Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

[Edwardo Piet]

I would agree that if there is no Creator, then all morality is assuredly subjective and not absolute.

And I would agree that you're making a non-sequitur.

And now you're going on ignore, anagram of TERSE POE, because your posts are no fun to read and I may as well use my ignore list now I'm non-staff

[bennyboy]

hehe Terse Poe

hehehe hahahahhahahah!


Good one.

[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.

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

Well, you make it sound like doing things that would normally be deemed good, and things that would normally be deemed bad, isn't just an arbitrary choice like choosing chocolate or vanilla icecream. To be honest, the only reason why people are afraid to make such choices is because of societal constructs, which make people afraid of consequences or judgment. People feel in their "heart of hearts" that something is wrong, but that doesn't mean that it's logical or rational or reasonable. Take away these moral social constructs, and yes it is indeed very arbitrary. For people who break these tenuous social constructs, it's very demonstrably arbitrary. So to say that morality isn't arbitrary, when in fact it's just a tenuous illusion born out of dogma, is very obviously false. You don't seem to see the absurdity and utter pointlessness of life in the scheme of the cosmos.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

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

Hmmm...still having trouble with basic logic again, Khem. Oh well, you can lead a horse to water...

[The Grand Nudger]

If there were any basic logic between atheism and existential nihilism you'd have long since offered it up, rather than blurting out like a parrot with tourettes.

[Neo-Scholastic]

If there were any basic logic between atheism and existential nihilism you'd have long since offered it up, rather than blurting out like a parrot with tourettes.

Meh...its so obvious really. If you cannot see it then trying to explain it to you would be pointless.

[Edwardo Piet]

If there were any basic logic between atheism and existential nihilism you'd have long since offered it up, rather than blurting out like a parrot with tourettes.

Meh...its so obvious really. If you cannot see it then trying to explain it to you would be pointless.

What does it even mean to say there's objectively no meaning to existence if there's no useful conceptualization of an alternative?

If there's no distinction that can be made then objective meaningfulness and objective meaninglessness is identical. You can't have objective meaninglessness if there's nothing to differentiate it from objective meaningfulness.

[Odoital77]

Well, you make it sound like doing things that would normally be deemed good, and things that would normally be deemed bad, isn't just an arbitrary choice like choosing chocolate or vanilla icecream. To be honest, the only reason why people are afraid to make such choices is because of societal constructs, which make people afraid of consequences or judgment. People feel in their "heart of hearts" that something is wrong, but that doesn't mean that it's logical or rational or reasonable. Take away these moral social constructs, and yes it is indeed very arbitrary. For people who break these tenuous social constructs, it's very demonstrably arbitrary. So to say that morality isn't arbitrary, when in fact it's just a tenuous illusion born out of dogma, is very obviously false. You don't seem to see the absurdity and utter pointlessness of life in the scheme of the cosmos.

The fact that they are mere societal constructs doesn't nothing to lessen their arbitrary or subjective nature.  If morality is merely a construct, then it is the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla no matter how much law, police, or societal disapproval you put on the other side.  It remains just as arbitrary.

That is why I say "yes" to the proposition that an objective moral law exists.  I don't see how it could reasonably be otherwise and still be describing anything that corresponds to reality.

[WisdomOfTheTrees]

Well, you make it sound like doing things that would normally be deemed good, and things that would normally be deemed bad, isn't just an arbitrary choice like choosing chocolate or vanilla icecream. To be honest, the only reason why people are afraid to make such choices is because of societal constructs, which make people afraid of consequences or judgment. People feel in their "heart of hearts" that something is wrong, but that doesn't mean that it's logical or rational or reasonable. Take away these moral social constructs, and yes it is indeed very arbitrary. For people who break these tenuous social constructs, it's very demonstrably arbitrary. So to say that morality isn't arbitrary, when in fact it's just a tenuous illusion born out of dogma, is very obviously false. You don't seem to see the absurdity and utter pointlessness of life in the scheme of the cosmos.

The fact that they are mere societal constructs doesn't nothing to lessen their arbitrary or subjective nature.  If morality is merely a construct, then it is the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla no matter how much law, police, or societal disapproval you put on the other side.  It remains just as arbitrary.

That is why I say "yes" to the proposition that an objective moral law exists.  I don't see how it could reasonably be otherwise and still be describing anything that corresponds to reality.

What you just said makes no sense what so ever. You said if it's a construct, then it's the same as choosing chocolate and vanilla icecream, regardless of societal constructs such as law or police or societal disapproval. Yes. I don't see how you arrived from that to objective morality, it's a complete leap to a different conclusion from what you outlined.

[brewer]

The fact that they are mere societal constructs doesn't nothing to lessen their arbitrary or subjective nature.  If morality is merely a construct, then it is the same as choosing between chocolate and vanilla no matter how much law, police, or societal disapproval you put on the other side.  It remains just as arbitrary.

That is why I say "yes" to the proposition that an objective moral law exists.  I don't see how it could reasonably be otherwise and still be describing anything that corresponds to reality.

bold mine

Can you tell us what you believe these objective moral law(s) are? In specific, not general.