Morality

[Whateverist]

"Similarly a perfect moral position in one society may not (probably won't) translate into the next."

You seem to be under the impression that people are just blank slates with nothing whatsoever intrinsically in common. Admittedly culture counts for a lot but consider the needs any culture must account for. We all eat the same range of foods, have young that need support for greatly protracted childhoods, have need of the same level of shelter within the same range of climates, have the same instinctive fears and probably have some amount of instinctual (or at least dispositional) tendency toward pro-social behavior toward kin and tribe. The morals which arise in a community of humans can not be random since they must answer to so many predictable requirements if the group is to be successful.

[paulpablo]

"is there a point that evolution stops"
When all comforts are met, all disease cured, and peace established. I see no reason for evolution to continue.

I disagree with this since animal evolution is more complex, and their is no goal of evolution to create a being with no disease or intelligence or less of a tenancy towards war.
You have to take into consideration that environments and climates change, that along with sexual selection, a lot of the animal kingdom evolves specifically to have non peaceful means of securing success via sexual selection.

[max-greece]

"Is there an absolute car?"
Well, no there's not. But there is an absolute standard(the laws of physics) that we can use to build/judge the car.

This is a very religious approach to life frankly and as such you are blinding yourself to a massive number of factors.

The laws of physics are not the sole definition of an absolute car. Car Design can change massively without any reference to them. How does the incorporation of a stereo, GPS unit, leather seats, air conditioning, and a thousand other factors affect compliance with the laws of physics?

Does a convertible comply less with the laws of physics than a 4 door saloon?

Suppose we agree that the most beautiful car ever made was the E-Type Jaguar designed in the early 1960's. Why have so many other car shapes been made since then?

"is there a point that evolution stops"
When all comforts are met, all disease cured, and peace established. I see no reason for evolution to continue.

Well the human back could so with some modifications - we lose millions of days of work to it. Losing the appendix wouldn't be a bad idea. Further development of the higher centres of the brain is likely. Our dentition is overkill for our diet now, accepting that a thicker enamel wouldn't be a bad idea.

Of course if we do go into space our bodies really aren't particularly suitable for zero G conditions so there would probably be a slew of changes that could be made there.

If some people go into space and some stay down here it is highly likely that over a period of time we will evolve into 2 slightly different species. Imagine the host of new moral issues we will have to face then...

What happens if we ever come across an Alien species? A whole slew of new moral arguments follow.

"Similarly a perfect moral position in one society may not (probably won't) translate into the next."
There is a difference between universal moral goodness, and the rules/culture/preference of a society.
Like I said this is a fairly abstract notion I'm throwing around here.

Hopefully we have just established that in changing environments morality changes. There is no universal moral goodness that could apply. This is a figment of your imagination (not your alone of course). There are far too many morally ambiguous situations in life for such a thing to exist. Lying to protect someone from information that might harm them. Stealing to save a life - you can probably come up with a dozen of your own.

I would hope that by now we have established that the entire concept of an absolute morality is, in and of itself both impossible (and actually probably immoral as a concept). That you are so desperate to hang onto it says more about you than the credibility of the idea.

I don't often advise anyone to go out and find a religion that suits but in your case it would seem to fit you better than atheism.

[fr0d0]

A car is an absolute car is it not? The only way it could not be would be for it to be part something else.
It may not be perfection in car design. An ultimate final nadir of function. But those aren't necessary to 'carness'.

There are absolute cars, buildings, pieces of music, paintings, computers, etc.. There are not absolutely -perfect- in that they couldn't be done differently, or better perhaps [any of those].

A painting can be perfect with its flaws. it will never be any better. Absolutes here are nonsense.

[Cato]

There are absolute cars, buildings, pieces of music, paintings, computers, etc.. There are not absolutely -perfect- in that they couldn't be done differently [any of those].

Are you arguing that God isn't absolute or that God isn't perfect? Or, perhaps both?

[fr0d0]

Hopefully we have just established that in changing environments morality changes. There is no universal moral goodness that could apply.

Secular morality. I absolutely :p agree.

Theistic morality, for example, sets an aim to a higher moral standard we can understand because we have secular morality. It's an extension of the same thing.

So whilst universal moral goodness isn't innate, it is an attainable goal, if a challenging one to hit.

Factoring in justice (this physical reality is neutrally just), an aim towards absolute morality becomes a possibility. I don't see how you could object to that.

---

Are you arguing that God isn't absolute or that God isn't perfect? Or, perhaps both?

Please explain.

[crud]

@Max.
I'm not denying a subjective side of life exist.
sure we'll all pick different cars based on purely personal prefence color/shape ect.
But there is nothing religious at all about saying that we can judge the quality of the car speed/reliability/safety/efficiency ect by an absolute standard, which is; the laws of physics...
I don't know how this is the "religious approach", sounds more like the scientific approach to me.
^ that's kind of besides the point though, you're surely not denying that objective truth can exist?



..So you are just saying that all morality is relative? - that's fair. but I can't see how it's different from moral nihlism. And I don't see how we can deem the actions of anyone eles as wrong? if this is the case

side note - Sam Harris fights hard to try and say that morality can still be objective within naturalism.

---

" the entire concept of an absolute morality is, in and of itself both impossible (and actually probably immoral as a concept)"
Under moral relativism, a statement like this is absurd.... you first say morality is nothing more than subjective opinion, but then go on to use the word "immoral" like it actually has meaning

[Cato]

Please explain.

Must I, really? Replace the word 'God' for the word 'car' in your previous argument. If you do this you must conclude that God =/= perfection.

[max-greece]

A car is an absolute car is it not? The only way it could not be would be for it to be part something else.
It may not be perfection in car design. An ultimate final nadir of function. But those aren't necessary to 'carness'.

There are absolute cars, buildings, pieces of music, paintings, computers, etc.. There are not absolutely -perfect- in that they couldn't be done differently, or better perhaps [any of those].

A painting can be perfect with its flaws. it will never be any better. Absolutes here are nonsense.

I think you are missing the point. We are discussing absolute perfection, in morality in this case. I am pointing out that is doesn't exist, and, in fact can't.

Lets not divert this into what gives a car its car-ness or we will be at this for another 50 pages.

---

@Max.
I'm not denying a subjective side of life exist.
sure we'll all pick different cars based on purely personal prefence color/shape ect.
But there is nothing religious at all about saying that we can judge the quality of the car speed/reliability/safety/efficiency ect by an absolute standard, which is; the laws of physics...
I don't know how this is the "religious approach", sounds more like the scientific approach to me.
^ that's kind of besides the point though, you're surely not denying that objective truth can exist?

A moment ago we were discussing cars - now we are judging the quality of the car according to set criteria. This is fine but we need to recognise we are moving the goalposts.

Lets take one at random - safety. For whom? - for the driver, for the front seat passenger, the rear seat passengers? Les assume for the lot of them. We conclude that the safest car is a large 4 wheel drive vehicle.

Great - so the ideal, perfect, safe vehicle has been identified. Sadly however, someone comes along and points out that for a pedestrian the worst vehicle to be hit by is a heavy 4 wheel drive car.

OK - so we add all sorts of additional safety equipment to make the jeep (as a generic for 4 wheel drive) safer. We make it less likely to hit anyone in the first place and we cover it in materials less likely to inflict harm on the pedestrian.

We now are confident we have the safest vehicle we can possibly make.

Sadly, however, our car now weighs 3 tons. It gets 12 mpg.

We make a more efficient engine - we get it up to 30 mpg - result!

Our car now accelerates from 0-60 in 17 seconds. No-one wants it.

You realise this goes on forever - thankfully, otherwise car companies would be closing down and no new ones would be there to take their place.

BTW - Objective truth? You are joking aren't you. Do we really need to work through this as well. No, of course it doesn't exist.

[fr0d0]

(let's say) A car is a box with wheels and seats. Anything which fulfills those criteria is fully a car. It can't be more of a car. It is a car, absolutely.

---

Must I, really? Replace the word 'God' for the word 'car' in your previous argument. If you do this you must conclude that God =/= perfection.

Right. I think you misunderstood.

I don't claim that the concept of God can't be improved. I see xtianity as the currently last evolutionary step.