argument those same people would not be in favor of the death penalty or guns.

The "moral absolute" is a result of people believing it is absolutely wrong (in the eyes of god) to kill and unborn fetus. I'm not familiar with the specific religious doctrine, but somewhere in there is probably a way to justify the death penalty and maybe the right to bare arms.

Pro choice is just that, a choice, not an absolute.


What little we have learned about morality has come through Sunday school.
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
What little we have learned about morality has come through Sunday school.

There you have it. That is the problem. People have different ideas about how to live and some people can't accept that other people are different don't share all of the same "values".
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Pro life is a religious argument in disguise. If it were really a "pro life" argument those same people would not be in favor of the death penalty or guns.

The "moral absolute" is a result of people believing it is absolutely wrong (in the eyes of god) to kill and unborn fetus. I'm not familiar with the specific religious doctrine, but somewhere in there is probably a way to justify the death penalty and maybe the right to bare arms.

Pro choice is just that, a choice, not an absolute.

It's purely tribalism. You can't have abortion, because that lowers the number of potential members of the in-group. Death penalty and war are OK because lowering the numbers of the out-group is a good thing.
 

LostInNerSpace

New member
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,027
MBTI Type
INTP
It's purely tribalism. You can't have abortion, because that lowers the number of potential members of the in-group. Death penalty and war are OK because lowering the numbers of the out-group is a good thing.

That's a surprisingly good argument.
 

Penda

New member
Joined
Oct 27, 2008
Messages
68
MBTI Type
INFJ
Abortion is sort of an easy target. How about things like murder and rape? Perhaps some people believe it that there is absolutely nothing wrong with these acts, and moreover they gain great pleasure from engaging in them. Without such absolutes, there would be no ground to condemn these acts on a moral basis, and therefore no way to gain the moral high ground over such individuals. Of course, one could argue that the threat of imprisonment would sufficiently deter would-be perpetrators regardless of a lack of morality. But surely the legal system would be swiftly overwhelmed if there was no moral backing for the legislation. Another argument is that by removing poverty and social factors, the impetus to commit violence against others would be removed. However, I would vehemently disagree, and suggest that a study of history or anthropology would reveal that man has a natural inclination for such forms of primitive dominance and barbarism without civilization to reign in these desires.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
The point of the OP s to focus attention upon our inclination to seek absolutes and that this inclination tends to lead us into catastrophes.

We must learn how we think and why we do the things that we do so that our species may last a bit longer. Our greatest problem is learning how to just get-along. Our technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people and if we do not become more sophisticated we will destroy our species and perhaps all life on this planet.
 

laughingebony

New member
Joined
Jun 8, 2009
Messages
236
MBTI Type
INTP
Pro life is a religious argument in disguise. If it were really a "pro life" argument those same people would not be in favor of the death penalty or guns.

I don't follow your reasoning here. How does your second statement imply that pro-life is a religious argument? Also, your second statement relies on a few false premises. Specifically...

1. Being in favor of guns is incompatible with being in favor of life.
2. Being in favor of the death penalty is incompatible with being in favor of life.
3. All those who are pro-life are necessarily in favor of the death penalty and guns.

I can dispute 1 and 3 on the spot.

Some opponents of gun control assert that guns keep people safe. Outlawing guns would have little effect on criminals' access to guns. Since criminals tend to disregard the law, anyway, they would get their guns in spite of the law. The average, law-abiding citizen, however, would have trouble obtaining a gun. Since he would have no gun, he would be more vulnerable to the criminal, who has a gun. Loosening gun laws would allow the average law-abiding citizen to have a gun, as well, and the criminal would have no advantage. In this sense, guns can be seen as an equalizer -- they put the victim on level ground with the criminal. As such, the first premise can be reconciled with being in favor of life.

I can dispute the third premise simply by stating that I am pro-life and am not in favor of the death penalty.

Keep the big picture in mind. I am not arguing for less gun control or for pro-life. I am disputing your assertion that pro-life is a religious argument. Even if your second statement did imply the first, it wouldn't matter, since your second statement relies on faulty premises.
 

Not_Me

New member
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
1,641
MBTI Type
INTj
Morals were created to provide a framework for conflict resolution... when one person's desires are at odds with those of another. The system cannot function without a common set of rules for everyone to follow.
 

coberst

New member
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
336
Morals were created to provide a framework for conflict resolution... when one person's desires are at odds with those of another. The system cannot function without a common set of rules for everyone to follow.

Is the common set of rules the same as an absolute set of rules? What makes a set of rules a common set of rules? Are these rules absolute or contingent?
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Black-and-white thinking is a holdover from the days where quick response to stimulus was absolutely necessary for survival. You get rules as to what tends to lead to good outcomes and what tends to lead to bad outcomes. Since considering each situation takes time, absolute standards can often lead to a greater level of survival. They also lead to great mistakes, but less often.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
We seek moral absolutes so we don't have to think.

We seek moral absolutes to protect ourselves from the thinking of others.

The same people who claim abortion to be morally ambiguous and therefore subjectively decidable hold personal freedom as a moral absolute.

Personal freedom is their shield against the invasive thoughts of others, however the concept of personal freedom as a right is just as subjective as the concept of a person.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
We seek moral absolutes to protect ourselves from the thinking of others.

The same people who claim abortion to be morally ambiguous and therefore subjectively decidable hold personal freedom as a moral absolute.

Personal freedom is their shield against the invasive thoughts of others, however the concept of personal freedom as a right is just as subjective as the concept of a person.

So it's less against others' thinking than it is the ambiguity of subjectivity? Especially if there is no clear-cut answer?
 

nomadic

mountain surfing
Joined
Jul 15, 2008
Messages
1,709
MBTI Type
enfp
ppl seek moral absolutes bc they have been hurt in one way or another in the past by society at large.

" God hates ALL gays!"

well, that is wrong in a biblical context but someone might emphasize that bc they had a problem getting people on "their side" in the past. so they seek an absolute even if they know biblically its not quite right to say that, bc of the support they might receive.

sometimes it is bc people seek group think. sometimes its bc applying a judgement to different situations is too hard for them. who knows why. im not even sure you should lump moral absolutes together.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
@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.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
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.
 
Top