RE: Atheists only vote please: Do absolute MORAL truths exist? Is Rape ALWAYS "wr...
October 31, 2014 at 8:30 am
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2014 at 8:32 am by Ben Davis.)
Hi Tsun Tsu,
1. You think there's an 'atheist' position on absolute/universal morality. Since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god/s, you will find that 'atheism' has absolutely nothing to say regarding morality. Consequently you will find that different individuals will offer different positions, dependent on their individual moral value-systems. You will find that the 'atheist' position is proportional to the acceptance of absolute/universal morality in a given cultural population. Additionally, it's worth remembering that some atheist value-systems are as rooted in supernaturality as theist ones.
2. You've conflated a/gnosticism with a/theism a couple of times. They are not mutually exclusive positions.
3. You've offered fuzzy definitions of the terms terms 'universal' & 'wrong' and you're clearly working with erroneous definitions of 'atheist' & 'agnostic'. You've also introduced other poorly defined terms which weren't in the OP (e.g. 'higher truth'). Others have picked you up on the details throughout this thread but you haven't really addressed those concerns. These definitions (or lack thereof) are causing you to argue at crossed-purposes with some people and will ultimately skew the validity of any statistical analysis.
So on to your question. A few definitions from me first:
Absolute/Universal - Applicable in all circumstance, irrespective of nuance or circumstance; non-subjective
Moral - concerning the principles of 'right' or 'wrong' behaviour; regarding the actions of 'moral agents'
Moral agents - those having moral agency; sentient beings who can differentiate between the potential consequences of their actions; beings who are capable of acting with reference to 'right' and 'wrong'
Right - correct; appropriate/justified. With reference to morality - positively valuable
Wrong - incorrect; inappropriate/unjustified. With reference to morality - negatively valuable
My position is that there are no absolute moral truths in our current stage of social development; all moral actions are necessarily subjective because there always exists the possibility of someone taking an action which is both positively valuable or 'right' (e.g. provides an immediate personal benefit) and is negatively valuable or 'wrong' (e.g. creates a victim). I hold this position as true for non-human moral agents, too (e.g. wild dogs, who clearly have moral agency but have no qualms in creating victims). For beings who can develop and learn moral systems which have ever increasing positive values and ever decreasing negative values, it's possible to imagine a situation where all moral decisions only have positive values (therefore are 'absolutely' right) however I don't know if that would ever become a reality. In these terms, an understanding of moral subjectivity is, in & of itself, positively valuable (or right) because it could lead to the development of an absolute morality however if absolute morality is, in reality, impossible, it would at least lead to a maximally positive morality.
Regarding your example of rape, I would suggest that this is a poor example to use in examination of subjective moral systems because humans have developed a maximally positive moral position on it: non-consensual sex is wrong because it violates one's right to bodily autonomy thus creating victims. Further, we are developing justice systems which support and enforce this maximal position on societies where rape still occurs. This is also true of child abuse and slavery. If society were to suffer a situation where this maximal position was retarded (e.g. extinction-level events where rape becomes a broadly accepted/useful/necessary method of ensuring propagation of the species), our level of sentient development would ensure that it would still be wrong (victims would still be created) but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of redeveloping the maximal position.
Maybe the subjects of euthanasia or coercive justice systems may serve your purposes better?
(October 30, 2014 at 7:05 pm)Tsun Tsu Wrote:I've read all 11 pages, so-far, of this discussion and a few things have jumped out at me. So before we start:
1. You think there's an 'atheist' position on absolute/universal morality. Since atheism is solely a lack of belief in god/s, you will find that 'atheism' has absolutely nothing to say regarding morality. Consequently you will find that different individuals will offer different positions, dependent on their individual moral value-systems. You will find that the 'atheist' position is proportional to the acceptance of absolute/universal morality in a given cultural population. Additionally, it's worth remembering that some atheist value-systems are as rooted in supernaturality as theist ones.
2. You've conflated a/gnosticism with a/theism a couple of times. They are not mutually exclusive positions.
3. You've offered fuzzy definitions of the terms terms 'universal' & 'wrong' and you're clearly working with erroneous definitions of 'atheist' & 'agnostic'. You've also introduced other poorly defined terms which weren't in the OP (e.g. 'higher truth'). Others have picked you up on the details throughout this thread but you haven't really addressed those concerns. These definitions (or lack thereof) are causing you to argue at crossed-purposes with some people and will ultimately skew the validity of any statistical analysis.
So on to your question. A few definitions from me first:
Absolute/Universal - Applicable in all circumstance, irrespective of nuance or circumstance; non-subjective
Moral - concerning the principles of 'right' or 'wrong' behaviour; regarding the actions of 'moral agents'
Moral agents - those having moral agency; sentient beings who can differentiate between the potential consequences of their actions; beings who are capable of acting with reference to 'right' and 'wrong'
Right - correct; appropriate/justified. With reference to morality - positively valuable
Wrong - incorrect; inappropriate/unjustified. With reference to morality - negatively valuable
My position is that there are no absolute moral truths in our current stage of social development; all moral actions are necessarily subjective because there always exists the possibility of someone taking an action which is both positively valuable or 'right' (e.g. provides an immediate personal benefit) and is negatively valuable or 'wrong' (e.g. creates a victim). I hold this position as true for non-human moral agents, too (e.g. wild dogs, who clearly have moral agency but have no qualms in creating victims). For beings who can develop and learn moral systems which have ever increasing positive values and ever decreasing negative values, it's possible to imagine a situation where all moral decisions only have positive values (therefore are 'absolutely' right) however I don't know if that would ever become a reality. In these terms, an understanding of moral subjectivity is, in & of itself, positively valuable (or right) because it could lead to the development of an absolute morality however if absolute morality is, in reality, impossible, it would at least lead to a maximally positive morality.
Regarding your example of rape, I would suggest that this is a poor example to use in examination of subjective moral systems because humans have developed a maximally positive moral position on it: non-consensual sex is wrong because it violates one's right to bodily autonomy thus creating victims. Further, we are developing justice systems which support and enforce this maximal position on societies where rape still occurs. This is also true of child abuse and slavery. If society were to suffer a situation where this maximal position was retarded (e.g. extinction-level events where rape becomes a broadly accepted/useful/necessary method of ensuring propagation of the species), our level of sentient development would ensure that it would still be wrong (victims would still be created) but that wouldn't preclude the possibility of redeveloping the maximal position.
Maybe the subjects of euthanasia or coercive justice systems may serve your purposes better?
Sum ergo sum
