Why Our Children Don’T Think There Are Moral Facts

[CalicoPenn]

There are no moral facts therefore there are no moral truths, there are only opinions about morality and current acceptance of those opinions, which is changeable.  Is killing moral? (I'm staying away from murder is a legal concept which makes it a subset of killing - and frankly, if one thinks murder is immoral, then how can one argue that killing might not be?).  Most of us would say no - but most of us would have exceptions.  It's not moral to kill someone else, but many support the death penalty so therefore it must be moral to kill someone else some of the time.  There are too many contradictions to say that killing someone is immoral is a fact.

 

Opinions are not fact - they can be based on fact - but they aren't, in and of themselves, fact.  It's just as likely that an opinion is not fact.  For instance, say you have a 2,000 lb lead bar at your feet.  You can make a factual statement that it is a 2,000 pound lead bar.  You can also say it is your opinion that it is a 2,000 lb lead bar and that opinion will seem like fact.  But, you could say that it is your opinion that it is a 2,000 lb copper bar.  We know it's a lead bar, so the statement of opinion can't be fact.

 

Truth and Fact are not the same either.  Everything that is true in also a fact.  But not everything that is a fact is also true.  Let's look at that lead bar again.  We accept that it is a fact that a 2,000 pound lead bar weighs 2,000 pounds.  But is it true that the 2,000 lead bar is a 2,000 lead bar?  The answer is no.  Why is it not true?  Because truth is universal.  For something to be true and to remain true, it needs to be true everywhere.  Move that 2,000 pound bar to Sweden, it's still a fact that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds.  Move the bar to the moon though, and it now weighs 16.6% of what it weighed on earth, or 332 pounds.  On earth, it's a fact that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds and on the moon, it's a fact that the bar weighs 332 pounds.  Since we're talking about the same object in two different places with two different facts, it is not also true that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds.  It can't be true because it weighs something completely different on the moon - it's not a universal fact.

 

So what would be true?  A universal fact is true.  Example - the average distance between the moon and the Earth is 238,857 miles.  No matter where you go, Australia, the moon, Venus, Pluto, the edge of the Milky Way, the edge of the Universe, the average distance between the moon and the earth doesn't change - it's still 238,857 miles.  That is a universal fact, and that therefore makes it a truth.  Can the distance between the moon and earth change?  Sure - but if it changes for the Earth, it changes for everywhere else as well. 

 

Is it true that murder is immoral?  No, because we don't know if that would be a universal fact.  We hold it to be true to the best of our knowledge, but since our knowledge of the rest of the universe is limited, we just don't know if there is a civilization out there that might believe murder is acceptable and moral. 

 

For right now, the best we can do is to say that mankind currently holds that certain things are moral and certain things are immoral knowing and accepting that throughout history mankind's opinion on just what those things are have changed (we don't have to look back much beyond 150 years to see this - at one time, many people in the US held that slavery was moral - we no longer do) and accept and understand that change continues to happen and we can't stop it, no matter how much we might want to.

[AZMike]

There are no moral facts therefore there are no moral truths, there are only opinions about morality and current acceptance of those opinions, which is changeable.  Is killing moral? (I'm staying away from murder is a legal concept which makes it a subset of killing - and frankly, if one thinks murder is immoral, then how can one argue that killing might not be?).  Most of us would say no - but most of us would have exceptions.  It's not moral to kill someone else, but many support the death penalty so therefore it must be moral to kill someone else some of the time.  There are too many contradictions to say that killing someone is immoral is a fact.

 

Opinions are not fact - they can be based on fact - but they aren't, in and of themselves, fact.  It's just as likely that an opinion is not fact.  For instance, say you have a 2,000 lb lead bar at your feet.  You can make a factual statement that it is a 2,000 pound lead bar.  You can also say it is your opinion that it is a 2,000 lb lead bar and that opinion will seem like fact.  But, you could say that it is your opinion that it is a 2,000 lb copper bar.  We know it's a lead bar, so the statement of opinion can't be fact.

 

Truth and Fact are not the same either.  Everything that is true in also a fact.  But not everything that is a fact is also true.  Let's look at that lead bar again.  We accept that it is a fact that a 2,000 pound lead bar weighs 2,000 pounds.  But is it true that the 2,000 lead bar is a 2,000 lead bar?  The answer is no.  Why is it not true?  Because truth is universal.  For something to be true and to remain true, it needs to be true everywhere.  Move that 2,000 pound bar to Sweden, it's still a fact that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds.  Move the bar to the moon though, and it now weighs 16.6% of what it weighed on earth, or 332 pounds.  On earth, it's a fact that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds and on the moon, it's a fact that the bar weighs 332 pounds.  Since we're talking about the same object in two different places with two different facts, it is not also true that the bar weighs 2,000 pounds.  It can't be true because it weighs something completely different on the moon - it's not a universal fact.

 

So what would be true?  A universal fact is true.  Example - the average distance between the moon and the Earth is 238,857 miles.  No matter where you go, Australia, the moon, Venus, Pluto, the edge of the Milky Way, the edge of the Universe, the average distance between the moon and the earth doesn't change - it's still 238,857 miles.  That is a universal fact, and that therefore makes it a truth.  Can the distance between the moon and earth change?  Sure - but if it changes for the Earth, it changes for everywhere else as well. 

 

Is it true that murder is immoral?  No, because we don't know if that would be a universal fact.  We hold it to be true to the best of our knowledge, but since our knowledge of the rest of the universe is limited, we just don't know if there is a civilization out there that might believe murder is acceptable and moral. 

 

For right now, the best we can do is to say that mankind currently holds that certain things are moral and certain things are immoral knowing and accepting that throughout history mankind's opinion on just what those things are have changed (we don't have to look back much beyond 150 years to see this - at one time, many people in the US held that slavery was moral - we no longer do) and accept and understand that change continues to happen and we can't stop it, no matter how much we might want to.

 

No discipline need justify its first principles. In Euclidean geometry, we accept certain unprovable truths in order to do higher math. In morality, we accept the basic moral laws I outlined. To do otherwise is just mental masturbation.

 

It's interesting that people who propose that all truths are relative (not singling you out here) object very strongly if you take their car keys without asking.

 

People who propose that all moral systems are culturally based object very vociferously if you propose that anti-homosexual laws were perfectly moral until the laws began to change a decade or so ago, and that Thomas Jefferson's belief that male homosexuals should be castrated was perfectly moral, given the cultural standards of the time.

 

I distrust any moral stance (or non-moral stance) that requires you to make a ridiculous assertion but to live your life as if you didn't really believe it.

[Stosh]

Ever stop to consider:

 

1) Murder is homicide

2) Abortion is homicide

3) War is homicide

4) Capital Punishment is homicide

5) Fatal auto accidents are homicide

6) Self defense often results in homicide

 

There are many different ways to redefine homicide to make it "morally" acceptable.  All the redefinitions are just opinions made by humans to placate their justifications for homicide.

[Peregrinator]

I don't agree.

 

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal

FYI, Pascal didn't actually write that. "Religious conviction" is a mistranslation of the French "par un faux principe de conscience" ("by a false principle of conscience").

 

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17776/did-pascal-write-men-never-do-evil-so-completely-and-cheerfully-as-when-they-d

 

The idea that Pascal was some kind of foe of religious belief is ... comical.

[AZMike]

Ever stop to consider:

 

1) Murder is homicide

2) Abortion is homicide

3) War is homicide

4) Capital Punishment is homicide

5) Fatal auto accidents are homicide

6) Self defense often results in homicide

 

There are many different ways to redefine homicide to make it "morally" acceptable.  All the redefinitions are just opinions made by humans to placate their justifications for homicide.

 

I think that is "why Thou shalt not kill" in the Commandments is more properly rendered as "Thou shalt not murder" in many translations. Homicide is acceptable in some circumstances. Murder never is. Felonious murder (r-á¹£-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc) is the word used in the original Hebrew, and is not used when describing acts of war, execution, etc.

Edited May 7, 2015 by AZMike

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

FYI, Pascal didn't actually write that. "Religious conviction" is a mistranslation of the French "par un faux principe de conscience" ("by a false principle of conscience").

 

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/17776/did-pascal-write-men-never-do-evil-so-completely-and-cheerfully-as-when-they-d

 

The idea that Pascal was some kind of foe of religious belief is ... comical.

 

The idea that such a quote is against religious belief per se is also comical.

[Stosh]

I think that is "why Thou shalt not kill" in the Commandments is more properly rendered as "Thou shalt not murder" in many translations. Homicide is acceptable in some circumstances. Murder never is. Felonious murder (r-á¹£-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc) is the word used in the original Hebrew, and is not used when describing acts of war, execution, etc.

 

Yes, correct, I am aware of the proper meaning of the commandment.  The point I was making is that the use of certain words modifies one's understanding of the moral codes out there and as you point out, modern translation further interpret and change the moral meanings as well.  Individually one cannot kill someone else, but as a group, it's okay?  Murder vs. Capital Punishment?

 

Just too many variables out there to merely state morality as fact, thus it stays in the realm of opinions.

[CalicoPenn]

No discipline need justify its first principles. In Euclidean geometry, we accept certain unprovable truths in order to do higher math. In morality, we accept the basic moral laws I outlined. To do otherwise is just mental masturbation.

 

It's interesting that people who propose that all truths are relative (not singling you out here) object very strongly if you take their car keys without asking.

 

 

 

At one time, we considered the principles in Euclidean geometry to be absolute truths because Euclidean geometry was pretty much the only system of geometry we knew.  The general public mostly still believes them to be absolute truths because in general, we aren't very good at updating curriculum and most people zip right past newspaper and magazine articles about developments in science and math unless its a heavily hyped article with a headline like "Oatmeal Causes Cancer" or the inevitable follow up "Oatmeal Cures Cancer".  Most mathmaticians no longer consider them absolute truths because we have new systems of geometry that are challenging what we know about the math.  Einstein's e-mc squared changed the world, and geometry was one of those things it changed.  While we may still accept those principles as true, we do so to the best of our knowledge (though that has changed), not because it's universally true.

 

I don't believe all truth's are relative.  Those truths that we believe are true to the best of our knowledge are certainly relative - something may come along, maybe long after we have passed on, that will blow those truths apart.  There are some truths that are absolute - my example of the average distance between the Earth and the Moon, for example - nothing will come to change that, except perhaps the destruction of one or the other, but if that happens, then it really doesn't matter what is and isn't true.

 

Morals, however, are relative.  I tend to chuckle when someone tries to argue that moral relativism is somehow bad.  Moral Relativism in not inherently bad because all morals are relative.  They're relative to our collective understanding, they're relative to out time, they're relative to differing cultures.  For the most part, we all tend to share most of the same morals - ask anyone if murder is ok, and they'll say no.  Ask anyone if stealing is ok, and most of us will say no - though if you ask anyone if it's ok for the police department or fire department to break into a grocery store to gather food and water for people after a massive natural (or other) disaster, most would probably say that's ok, even though it's still technically stealing (moral relativism in action).  Where we get conflict is where our collective ideas of what is moral and what is not moral starts to change to a significant degree - and those changes tend to take a long time.  The founding fathers argued about whether slavery should be allowed even as it was being codified in the Constitution - there were already arguments over the morality of slavery back in the late 1700's - it took a few decades to reach a critical mass for a mjor conflict to break out over slavery.  It took decades for the folks who believed alcohol was immoral to get prohibition passed.  It took decades to pass an amendment giving the right of women to vote, something many had a moral objection to.  It took decades for civil rights laws to be passed.  Think Gay Marriage and Gay Civil Rights are something new?  These things have been fought over since the 1950's. 

 

We can hope that something like murder will always be considered immoral.  A look at popular culture - from movies like Soylent Green to Death Race to the 2013 movie The Purge set in a future US where one night a year all crime, including Murder, is sanctioned as a way to control population growth and stengthen the economy should remind us that even while we think something like murder if immoral is an absolute truth, we can imagine a society where it is not.

[AZMike]

At one time, we considered the principles in Euclidean geometry to be absolute truths because Euclidean geometry was pretty much the only system of geometry we knew.  The general public mostly still believes them to be absolute truths because in general, we aren't very good at updating curriculum and most people zip right past newspaper and magazine articles about developments in science and math unless its a heavily hyped article with a headline like "Oatmeal Causes Cancer" or the inevitable follow up "Oatmeal Cures Cancer".  Most mathmaticians no longer consider them absolute truths because we have new systems of geometry that are challenging what we know about the math.  Einstein's e-mc squared changed the world, and geometry was one of those things it changed.  While we may still accept those principles as true, we do so to the best of our knowledge (though that has changed), not because it's universally true.

 

I don't believe all truth's are relative.  Those truths that we believe are true to the best of our knowledge are certainly relative - something may come along, maybe long after we have passed on, that will blow those truths apart.  There are some truths that are absolute - my example of the average distance between the Earth and the Moon, for example - nothing will come to change that, except perhaps the destruction of one or the other, but if that happens, then it really doesn't matter what is and isn't true.

 

Morals, however, are relative.  I tend to chuckle when someone tries to argue that moral relativism is somehow bad.  Moral Relativism in not inherently bad because all morals are relative.  They're relative to our collective understanding, they're relative to out time, they're relative to differing cultures.  For the most part, we all tend to share most of the same morals - ask anyone if murder is ok, and they'll say no.  Ask anyone if stealing is ok, and most of us will say no - though if you ask anyone if it's ok for the police department or fire department to break into a grocery store to gather food and water for people after a massive natural (or other) disaster, most would probably say that's ok, even though it's still technically stealing (moral relativism in action).  Where we get conflict is where our collective ideas of what is moral and what is not moral starts to change to a significant degree - and those changes tend to take a long time.  The founding fathers argued about whether slavery should be allowed even as it was being codified in the Constitution - there were already arguments over the morality of slavery back in the late 1700's - it took a few decades to reach a critical mass for a mjor conflict to break out over slavery.  It took decades for the folks who believed alcohol was immoral to get prohibition passed.  It took decades to pass an amendment giving the right of women to vote, something many had a moral objection to.  It took decades for civil rights laws to be passed.  Think Gay Marriage and Gay Civil Rights are something new?  These things have been fought over since the 1950's. 

 

We can hope that something like murder will always be considered immoral.  A look at popular culture - from movies like Soylent Green to Death Race to the 2013 movie The Purge set in a future US where one night a year all crime, including Murder, is sanctioned as a way to control population growth and stengthen the economy should remind us that even while we think something like murder if immoral is an absolute truth, we can imagine a society where it is not.

 

Morals are instantiated in individuals, not societies.

[Stosh]

Morals are instantiated in individuals, not societies.

 

But moral codes are established by societies.  Common laws among like minded individuals.

 

If one doesn't like the code of a certain community, don't move there.  It's kinda like buying a house next to the airport and then complaining about the noise.  Don't blame the world for your stupid choices.

[AZMike]

But moral codes are established by societies.  Common laws among like minded individuals.

 

If one doesn't like the code of a certain community, don't move there.  It's kinda like buying a house next to the airport and then complaining about the noise.  Don't blame the world for your stupid choices.

 

I would say no, the moral code (of which social varieties are just adumbrations) was established by God and placed in us.

[packsaddle]

Just took another look at this grotesque thread and noticed Calico's post. You do know, don't you, that the moon IS actually getting farther and farther away from the earth each year?

We can actually measure that difference. That's a fact.

And...I suspect that the Pythagorean Theorem is still just as valid today as it was in the time of Pythagoras. Likewise I suspect that the radius of the circumference of a perfect circle to its diameter is still pi and as far as I know, that number is still an irrational number. Please explain which part of geometry has been abandoned.

 

In response to the rest I would have to say that moral relativism (the way it's explained in this philosophy department) is not good. The problem is with the term, 'relativism' and the different ways we personally interpret that term.

At the same time there also may not be moral absolutes.

[TAHAWK]

No.  Would you say murder is defined by whatever morals the local majority believes its god requires?

 

So how did Uncle Adolph, Joe Stalin and Mao define "murder"?

[Stosh]

I would say no, the moral code (of which social varieties are just adumbrations) was established by God and placed in us.

 

And what happens to that code when social varieties over-ride the moral code established by God?  After all the 12 sons of Jacob (Israel) were from 2 wives and their handmaidens.  Makes a mess out of our modern moral code of today.  Jacob had 13 kids from 2 wives and 2 adulterous affairs according to today's moral code.  

 

If God gave us this code, why is it mankind changes it to fit their agenda?

 

Good thing hypocrisy isn't one of the 10 Commandments.....

Edited May 7, 2015 by Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So how did Uncle Adolph, Joe Stalin and Mao define "murder"?

 

I give up -- how did they?