AZMike Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 Back out of the weeds... and trying to play nice. Here's one word: Exegesis. I think it's a fascinating subject. I've noticed in this thread that examples of moral facts are all things people shouldn't do. That's very un scout like considering we're always trying to encourage scouts to do the right thing rather than punish them for doing the wrong thing. The idea of human dignity is one idea in the Bible (and probably all other religion's basic tenets) that has passed the test of time and been elevated, via exegesis, to the point where it can trump most other rules in the Bible. These things that I listed as moral facts are all affirmative duties, not negative: - Human life is precious and should be preserved. - One should honor and respect the Creator and holy things. - One should help and give to others who are in need. - One should honor one's parents and give them respect and obedience. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 AZ, I am all in with your message except for calling them "facts." Moral universals, imperatives or absolutes? Sure. Torturing English is, I think, unnecessary to the message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuctTape Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 AZ,although all your "facts" contain the word "should" which makes them not absolutes. Secondly, what happens when "should" is replaced with "must" and then someone is faced with the moral dilemma of having to make a decision which must violate one of the "facts" if the situation puts two of the facts at odds with each other? That is the fundamental problem with moral facts, or absolutes is that with more than one, a situation could/will arise in which they contradict. If one trumps another, then the inferior fact is not an absolute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosetracker Posted May 8, 2015 Share Posted May 8, 2015 AZ I could see where Duct Tape's moral dilemma would come into place especially with #4 One should honor one's parents and give them respect and obedience. So what happens when you have an abusing parent that hurts you, you have witnesses kill the other parent or another sibling, makes you commit crimes, pimps you out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZMike Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 AZ I could see where Duct Tape's moral dilemma would come into place especially with #4 One should honor one's parents and give them respect and obedience. So what happens when you have an abusing parent that hurts you, you have witnesses kill the other parent or another sibling, makes you commit crimes, pimps you out... It's a two-sided street. Once parents act like that, they abdicate the parental role and need no longer be honored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZMike Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 (edited) AZ,although all your "facts" contain the word "should" which makes them not absolutes. Secondly, what happens when "should" is replaced with "must" and then someone is faced with the moral dilemma of having to make a decision which must violate one of the "facts" if the situation puts two of the facts at odds with each other? That is the fundamental problem with moral facts, or absolutes is that with more than one, a situation could/will arise in which they contradict. If one trumps another, then the inferior fact is not an absolute. a) It is a fact that one should do x, y, and z. b) Give us an example, and we will reason it out. Abraham was confronted with one such. Edited May 9, 2015 by AZMike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZMike Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 AZ, I am all in with your message except for calling them "facts." Moral universals, imperatives or absolutes? Sure. Torturing English is, I think, unnecessary to the message. If they are moral imperatives, they are also "facts" if the field of inquiry is morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I thought that a fact "is" rather than "should" be. I certainly claim no expertise in the special language of morality, should it exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZMike Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I thought that a fact "is" rather than "should" be. I certainly claim no expertise in the special language of morality, should it exist. I would say that it is a "fact" that specific moral absolutes exist, and that those absolutes order what we "should" do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 Depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. Sorry, couldn't resist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I would say that it is a "fact" that specific moral absolutes exist, and that those absolutes order what we "should" do. I can respect that opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twocubdad Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 I recall someone took at defining this once, writing: "We hold these truths to be self-evident...." But maybe that's just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 and while those same men thought that such things were self evident, they overlooked slavery to keep everyone in the game. Sometimes things aren't as self-evident as we would like to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuctTape Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 It's a two-sided street. Once parents act like that, they abdicate the parental role and need no longer be honored. Then it is not an absolute.There is a reason philosophers have been debating this for millenia. I highly doubt we will find the magic solution. There are problems with moral absolutism, relativism,pluralism, realism, etc... Those much smarter than I couldn't satisfy this. Kant, Plato, Nietzche, etc... In the end, the only thing "I" can do is "do my best" as I travel this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_in_CA Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 There are things that I believe with all my heart. Can I prove them? No. Are they facts? No. They are things I take on faith. Can I be wrong? Yes, for I am human and being fallible is part of what it means to be human. But do I believe those things anyway? Yes. That is why it is called "faith". I know the difference between knowing and believing. Do I know God exists? No. Do I believe he exists? Yes. Does that mean I doubt he exists? No. I just know I am believing in something without evidence, that I am taking it on "faith". Does that make me a fool? Maybe, but I don't believe so. Are there moral absolutes? I believe there are. Are what those absolutes are a matter of opinion? Yes. Is it fair to say there are moral facts? No, because facts are not things taken on faith. 2+2=4 is a fact (math jokes aside*). Why? Because of the definitions of 2, 4, addition and subtraction. "Murder is immoral". Is that a fact? No. Do I believe it to be true? With all my heart. * 2+2=5 for moderately large values of 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now