Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Neo-Scholastic]

When a bunch of healthy people are around we can't always decide who is the healtheist but when we can't prove objectively who is the healtheist out of a group of healthy people... we don't get people saying that therefore health is not objective and we need an exact definition that everyone agrees on and is completely non-arbitrary and foolproof otherwise it's not objective. No.

No part of science is completely non-arbitary and foolproof. Objective is not the same as universal or non-arbitrary. It's also not the same as finding answers in practice.

Something can be completely non-universal, non-arbitrary and even impossible to find answers in practice and there can STILL be objective answers in principle.

The fact that people don't agree on a definition of morality is completely irrelevant. Each definition has objective answers to it in principle.

You may not have realized it but your analogy relies on the idea that there are normative properties to being human. That's a good first step towards natural law ...

[Astreja]

True. But it would set a standard by which all morality is measured.  

So in practice if morality was based on that standard then it would not fluctuate because of individual circumstance and environment.

Morality is not generally a matter of individual  circumstance, but best practices as determined by groups of people.  A culture with an "every man for himself" approach to morality is generally less safe and more prone to breakdown than a culture that promote the safety and happiness of its members, and I think you'll find that successful cultures have well-evolved moral standards.

I find many people have a moral objection to the Christian God's actions found in scripture.  This always feels ironic to me if we live in a world where all morality is subjective and does not transcend everything.

That's because over many generations we've created a superior moral standard to the one in the Bible -- a standard that has improved the quality of life for a greater number of people, resulting in a more productive, more advanced culture.  We're now curing diseases and collaborating on peacekeeping missions rather than arguing about the proper way to treat slaves, or stoning people to death for working on the Sabbath.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's because over many generations we've created a superior moral standard to the one in the Bible -- a standard that has improved the quality of life for a greater number of people, resulting in a more productive, more advanced culture. 

Progress is a myth. Quality of Life? Not for the offspring and elderly that are killed to maintain lives of pleasure and comfort? Productive? Masses who live in tyranny make cheap goods in smog covered cities so others can live on the dole watching reality television. Advanced? Who is to say that future generations will not look back in horror on our lack of honor and shamelessness? Will they judge us for our willingness to to look away from the hidden violence and even celebrate private depravities.

[The Grand Nudger]

The things you think might be myths and the things you're certain aren't boggle the mind.

You're commenting on the disparity of progress, above, which would be an explicit acknowledgement that it is anything -but- a myth......you realize?

[RozKek]

---

Someone can be a tacit nihilist without explicitly recognizing one's self as one. It's like being a nominal Christian but not really believing any of it in any practical sense.

That's what happened to me. I can remember riding on the train one day and thinking to myself about how I could still consider myself a Christian even though I did not believe in the efficacy of prayer or miracles and that God was all but absent from my thinking. At that moment I admitted to myself that in reality I was an atheist. I felt liberated.

And for 10 to 15 years, I maintained an uneasy peace with the absurdity of existence. Nevertheless, based on the intensity and earnestness of my searching for meaning within that paradigm I feel fairly confident saying that atheism leads inexorably towards nihilism, a self-defeating philosophy that can be maintained only by willfully ignoring its own irrationality. I know others disagree but I truly believe that many many atheists simply have not fully examined their own beliefs and what they necessarily entail. They are like I was, only in reverse, clinging to the idea that I was a Christian while denying everything it implied.

Of course that is just an opinion based on my own experience. I'm open to the idea that there might be godless solutions to ultimate issues.  Maybe there is some way to reconcile the absence of God with rationality and significance, but I haven't seen it. Four years on AF haven't done much to persuade me otherwise. Personally, I don't think it is stubbornness on my part, since I was at one time willing to embrace atheism and am still waffling over various Christian doctrines. But really, no matter how much atheists assert that their lives have meaning and such, they really don't seem to have done the heavy lifting necessary to justify those beliefs.

---

-mind bolded-

This goes the other way around too

[Mudhammam]

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.

I view morality as rational principles concerned with the practical goods of sentient beings.  Is rationality arbitrary?  No, it is based in axiomatic truths derived from pure reason, or the logical functions of the understanding.  Likewise, I find Kant's use of the categorical imperative useful here -- By action we will our private maxims to be universally valid -- and as we are rational beings, and by extension, ends in ourselves, we determine morality and the imposition of its universal validity, per the Idea of reason.  That said, no particular ethical principle can be discovered apart from experience, even if experience is not itself sufficient for the justification of said principles, found only in reason when applied to ourselves as ends, or rational beings that are intrinsically valuable (since Minds are the only means through which all evaluation finds expression).

[The Industrial Atheist]

That's because over many generations we've created a superior moral standard to the one in the Bible -- a standard that has improved the quality of life for a greater number of people, resulting in a more productive, more advanced culture. 

Progress is a myth. Quality of Life? Not for the offspring and elderly that are killed to maintain lives of pleasure and comfort? Productive? Masses who live in tyranny make cheap goods in smog covered cities so others can live on the dole watching reality television. Advanced? Who is to say that future generations will not look back in horror on our lack of honor and shamelessness? Will they judge us for our willingness to to look away from the hidden violence and even celebrate private depravities.

I don't know how future generations will look at us ,but apparently God seems to think it's a good and orderly thing for a raped woman to be sold to her rapist. Or in the NT that lieing about how much money is donated is deserving of execution. Or that women should not have any occupation in which they would be teaching males anything and should submit to their husbands. Not to mention the homophobia which you possibly approve of.

How about things which you can relate to historic horrors? Like how it says not to suffer a witch to live and we have the Salem witch trials? Or how about the sanctioning of slavery which Jesus and Paul did not recant? The Confederate South accurately used those scriptures to justify their slavery.

So, things are far from perfect but we have definitely made progress compared to a book made in a foreign country during barbaric times.

[SteveII]

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. 

Most of the famous Atheist philosophers haven't been nihilists. In fact, I don't know that any of them were.

I should have been more precise. Atheism results in Existential Nihilism. For that, there is plenty of support from atheist philosophers.

[Odoital77]

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.

I'm not sure I understand the question.  The term, "absolute morality" is a confusing one.  If you mean, that there is absolutely a moral law, then I'd say yes.  If you mean that it's application is the exact same for everyone in every circumstance, then I'd say no.  For example, whether or not it is right or wrong to kill another person depends entirely on the circumstances or context.

But if you're merely talking about the existence of objective morality, then I'd have to say yes.  To say otherwise, is to reduce morality to mere convention.  And of course, if that's the case, then it would be impossible to genuinely condemn any behavior from the Nazi Holocaust to the torturing of disabled children for fun.  Apart from the fact that not being able to affirm the moral wrongness of those acts in any genuine way is sick, it turns very serious behavior into the equivalent of choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

One only need cope with arbitrary morality if it is indeed arbitrary, and I see virtually no reason to believe that at all.  In fact, I see far more reason to believe that morality is non-arbitrary.

Odoital77

[The Grand Nudger]

I should have been more precise. Atheism results in Existential Nihilism.

Still just what it would result in for you, Steve.

For that, there is plenty of support from atheist philosophers.

Surprise surprise, atheists have different opinions on shit unrelated to gods - which...to atheists.....is everything...........