Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

[Whateverist]

To say that morality is not objective is a far cry from saying it is arbitrary.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

Personal desire is the only reason that killing can be wrong?  I doubt that very much.  

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

Morality is a social norm...by definition, though morality and legality are often separate, related, subjects.  

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

I wouldn't know.  I have no trouble identifying some things™ as absolutely wrong.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

To say that morality is not objective is a far cry from saying it is arbitrary.

Well, you've given me no reason to think otherwise. I don't know why you'd just make a declarative statement and expect me to reason with that.

---

Khemikal, fuck off. You don't have the capacity to reason, you've proved that.

[SteveII]

I've seen people say a lot that there is an absolute morality, but it seems to me that there is not. For example, some people say that killing is ultimately wrong, but there can be no reason why one thinks killing is wrong, other than personal desire. Personal desire is not quantifiable, therefor it's an arbitrary measurement of a person's feelings. 

It would seem were it not for this problem, there wouldn't be religion, which tries to solve this problem through dogma, and the imposition of an imaginary creator of whom punishment is inescapable. It would seem to me, that all morality is nothing more than dogmas, whether it be social norms or enforced laws. 

How does one cope with knowing that all morality is arbitrary, and say that one respects morality beyond being blinded by dogmas, or simply appreciating the geometry of such arbitrary systems? on a purely intellectual level. The alternative is, of course, "psychopathy", where the dogmas and appreciation of arbitrary systems is absent.

By cope, I mean cope with the fact that the systems in place are arbitrary, so there's no one system which can ultimately bring about the best of humanity. Without an objective morality, of which one could appeal to every person through reason, there is basically only wars and dogmas that struggle for dominance.

When followed to it's logical conclusion, atheism seems to result in a depressing philosophy - nihilism. I'm going with the God-is-not-dead theme and ground my reality in something objective. 

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that you're only describing how you would feel, if you stopped believing, Steve...not any logical conclusion of atheism.

[Neo-Scholastic]

To say that morality is not objective is a far cry from saying it is arbitrary.

Indeed. I've been thinking about this quite a bit lately.

I believe the problem is like shaking a gift box and knowing that there is something in the box but only being able to guess what it is (...or how it got there or who it's from, etc.) Morality may ultimately have an objective basis but that in no way necessitates that people can know everything about it. So I am willing to grant assumptions both atheistic and theistic approaches could share such as, the existence of conscience and the cultural contingency of all moral systems, etc. with the understanding that these are ultimately grounded in moral absolutes that transcend any individual or culture.

[Minimalist]

I'm going with the God-is-not-dead theme and ground my reality in something objective.

Feel free to delude yourself whenever you like.

[The Grand Nudger]

 So I am willing to grant assumptions both atheistic and theistic approaches could share such as, the existence of conscience and the cultural contingency of all moral systems, etc. with the understanding that these are ultimately grounded in moral absolutes that transcend any individual or culture.

I think that you'll find immense overlap in religious(particularly divine or "godly") and secular moralities.  That's mostly due to there being nothing in any religious morality that could not be used in a secular morality other than "because god said so/made it so".  Anything in a religious morality that does not depend strictly and solely on god saying so/making it so will find it easy to fit into a secular morality.  Similarly, many religious moralities have leveraged secular moral proclamations.  Reciprocity is, ofc, the famous example familiar to most christians.

You and I, in all likelihood, think that many of the same things are wrong, and for the same reasons.

[SteveII]

I think that you're only describing how you would feel, if you stopped believing, Steve...not any logical conclusion of atheism.

Perhaps, but there are atheist philosophers who reason the same way Sarte, Camus, Nietzshche, Russel. You might be fine  with no ultimate significance, meaning value, or purpose. Others find that depressing.

Like Bertand Russel 

Such, in outline, but even more purposeless, more void of meaning, is the world which Science presents for our belief. Amid such a world, if anywhere, our ideals henceforward must find a home. That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins--all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built. https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/br-free-mans-worship.html

I am not trying to say that you are not happy with your belief--if you are, great. But it is obvious others struggle.

---

 So I am willing to grant assumptions both atheistic and theistic approaches could share such as, the existence of conscience and the cultural contingency of all moral systems, etc. with the understanding that these are ultimately grounded in moral absolutes that transcend any individual or culture.

I think that you'll find immense overlap in religious(particularly divine or "godly") and secular moralities.  That's mostly due to there being nothing in any religious morality that could not be used in a secular morality other than "because god said so/made it so".  Anything in a religious morality that does not depend strictly and solely on god saying so/making it so will find it easy to fit into a secular morality.  Similarly, many religious moralities have leveraged secular moral proclamations.  Reciprocity is, ofc, the famous example familiar to most christians.

You and I, in all likelihood, think that many of the same things are wrong, and for the same reasons.

That breaks down the moment you encounter a culture with different values that you would consider 'deal-breakers'.