A sidenote on moral absolutes

[liam]

So I've been doing a lot of philosophy writing lately after another sojourn through some books and I'd just like to share this with you.
A lot of moral theories are considered to be either 'absolutist' or 'non-absolutist', yet in reality they are all truly absolute, just to different levels. For example, classical utilitarianism (Bentham's) claims to be free from absolutes yet it is fundamentally absolutist in that it makes the claim that the individual must do what produces most pleasure. Thus it would say that 'one must never perform an action which leads to the greatest suffering', this, my friends, is a moral absolute. I challenge you to find one moral theory (amoralism does not count because it is fundamentally not a moral system) which has no absolutes, can you do this with me? Much appreciated

[Cato]

Seems interesting. I fear that we will quickly end up having to come to acceptable definitions; such as, what precisely is meant by a moral theory.

Take for instance the moral theory of marriage as prescribed by the religious right in the U.S.: marriage is only permissible between one man and one woman. Those that espouse this certainly would consider it morally absolute; however, there are so many valid arguments against it that we would be safe in considering it relative. What if we considered the prohibition of an adult marrying a child? Would this be morally absolute? What is the proper age of consent? Is consent really dependent on age? What of the mentally handicapped? Are arranged marriages moral? If some answer no, what of the cases where all participants are willing?

[genkaus]

So I've been doing a lot of philosophy writing lately after another sojourn through some books and I'd just like to share this with you.
A lot of moral theories are considered to be either 'absolutist' or 'non-absolutist', yet in reality they are all truly absolute, just to different levels. For example, classical utilitarianism (Bentham's) claims to be free from absolutes yet it is fundamentally absolutist in that it makes the claim that the individual must do what produces most pleasure. Thus it would say that 'one must never perform an action which leads to the greatest suffering', this, my friends, is a moral absolute. I challenge you to find one moral theory (amoralism does not count because it is fundamentally not a moral system) which has no absolutes, can you do this with me? Much appreciated

I think your personal views might color what you consider to be absolute or not more than you'd think - absolute here meaning without any limitations or restrictions. Consider following points when judging the absolutism of a moral theory.

1. Every moral theory has parts that are absolute (apply in any given situation) and others that are not. So taken as a whole, none of them can ever be considered an absolute.

2. Moral theories don't come about in a vacuum. If you try to determine if a moral theory is fundamentally absolutist, you'd have to consider the fundamental behind it. For example, utilitarianism relies on the fundamental that "maximum pleasure" is the prescribed goal of every individual. That premise itself forms the condition where if it is not true, the whole moral theory is rendered false and inapplicable - thus non-absolute.

3. Every moral theory is designed to be suitable for human psychology (obviously, some better than others). It takes into account the peculiarities of human condition and our understanding of the concepts such as suffering or pleasure. Therefore, human psychology itself forms one of the conditions for its applicability, thus rendering it non-absolute.

Thus, no moral theory can actually be absolute because they always rest on premises that are not absolutely true (even if they are claimed to be). What you are trying to show here is that even when the followers of a moral theory claim that it is morally non-absolutist, they say that their theory is not absolute, but treat the underlying premises as if they were. Well, that's a very tough criteria to judge anything by, because for every person you can find who'd say "the individual must do what produces greatest pleasure irrespective of the situation or persons involved", another might say "that applies only to humans with normal psyche and such an obligation would not rest on someone who cannot differentiate between pain and suffering".

[Shell B]

Hmmm. Moral absolutes assert that something is either completely right or completely wrong. I think we need to clear that up before proceeding. A school of thought that asserts one should not do something is not quite the same as saying it is completely wrong to do said thing.

[Reforged]

Sure, how about George Carlins?
"I have the right to do whatever I want, if you don't like it you have the right to kill me."
Then the only thing that constitutes right and wrong is the standards of each individual.
Thats essentially what we have now except we cover it up with pretty little philosophies and use large groups of people with a similar way of thinking to confirm we're in the right. Hitler got Germany behind him and as a group they decided they didn't like what countless people were doing and figured they had the right to kill them. Allied forces in turn decided they didn't like that so they claimed the right to kill Germany. Then a whole lot of people decided this gave them the right to kill each other. Same with every other war, people use such complex reasoning but it all comes down to one thing; something happens which we *really* don't like and we figure that gives us the right to kill people over it.
Truth is no-one gives us rights, we take them. Either for ourselves or away from others, individually or as a group. If we don't like something we change it, adapt to it or destroy it. Thats our morale compass, thats what human nature boils down to and infact what every moral system we manafacture boils down to.
Its an ugly truth but it is the truth and if you travel to the war torn countries we've either invaded or left to rot you can see that truth spread like wild fire. But hey... that doesn't mean you have to like it. That is your right after all.

Its also my right to leave you wondering if thats really what I think or if I'm just attempting to give you pause for thought... and never tell you the answer.

[liam]

Hmm, I understand that it depends on what you take to be meant by absolutes but if we even accept the 'wrong in every situation ever', doesn't the utilitarian still argue that the action which creates the greatest suffering should never be performed? this seems to constitute an absolute judgement, even if it is not reflective of an absolutist theory. Perhaps in my presentation of it here i was a little ambiguous, all the theories rely on an absolute and can so be considered, at least in some sense, absolute.

What you are trying to show here is that even when the followers of a moral theory claim that it is morally non-absolutist, they say that their theory is not absolute, but treat the underlying premises as if they were

Very well, I agree that this is pretty accurate of what i was trying to say. However, I'm not arguing that they are all true or inscrutable, as you go on to suppose, but rather that there is no non-absolutist morality at all. All I wished to get across was merely that all theories have their absolutes and this, it seems, is what makes them a substantial theory, thus no one theory can gain 'flexibility points' by saying that it has no moral absolutes.

[genkaus]

Hmm, I understand that it depends on what you take to be meant by absolutes but if we even accept the 'wrong in every situation ever', doesn't the utilitarian still argue that the action which creates the greatest suffering should never be performed? this seems to constitute an absolute judgement, even if it is not reflective of an absolutist theory. Perhaps in my presentation of it here i was a little ambiguous, all the theories rely on an absolute and can so be considered, at least in some sense, absolute.

We'd have to ask a utilitarian this, but what do you think one would say in this situation - Cause the greatest amount of suffering possible for one generation so that every generation after that can live without any suffering whatsoever.

Another thing to consider would be the foresight of whether an action would cause the greatest suffering has a role to play in judging the action. I guess different utilitarians would have different views on that.

Another thing you are forgetting is that the utilitarian dictum is "maximize happiness", not "minimize suffering" - an important distinction, though it may not seem like it. Consider the very common concept that suffering maximizes happiness (regularly appearing in religions all over the world) - that the level of a person's happiness in future depends on how much he suffers now. Your conclusion that "a utilitarian would always condemn causing greatest amount of suffering" relies on suffering and pleasure being antithetical. In the given scenario, causing the greatest amount of suffering would be the right thing to do - according to the utilitarian.

So, while it may often seem like an absolutist statements, most of the moral theories are found to be most decidedly not so upon deeper consideration.

[liam]

We'd have to ask a utilitarian this, but what do you think one would say in this situation - Cause the greatest amount of suffering possible for one generation so that every generation after that can live without any suffering whatsoever.

Well that would seem to be accepted, I don't presume to know anything of the personal variations of utilitarians' morals, rather that what makes them utilitarian would necessitate this. In this scenario I would say that the choice would be made to benefit the future generations as the pain would supposedly be outweighed by the pleasure produced?

Another thing to consider would be the foresight of whether an action would cause the greatest suffering has a role to play in judging the action. I guess different utilitarians would have different views on that.

As mentioned above, if they were utilitarian this would be the main qualifier would it not? If I am not mistaken, pain is the ultimate evil to the utilitarian.

Another thing you are forgetting is that the utilitarian dictum is "maximize happiness", not "minimize suffering" - an important distinction, though it may not seem like it. Consider the very common concept that suffering maximizes happiness (regularly appearing in religions all over the world) - that the level of a person's happiness in future depends on how much he suffers now. Your conclusion that "a utilitarian would always condemn causing greatest amount of suffering" relies on suffering and pleasure being antithetical. In the given scenario, causing the greatest amount of suffering would be the right thing to do - according to the utilitarian.

Not necessarily true, utilitarianism was created as an attempt to minimise suffering in peoples and Bentham writes TPOMAL in response to suffering, not to production of pleasure alone. Furthermore, it is attributed an equal value in the main aim of the act utilitarian theory, with the greatest good being the maximisation of pleasure and the minimisation of pain. It is not my supposition that these things are antithetical, it is the assertion of utilitarianism itself, as proposed first by Epicurus and later by the modern philosophers (such as Bentham and Mill). No, causing the greatest amount of suffering in the present would be the right choice, whereas in reality their actions would still be those which produce the greatest pleasure, even if not for the current generation.

So, while it may often seem like an absolutist statements, most of the moral theories are found to be most decidedly not so upon deeper consideration.

I remain unconvinced, perhaps you have something stronger to put forward or further explain your points?

[jonb]

All I wished to get across was merely that all theories have their absolutes and this, it seems, is what makes them a substantial theory, thus no one theory can gain 'flexibility points' by saying that it has no moral absolutes.

Are 'flexibility points' given out on a sliding scale, or is it a simple pass fail system? I ponder 'if'* Absurdists could meat your criteria, but that's my beef.
* an excellent film about revolution in a boys school staring some actors.

[liam]

Are 'flexibility points' given out on a sliding scale, or is it a simple pass fail system?

Touche, sir.