Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Best actions suggest a moral fact or opinion...but are not, themselves, moral facts or opinions. They're, as you explained, a way to achieve parity with whatever you consider to -be- the moral fact of the matter.  In any case, it sounds like you're completely sold on the idea of objective morality.  

Transcending instinct and opinion in search of the greater good.  Whatever underlies "the greater good" would be the moral fact of the matter, if there were any.  What moral opinions or instincts do you think correlate to the greater good, if any...or do we need a whole new set? Also, do we need to transcend opinion or instinct if/when that opinion or instinct already correlates with the greater good?

[Brian37]

If human perceptions of morality never changed our species would still own slaves and women could not vote, and gays in the west would have far less rights or be oppressed like other parts of the world. 

Morality is not in a label or a patent and is always a point of view issue. What is important is our species ability to question how we interact with each other, by allowing that challenge we can seek to improve the human condition and gain more understanding that we are not a separate species.

Our species evolved to be both compassionate and cruel, so "morality" to me can only be described as leaning to doing the least amount of harm to another human and maximize cooperation and understanding through education and empathy.

We see in other primates acts of empathy, especially for their young. Even with our pets, if you get a puppy and kitten at the same time and raise them together, although different species, because they have interaction at a young age they are familiar with each other and are far more likely to get along.

So the best "morality" to me is to expose yourself to as much of the world as you can and be as educated as you can. I think the worst thing my species does is try to push ideologies as cures and religions as cures and economic views as cures as absolutes. The truth is there is no perfect cure, but our species, no matter our differences still require resources and have no choice but to interact with each other.

[bennyboy]

Best actions suggest a moral fact or opinion...but are not, themselves, moral facts or opinions.  They're, as you explained, a way to achieve parity with whatever you consider to -be- the moral fact of the matter.  In any case, it sounds like you're completely sold on the idea of objective morality.  

Only this particularly unpragmatic and hypothetical version. In my actual daily life, I pretty much try not to be a dick-- unless I think someone has it coming. Much less enlightened.

But talking about this stuff makes me consider my thought processes and behavior a little more, so that's something. . .

Transcending instinct and opinion in search of the greater good.  Whatever underlies "the greater good" would be the moral fact of the matter, if there were any.  What moral opinions or instincts do you think correlate to the greater good, if any...or do we need a whole new set?

Unless there's an absolute goal at the end of time, which is useless to us as living humans anyway, then the moral goals will be arbitrary to some degree, though based on the interaction between instinct and environment-- I don't want to discuss whether those are better called subjective or objective, but in the end it doesn't matter to the kind of moral facts we're talking about where the moral goals come from-- in other words, even if the moral goals (one's sense of what a more just world would look like or whatever) are subjective, the best behavior for those goals would still be objective facts out there in the ether somewhere.

 Also, do we need to transcend opinion or instinct if/when that opinion or instinct already correlates with the greater good?

We can't know what represents the greatest good, but with some careful consideration, we might discard at least some of those behaviors which seem not to; for the most part, I think we'd all agree that reigning in the emotions is likely to lead to better decision-making. This idea, "Whatever I do, there is probably a better way that I might discover through a more careful consideration," basically informs subjective morality with that hypothetical objective-- perhaps something like the knowledge of death being able to add some urgency to our will to seize the day. . . or how the belief that the brain is a deterministic machine can lead to more sympathy to those whose machines work differently than our own.

[The Grand Nudger]

Only this particularly unpragmatic and hypothetical version.  In my actual daily life, I pretty much try not to be a dick-- unless I think someone has it coming.  Much less enlightened.

But talking about this stuff makes me consider my thought processes and behavior a little more, so that's something. . .

Always fun.  Presumably, "don't be a dick" has something behind it, the whys of not being a dick.  Why is it "good" to not be a dick, and "bad" to be a dick.

[bennyboy]

Only this particularly unpragmatic and hypothetical version.  In my actual daily life, I pretty much try not to be a dick-- unless I think someone has it coming.  Much less enlightened.

But talking about this stuff makes me consider my thought processes and behavior a little more, so that's something. . .

Always fun.  Presumably, "don't be a dick" has something behind it, the whys of not being a dick.  Why is it "good" to not be a dick, and "bad" to be a dick.

That's a fact, Jack!

[The Grand Nudger]

How would you go about demonstrating that it was a fact?

[bennyboy]

How would you go about demonstrating that it was a fact?

I was just making a play on words, but the short answer is I wouldn't.  Generally speaking, I don't really function on a moral world view, but rather on instinct.  For example, I once challenged a Korean gangster who was beating a woman in an abandoned building.  I ran in there like a fool, not because I weighed the possible outcomes against a moral ideal but pretty much "just because."

This represents most of my moral behavior-- I just do the things I do, and don't do the things I don't do, and I sometimes get involved in other people's behaviors and decisions just because it's in my nature to do so.  There's very little consideration involved-- the only mental activity is my ability to symbolize the environment-- for example, to know that hearing a screaming woman in an abandoned building and an angry-voiced man means a particular scene is going down, without having to see it.  The rest is pretty much autopilot.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure how to take the above.  You run on instinct, lol?  Like, pecker pulls left you go left..tummy rumble you follow nose?  Or, as in moral instinct?  Subconscious behaviors and processes that are largely unnoticed, by you?  

In either case, could whatever makes your ap do whatever it does correlate to a moral fact?

[bennyboy]

I'm not sure how to take the above.  You run on instinct, lol?  Like, pecker pulls left you go left..tummy rumble you follow nose?  Or, as in moral instinct?  Subconscious behaviors and processes that are largely unnoticed, by you?  

In either case, could whatever makes your ap do whatever it does correlate to a moral fact?

As I said, I think it's all moral fact, since I'd disregard the illusion of agency in behavior as a middle-man at best.

But yeah, I think pecker pulls left, you go left, and I think we're all like that.  We just have varying degrees of complexity in the mechanism that allows us to pretend we're not doing that.

[The Grand Nudger]

Bit of an impasse...but if they're all moral facts, then how can you be anything other than completely sold on objective morality?  Further, if they're all moral facts, then why would you not go about demonstrating them as-such?