QOTD IV!! 884: Who should be next QOTD master and why, or should it die?

[eclipse]

Whether or not God exists, your standing as a person depending on whether or not you have faith, etc. In other words, all the religious stuff that had nothing to do with absolute vs. relative morality.

[Serpent of Sheol]

Sure, if you want. As long as it doesn't turn into a holy war (pun intended), I'm fine with it.

thank u eclipse

also thank you for calling my opinion healthy and cool lmao

okay so whether or not you kiddies decide to continue discussing this is totally up to you guys, but for the sake of the topic, let's define absolutism. i don't see why i really need to do this

so in the context of this topic, moral absolutism is the acceptance of absolute, unchanging moral principles to which actions can be judged as right or wrong, regardless of the context of the situation

these principles on which actions are judged come from the laws of the universe, the will of some god, or any other higher power (i might have missed one of the potential sources)

in this context, the most recognizable and most common source of absolutist beliefs come from religion, which is why it is commonly used as the example of moral absolutism

Edited December 30, 2015 by Knight of Argentum

[Naughx]

Relative morality I guess.

[Espinosa]

Where are their channels so that I can subscribe to them?

[euklyd]

let's define absolutism. i don't see why i really need to do this

because

these principles on which actions are judged come from the laws of the universe, the will of some god, or any other higher power (i might have missed one of the potential sources)

in my admittedly limited experience I'm not used to seeing this attached to it, but you're the expert here; thanks. these choices both suck tbh.

the question is wrong, op

[Serpent of Sheol]

because

in my admittedly limited experience I'm not used to seeing this attached to it, but you're the expert here; thanks. these choices both suck tbh.

the question is wrong, op

lolno i'm not an expert, i just debate it a lot

the choices suck because they are (ironically) two absolutes, which is funny because one of the options is relativism

there are so many opinions as to where morality exists, such as what you said, euklyd. descriptive moral relativism is easily the most common, though there are more strict and less strict versions of it

then there's also anything that's completely outside of the spectrum, being moral nihilism

it's hard to argue morality when you give two absolutes, because an opinion on morality is completely dependent on the person and i think 99% of people here would say, "I like X, but with some modifications," which are different types of relativism/absolutism, or completely ignoring the types of moral nihilism (cognitive, pre-suppositon failure, etc)

[euklyd]

I feel like descriptive moral relativism is a complete cop-out because all it says is that different people have different opinions on what's moral or not, and says nothing about what's right or wrong, so I'm inclined to say it doesn't count; same goes for questions on whether or not you can objectively prove whether something is right/wrong.

You can believe that some action is always morally correct and still understand that not everyone will see it as such.

I actually feel like absolutism is largely useless as well because the contexts can be broken down further and further until you get to some completely intractable set of absolutely judged component actions.

[Serpent of Sheol]

I feel like descriptive moral relativism is a complete cop-out because all it says is that different people have different opinions on what's moral or not, and says nothing about what's right or wrong, so I'm inclined to say it doesn't count; same goes for questions on whether or not you can objectively prove whether something is right/wrong.

You can believe that some action is always morally correct and still understand that not everyone will see it as such.

I actually feel like absolutism is largely useless as well because the contexts can be broken down further and further until you get to some completely intractable set of absolutely judged component actions.

there are a ton of arguments against descriptive moral relativism that all involve its inability to actually define what is right or wrong in a society, and when given the answer as to right or wrong, how it became the beliefs of society

tl;dr version of that argument is descriptive moral relativism asserts that the objective morality in society is the result of the majority agreeing upon it, but because it becomes morally right, it suggests that the majority can never be wrong; which is obviously not true in a ton of contexts

[Makaze]

Hashtag success.

Well, eh...it is kind of circular, I guess. There's a saying among my kind, God is good all the time, and all the time, God is good. It does certainly show that, you know, and I want to preface this by saying that faith, like...is important. It's a time where believing is seeing.

But at the same time, I think things are good...like, yes, God does them because they are good and because God does them they are good, because God is good and it goes in a loop and all that, yes, God is good, end of the discussion, really, but there are things you can look at about those good things and see why they are good, the good they do, good things benefit people who will accept it, to simplify and not really think about it and I might have some revelation which will completely change that overnight.

One way out of the loop is to assume that God would make the universe one where the things he said were good were empirically good. That begs the question of what you're aiming for. Imagine if two people are starving and there is only enough bread to save one of them. What is the right thing for each of them to do? If the goal is to survive, then they should fight to the death, and the one who wins had the right to do so. If the goal is to be selfless, then each of them should offer the bread to the other, and both will starve, and they are right to do so. There are hundreds of potential goals to define every scenario. In a vacuum, what is good depends on the values of the person. There are compelling arguments for and against even God's actions relative to certain values.

The construct of the afterlife could be seen as a way to resolve this problem. In the empirical world, a "good" deed may not fulfill our desires, make our lives easier, or even make us feel better about ourselves, while some "bad" deed may do all of the above. If we cannot empirically prove that our "good" deeds are rewarded, then we can form a way to bypass those questions by appealing to a non-empirical reward. We could create a construct that will grant us happiness. It cannot be a specific kind of happiness, because some people would be displeased. We must claim that it will make you happy, and leave it at that. The existence of hell must be equally ambiguous, so that the worst fears of anyone can be imagined and no one can be content with going there. A reward for all and a punishment for all. It comes back to subjective desires and the fears that accompany them. Such a construct could be used to justify any arbitrary set of goals. Imagine if God said, "You must kill all babies who do not have blue eyes." If there were no empirical basis for the harm of non-blue eyed children, then an appeal to the consequences in the afterlife would suffice for those with faith. The "fact" that people who did as was commanded went to heaven and those who didn't went to hell would be just as convincing to them as statistics showing that disease fell on families with non-blue eyed members would be to skeptics. If God had made this world one where non-blue eyed people caused disease, then it would be plausible to argue that killing non-blue eyed babies is a morally correct thing to do even in empirical basis. However, if you were a God, could you justify making the world one where that had to happen?

We get a similar result if we apply the opposite experiment.

Suppose that something was "good", but had only displeasing effects, including in the afterlife. There were absolutely no redeeming qualities for you at any time, ever. The only thing you had to go on, and would ever have to go on, were the words "God says it is good".

Suppose that something was "bad", but had only pleasing effects, including in the afterlife. There were absolutely no adverse effects for you at any time, ever. The only thing you had to go on, and would ever have to go on, were the words "God says it is bad".

In that case, what would you think God meant when he said those things were Good and Bad? If he didn't mean that they have good and bad effects, then what could he mean? I posit that in that in the absence of an appeal to consequences, it would be same as if some mortal said "You should feel the same way as me". Surely it is not rational to place the personal preferences of one being, no matter who, over a body of evidence that something is "good" for me, personally.

If you argue that God would never create such a world, then you admit that "good" and "bad" must be intrinsically tied to consequences. If you argue that God is correct regardless of everything, then "good" cannot even be pleasurable in the sense that we use it.

Edited December 30, 2015 by Makaze

[NinjaMonkey]

Relative morality I guess.

[TheEnd]

stealing and lying is wrong, but it depends

maiming and killing is wrong, no buts

i guess relatively relative morality then

[euklyd]

that sounds more absolute than relative?

[TheEnd]

kant disagrees

[Excellen Browning]

If there are some things that are always wrong, when that is, thus, absolute, you can't not have absolutist moral views.

My own answer: I'm wholly convinced absolute evil exists, if I limit morality to judgment on human (inter)actions. I'm not so sure about absolute good aka something that is always, by its definition, good. But I have certainly found cases where good was done, and therefore good exists.

[TheEnd]

i'm not so sure, as my absolutes are pretty much arbitrary - they depend on my beliefs, my upbringing, my surroudings

it is my understanding that even if possibly godly-inspired, they are human-set - i.e., they're choices, we choose what's right and wrong in this world (the next one is another matter entirely)

the debate doesn't end when, for instance, you say "killing people is wrong" - what is "killing"? what is "people"? those answers change greatly depending on time (which would be a minute) and place (which could be across the street)

[Freohr Datia]

stealing and lying is wrong, but it depends

maiming and killing is wrong, no buts

i guess relatively relative morality then

that sounds more absolute than relative?

glass half empty or glass half full?

[euklyd]

glass half empty or glass half full?

absolute morality isn't characterized by believing that everything is absolute, just that there exist (some) actions that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong

[Integrity]

One way out of the loop is to assume that God would make the universe one where the things he said were good were empirically good. That begs the question of what you're aiming for. Imagine if two people are starving and there is only enough bread to save one of them. What is the right thing for each of them to do? If the goal is to survive, then they should fight to the death, and the one who wins had the right to do so. If the goal is to be selfless, then each of them should offer the bread to the other, and both will starve, and they are right to do so. There are hundreds of potential goals to define every scenario. In a vacuum, what is good depends on the values of the person. There are compelling arguments for and against even God's actions relative to certain values.

The construct of the afterlife could be seen as a way to resolve this problem. In the empirical world, a "good" deed may not fulfill our desires, make our lives easier, or even make us feel better about ourselves, while some "bad" deed may do all of the above. If we cannot empirically prove that our "good" deeds are rewarded, then we can form a way to bypass those questions by appealing to a non-empirical reward. We could create a construct that will grant us happiness. It cannot be a specific kind of happiness, because some people would be displeased. We must claim that it will make you happy, and leave it at that. The existence of hell must be equally ambiguous, so that the worst fears of anyone can be imagined and no one can be content with going there. A reward for all and a punishment for all. It comes back to subjective desires and the fears that accompany them. Such a construct could be used to justify any arbitrary set of goals. Imagine if God said, "You must kill all babies who do not have blue eyes." If there were no empirical basis for the harm of non-blue eyed children, then an appeal to the consequences in the afterlife would suffice for those with faith. The "fact" that people who did as was commanded went to heaven and those who didn't went to hell would be just as convincing to them as statistics showing that disease fell on families with non-blue eyed members would be to skeptics. If God had made this world one where non-blue eyed people caused disease, then it would be plausible to argue that killing non-blue eyed babies is a morally correct thing to do even in empirical basis. However, if you were a God, could you justify making the world one where that had to happen?

We get a similar result if we apply the opposite experiment.

Suppose that something was "good", but had only displeasing effects, including in the afterlife. There were absolutely no redeeming qualities for you at any time, ever. The only thing you had to go on, and would ever have to go on, were the words "God says it is good".

Suppose that something was "bad", but had only pleasing effects, including in the afterlife. There were absolutely no adverse effects for you at any time, ever. The only thing you had to go on, and would ever have to go on, were the words "God says it is bad".

In that case, what would you think God meant when he said those things were Good and Bad? If he didn't mean that they have good and bad effects, then what could he mean? I posit that in that in the absence of an appeal to consequences, it would be same as if some mortal said "You should feel the same way as me". Surely it is not rational to place the personal preferences of one being, no matter who, over a body of evidence that something is "good" for me, personally.

If you argue that God would never create such a world, then you admit that "good" and "bad" must be intrinsically tied to consequences. If you argue that God is correct regardless of everything, then "good" cannot even be pleasurable in the sense that we use it.

goddamn

[Soledai]

glass half empty or glass half full?

Really though, this might be a decent qotd

[Freohr Datia]

absolute morality isn't characterized by believing that everything is absolute, just that there exist (some) actions that are absolutely right or absolutely wrong

so it's a bit of both

then that's stupid that an argument even exists over this

[euklyd]

Really though, this might be a decent qotd

we already had it

so it's a bit of both

then that's stupid that an argument even exists over this

pretty sure relative morality would say that nothing is absolute

[Freohr Datia]

pretty sure relative morality would say that nothing is absolute

yeah I know what I mean is they're wrong and losers because even though greys exist black and white still exist too

[euklyd]

yeah I know what I mean is they're wrong and losers because even though greys exist black and white still exist too

perhaps you'd like to join me in subscribing to the morality of "Darros This Question Sucks-ism"?

[Zak Something]

Relative.

See: Robin Hood.

[Roxas]

makaze wins

She doesn't really care

Nobody does

fak u