Why Our Children Don’T Think There Are Moral Facts

[AZMike]

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.

 It is a moral absolute that you treat parents who are not moral monsters well. 

[AZMike]

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.

 

I believed in moral absolutes even when I was an atheist. I just couldn't argue for them as well. 

[DuctTape]

It is a moral absolute that you treat parents who are not moral monsters well.

 

As one adds a condition, it is no longer an absolute; it becomes conditional. Another problem arises that even if one were to accept the condition, when/how/if that condition has been met becomes another rabbit hole to define. If one attempts to be vague instead, then it leaves the interpretation to others, not exactly an absolute either. One might as well go the full distance of vagueness and just say, "make ethical decisions".

[JoeBob]

Okay, somebody has to stand up for the "Issues and Politics" forum!

 

You guys are abusing this space.

 

Can we start a forum for "Ethics, Morality, and Geometry"?

[AZMike]

As one adds a condition, it is no longer an absolute; it becomes conditional. Another problem arises that even if one were to accept the condition, when/how/if that condition has been met becomes another rabbit hole to define. If one attempts to be vague instead, then it leaves the interpretation to others, not exactly an absolute either. One might as well go the full distance of vagueness and just say, "make ethical decisions".

 

No. Absolutes can include conditional statements. By what authority do you think they cannot?

[DuctTape]

No. Absolutes can include conditional statements. By what authority do you think they cannot?

I would defer to Immanuel Kant, whom by many is considered a top-notch philosopher. His writings are part of most if not all philosophy courses. His own "categorical imperative" is an example of moral absolutism in which he defined it as unconditional.

[AZMike]

I would defer to Immanuel Kant, whom by many is considered a top-notch philosopher. His writings are part of most if not all philosophy courses. His own "categorical imperative" is an example of moral absolutism in which he defined it as unconditional.

The existence of a supposed or defined absolute that does not contain a conditional statement does not limit the existence of absolutes that do contain conditional statements. Just as the existence of a platypus does not deny the possibility of a duck. That is true even under a deontological viewpoint, which can seem to be congruent with a Christian viewpoint, but often isn't.

 

The hazard of Kant's deontological viewpoint is that by ascribing to a categorical imperative, one often acquires a checkbox mentality - "I have done right by this action, so I am a good person." One risks becoming detached from those people who are affected by your actions - people become things. Instead of people being recognized as inherently of dignity and respect, they become a means to an end, tools towards an abstracted sense of personal righteousness, conduits towards a task to be completed. The recognition of absolutes that do contain conditional statements leads us away from this error.

[DuctTape]

You asked for an authority on why absolutes cannot contain conditionals. I provided one. I am not arguing for Kants categocial imperative. I am recognizing that an absolute which contains a conditiobal ceases to be an absolute. Kant, as an moral absolutist would agree. Now, if we both agree that conditional morality is "where its at" and you want to call it "absolute", the pragmatic in me doesnt care as the semantics of calling it absolute or conditional or relative do not change the process of reasoning through an ethical dilemma to include the details of the specific circumstance. If you want to call it "absolute morality with conditions" and someone else wants to call it "moral relativity", I couldnt care less what it is called.

[AZMike]

You asked for an authority on why absolutes cannot contain conditionals. I provided one. I am not arguing for Kants categocial imperative. I am recognizing that an absolute which contains a conditiobal ceases to be an absolute. Kant, as an moral absolutist would agree. Now, if we both agree that conditional morality is "where its at" and you want to call it "absolute", the pragmatic in me doesnt care as the semantics of calling it absolute or conditional or relative do not change the process of reasoning through an ethical dilemma to include the details of the specific circumstance. If you want to call it "absolute morality with conditions" and someone else wants to call it "moral relativity", I couldnt care less what it is called.

 

Can imperatives contain conditional statements? Why do you think they Kant?

 

Sorry.

 

Kant's notion of a categorical imperative doesn't use the term "conditional" in the same sense that I think you are using it.  To Kant, it is an imperative because it is a command, and one which specifically commands us to use our wills in a particular fashion, not simply to perform some specific action. He uses the term categorical without reference to any ends we might wish to accomplish - i.e., "Give money to the poor and you will go to heaven." or "Give money to the poor and people will think better of you." Such modes of thought, to Kant, would be conditional - "If you do x, then you will achieve y." 

 

To introduce a conditional statement within an imperative - i.e., "Give money to the poor (unless you know they will use it to buy heroin)"? Kant would have no problem with that mode of expressing a categorical imperative, as not all imperatives can be stated without including a clause. What you are claiming is not the sort of "conditional" he discussed.

Edited May 11, 2015 by AZMike

[DuctTape]

What you are describing regarding Kant was what he referred to as hypothetical imperatives. These he contrasted with moral imperatives, ie categorical imperatives which were certainly NOT conditional.

 

Now we could go round and round regarding kant. But, i think if you did a bit more research into what it means to be absolute, you might find not just kant but other absolutists who do not agree with conditionals...it is these conditionals which make the principle relative. RRegardless I will allow you have the last word so as to let this thread die a natural death.

[AZMike]

What you are describing regarding Kant was what he referred to as hypothetical imperatives. These he contrasted with moral imperatives, ie categorical imperatives which were certainly NOT conditional.

 

Now we could go round and round regarding kant. But, i think if you did a bit more research into what it means to be absolute, you might find not just kant but other absolutists who do not agree with conditionals...it is these conditionals which make the principle relative. RRegardless I will allow you have the last word so as to let this thread die a natural death.

 

This thread can't die until we somehow bring homosexuality and atheism into it.  This is the Issues and Politics board, after all. 

[moosetracker]

AZMike - YOU have now brought them up, so now the thread can die..