Absolute Morality?

[Newski]

Do you believe in Absolute Morality? What is it?

I meditated, thinking about alot of the so called Morals of the world. I meditated just like Rene Descartes and became the skeptic. You can break down all morals to this:

Do No Harm.

Thus Do No Harm is in my opinion absolute Morality. Taking a hint from immanuel Kant, I added another one like he did.

Do Good.

I mean, it doesn't hurt to do good.

[PhantomOpus]

That's nice, but impossible.

I prefer "don't make decisions for anyone else."

[Newski]

That's nice, but impossible.

I prefer "don't make decisions for anyone else."
I'm not talking about the workability.

I'm talking about what morality boils down to. I can argue the workability of pacifism some other time.

[FrozenMoonbeam]

I can sort of see where you're coming from

But then I think, when you are dealing with morality and fully capable adults, you also have to work in informed consent.

like for instance if someone liked to be spanked during sex that would be a minor harm, but I think that, if they knew what they were doing, it would still be morally fine for a consenting partner to give them what they want.

Same applies in other fields, like medicine and so on, you might administer a temporary harm to achieve a greater benefit (say chemo, it might make your hair fall out, but it could also stop your cancer), or to stop a greater harm (say euthinasia, giving relief from intense suffering). As long as the person(s) involved is/are a fully informed, capable and consenting adult(s) then maybe do no harm can be modified slightly.

Also, I think do no harm, while noble, is somewhat unrealistic... maybe do the least amount of harm possible would be better to work with?

[Newski]

if somebody enjoys being spanked, its not harm. Temperary harm? Well, there is also the idea that if it helps it does not harm.

I'd go with least harm possible if it really comes down to it, but No Harm is the ultimate so you have to stay as close to that as possible.

[FrozenMoonbeam]

but no harm to what/who? just by existing you are harming stuff - using up resources, polluting, killing bacteria and so on. But then killing yourself would bring about harm as well, so it's impossible to exist at any stage and bring about no harm.

I just don't think there is really much point in having ethics if they are impossible to follow, so, for my 'ethical guidelines' i'd go with a blend of do least amount of harm and informed consent.

[PhantomOpus]

Agree w/Frozen Moonbeam, my point exactly.

[Occam]

Do you believe in Absolute Morality? What is it?

I meditated, thinking about alot of the so called Morals of the world. I meditated just like Rene Descartes and became the skeptic. You can break down all morals to this:

Do No Harm.

Thus Do No Harm is in my opinion absolute Morality. Taking a hint from immanuel Kant, I added another one like he did.

Do Good.

I mean, it doesn't hurt to do good.
Newski

Are you speaking of an absolute morality within humanity [only]?
Or thoughout the universe/reality itself?

Occam

[BlackBillBlake]

Do you believe in Absolute Morality? What is it?

I meditated, thinking about alot of the so called Morals of the world. I meditated just like Rene Descartes and became the skeptic. You can break down all morals to this:

Do No Harm.

Thus Do No Harm is in my opinion absolute Morality. Taking a hint from immanuel Kant, I added another one like he did.

Do Good.

I mean, it doesn't hurt to do good.
I don't think there is any absolute morality. All morality is relative.

When you say 'do no harm', I'm afraid that needs to be broken down further, and the question has to be posed as to whether without an absolute morality, the concept of harm isn't equally relative.
For instance, by harming a virus or bacteria, a human life may be saved.
By harming a vicious assailant, one may live to fight another day etc.

And the same is true for 'do good'. One man's good is another's bad.

[Occam]

I don't think there is any absolute morality. All morality is relative.

When you say 'do no harm', I'm afraid that needs to be broken down further, and the question has to be posed as to whether without an absolute morality, the concept of harm isn't equally relative.
For instance, by harming a virus or bacteria, a human life may be saved.
By harming a vicious assailant, one may live to fight another day etc.

And the same is true for 'do good'. One man's good is another's bad.
Yes...
Harm to a bacteria...

Just like harm to an alien....

Who knows what THEY call good and evil

Occam

[Zion]

Be so grateful that you can be satisfied with every action and moment. Help other be fed and satisfied

[Disconformitized]

I'm gonna rip of aristotle and say the "Highest" good is somewhere in the middle between percieved "good" and "bad"... and it's up to the human intelect to settle it.

Any absolute I can think of come along with it's own draw backs...

[Antimatter235]

I think there are absolute morals... For the individual. I agree with Nietzsche when he say (something vaguely ressembling that): "Implant the seeds of your greatest hopes in your strongest passions* so your highest morals grow out of them".
*passions in the negative sense
I believe he meant to align your morals with your biological drives by giving them an important purprose and not fighting them.
Actually it's more complicated than that but that's part of what could be considered a masterplan.
Morals come from evolution, morals should serve life and the product of life. c'est à dire themselves, living beings, and the hypothetical gene-pool* in a specific environment (their family in virtually all cases).
[*Actually genes don't really matter anymore, it's a mental thing. It can expand by other means than reproduction]
Their children grow up and may find something to improve (thanks to the morals that favor progress) or live in another environment and feel reponsible enough to set their own rules. La boucle est bouclée.
That doesn't mean non-breeders are evil, they can contribute in other ways.
Of course "contributions" is just by living there's no inherent idea of sacrifice.

The best gene-pool* wins the war, it shows how Good it is because it serves life better.

[Occam]

There 'may' be absolute human morals...
[if we ALL agree, that is, absolutely agree, on one code]

There can be no such thing as absolute universal morality.;)

Occam

[thumontico]

The word absolute implies objectivity and Subsequently PERFECTION. Pure objectivity is impossible, if only because you are not, as I am not, the singular conscious being in existence.

Absolute morality necessarily requires a Perfect consciousness from which it would be realized, just by the concept itself: Absolute.

The evidence, in my view, points to the fact that such a Perfect consciousness does not exist, this leads us isolated conscious beings to create our own morality. Which manifests itself on a functional societal scale as a Republic; a republic is a constantly dynamic attempt at aquiring absolute morality, while simultaneously realizing such a thing is impossible.

However, this does no detract others from breaking the fundemental rule that is imperative for a republic to work: there is no Absolute morality.

I THINK morality should be based on empathetic rationality. Rightists need to stop playing the God card, for it gives an unfair advantage to them in our Republic. How can a humble atheist such as myself try to convince somebody that its cool for dudes to marry, or that its wrong to execute those inacable of understanding what is [enigmatically] right and wrong, when I cannot promise them eternal bliss in the afterlife? All I have, is an offer of tolerance which does not playcate to the innate human tendency to look out for number one.

FUCK

[BlackGuardXIII]

Do you believe in Absolute Morality? What is it?

I meditated, thinking about alot of the so called Morals of the world. I meditated just like Rene Descartes and became the skeptic. You can break down all morals to this:

Do No Harm.

Thus Do No Harm is in my opinion absolute Morality. Taking a hint from immanuel Kant, I added another one like he did.

Do Good.

I mean, it doesn't hurt to do good.
"And it harm none, do what you will."
"That which you would not have done unto you, do not do unto others." Rabbi Hillel

werx 4 me

[Occam]

The word absolute implies objectivity and Subsequently PERFECTION. Pure objectivity is impossible, if only because you are not, as I am not, the singular conscious being in existence.

Absolute morality necessarily requires a Perfect consciousness from which it would be realized, just by the concept itself: Absolute.

The evidence, in my view, points to the fact that such a Perfect consciousness does not exist, this leads us isolated conscious beings to create our own morality. Which manifests itself on a functional societal scale as a Republic; a republic is a constantly dynamic attempt at aquiring absolute morality, while simultaneously realizing such a thing is impossible.

However, this does no detract others from breaking the fundemental rule that is imperative for a republic to work: there is no Absolute morality.

I THINK morality should be based on empathetic rationality. Rightists need to stop playing the God card, for it gives an unfair advantage to them in our Republic. How can a humble atheist such as myself try to convince somebody that its cool for dudes to marry, or that its wrong to execute those inacable of understanding what is [enigmatically] right and wrong, when I cannot promise them eternal bliss in the afterlife? All I have, is an offer of tolerance which does not playcate to the innate human tendency to look out for number one.

FUCK
Thumontico..
Agree.
Well said. even if occam is not within the republic.
He recons the US constitution and bill of rights is the best any nation has come up with yet. [bar the ammendments:confused:]
Pity so many americans dont live by it.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Thumontico..
Agree.
Well said. even if occam is not within the republic.
He recons the US constitution and bill of rights is the best any nation has come up with yet. [bar the ammendments:confused:]
Pity so many americans dont live by it.

OccamPity the authors didn't live by it.
But I also agree, it is the best so far, and is an ideal worth pursuing until it someday becomes a reality.

[Antimatter235]

Why would absolute morals need an objective point of view to be "found" ?
Morals are merely the human value we give to the world. If you just try to balance the equation of society it's mathematics.
The naive morals you mentionned above (do not harm) are silly. What if you're defending yourself ? If someone jack yo' shit, isn't it normal to bust a cap in their ass ?
People don't understand that morals is supposed (amongst other things) to be a tribal glue and connection with other tribes. Just like like a code in a corporation (it's just ethics but w/e), but different corps have different culture it gives different ethics.
You wanting the same morals for everyone show how you oversimplify Mankind.

[Occam]

Why would absolute morals need an objective point of view to be "found" ?
Morals are merely the human value we give to the world.
Antimatter

Correct..If humanity was the only selfaware species in the universe.

Occam

[BlackGuardXIII]

Why would absolute morals need an objective point of view to be "found" ?
Morals are merely the human value we give to the world. If you just try to balance the equation of society it's mathematics.
The naive morals you mentionned above (do not harm) are silly. What if you're defending yourself ? If someone jack yo' shit, isn't it normal to bust a cap in their ass ?
People don't understand that morals is supposed (amongst other things) to be a tribal glue and connection with other tribes. Just like like a code in a corporation (it's just ethics but w/e), but different corps have different culture it gives different ethics.
You wanting the same morals for everyone show how you oversimplify Mankind."By whatever means necessary." Malcolm X
Of course, self defense, or the protection of your family are times that most of us would feel totally justified in doing the aggressor some harm, but that don't make it right.
I say that truth is simple, and most really important concepts can be summed up in one word. Trust, faith, love, hope, courage, etc.
It is the falsehoods, equivocations, lies, and prevarications that get complicated.
When one harms another, that is not a good thing, even if it is in self defense, imho. It is just vengeance and cruelty to get pleasure out of inflicting pain on another, no matter how wicked that person is. I personally feel that serial killers should be executed, not as punishment or revenge, but cuz there is no place for them here. But, the extermination of them should be done humanely, and not for reasons of anger or hatred, imho.
Help = good
Harm = bad
Is that wrong somehow cuz its simple?

[Antimatter235]

That's wrong because letting yourself being hurt, killed or w/e else would be considered good and if this "moral" code would be really believed in people who effectively neutralized their ennemy wouldn't be considered honorable, maybe it would even be shameful.
It's sad i even have to explain this.
But I'm not really talking about what morals should the State as a whole should agree on, there are ethical sciences for that, to deal with millions of very different people. It's more complicated than a normal set of morals.

[thumontico]

"Why would absolute morals need an objective point of view to be "found" ?"

Absolute means perfect, infallable, ultimately righteous. Who amongst us mere mortals possesses such qualities? No one.

Objectivity in the strictest sense is impossible. I don't mean objective, as being able to see something without bias. I mean, for instance, to view an object and TRUELY experience it for what it is. BECAUSE you exist and I exist how can either one of us claim an objective perspective? What is it that makes your perception of an object Superior to my perception of an object?

At this stage, we must create a consciousness which trumps ours. For instance, we create a omniscient supernatural being. Still this being is not a possessor of complete objective perception as there are others who percieve differently, however, his idea of morality is Superior because of his innate qualities: omniscience, omnibenevolence, omnipresent and so on....


There is a difference between Ethics and Morals. Something can be moral and be unethical. Ethics are more of a set guideline, morals are much more contexual and situational.

I abide by the prehistoric truth: Survival of the fittest. I prefer to live over others (there are exceptions). However, we do not live by Survival of the fittest, we have controled our environment and Created this thing called Morality to protect the Weak. Its a compromise, with ends seeking peace. This peace must be simultaneously Selfless and Selfish.

[Antimatter235]

Morality was not created to protect the weak... You can have a set of moral that protect the weak but that's not the ultimate goal of morals.
The 1st use of morals was preservation of the tribe. People were not savage in a sense that they DID have morals, but they didn't care about protecting the weak.
It's still generally true today, nobody cares about weak people because they're weak. It represents the "tribe's intelligence", a group identity.
You will find that there still is an emphasis in survival in groups that deal with harsh conditions. There can also be transparent groups within a society, they don't risk dying so the morals are engineered to protect the intellectual, artistic value for example.
The idea of protecting the weak come from weak people identifying themselves as part of this "The Weak group" protecting each other. People who (think they) are in "The Ruling Class" group will behave accordingly if they are moral.
Of course power isn't always the basis of groups.

[Occam]

Antimater.

The old wise ones of the tribe...[male and female..the physically weak]
Must have been pretty sharp...
Maybe the tribe learnt a human truth.

Knowledge is power.

Occam

[Spiritforces]

Can anyone see a link between

Morality (which goes with good and bad)

and what permits "a state",(I mean something close from the country definition
and any form of organisation) to be.



?

I will think about it
It give moral the role of preserving an unity, an "order" as you antimatter explained it

[mati]

we humans were born weak and need security so its' a simple deal-do unto others as you would have them do unto you. any two year old can understand that, absolutely.

[Green]

Do you believe in Absolute Morality? What is it?

I meditated, thinking about alot of the so called Morals of the world. I meditated just like Rene Descartes and became the skeptic. You can break down all morals to this:

Do No Harm.

Thus Do No Harm is in my opinion absolute Morality. Taking a hint from immanuel Kant, I added another one like he did.

Do Good.

I mean, it doesn't hurt to do good.
What you think is good could be bad.