are their moral absolutes?

Their has always been debating on this topic since forever it seems,

Most today say no and point to the history books as evidence, citing different practices that we see as barbaric and such.

But I have a theory,

In it, I believe all humans come programed with moral ideals (that wild animals don't have)
A long list of reactions to different situations and emotions, like a blue print. (Not like instincts that help survival, these are merely ideals)

As humans spread out from Africa and became more isolated and forming tribes and civilizations, this long list of reactions was tamperd down by society, and by whichever reactions were most prevalent in each given tribe,


And as these grew more popular in each isolated society, the reactions that weren't "popular " were pushed to the back, labeled, taboo.

But these reactions are still present in our brain and come out more in a minority of individuals of a given populace,

Such as traits of hair color and eyes are hidden but still sleeping dormant in our DNA.

We all have the same morals of right and wrong, but since each culture has grown its own rules, the list was "cut down."

On a side note- I recently read an article stating that neuroscientist thought they located the spot of the brain containing our "conscious"

I wish I would have written an essay about my theory years ago, most will say now that I'm simply fitting my philosophy to modern science but I say not! I thought about this while sitting in algebra years ago! Hahahah

I agree with some of your points but I have to disagree with you stating that we are born with moral ideals. That doesn't fit with my worldview, what I mean by that is that as kids we are punished or rather conditioned to suppress behaviour that is thought to be undesirable, such as not standing straight, telling lies or even viciously killing and disemboweling a dog even though you were never found guilty of that particular offense, they think they know everything, well they don't now do they?

I feel that morals are beaten into us and then we are handed our beliefs at the church door. At a very malleable age we are taught how to live and then when our worldview is shattered in our teen years, we become rebelious not out of a desire to be different or to change things but rather out of sheer spite. Only to become the model citizens we were programmed to be in our adolescent years and continuing the practice of forcefully instilling beliefs and ''acceptable behaviours'' in the following generations.

I feel that if we were left to our own devices or if we did not live in such tighly packed communities, sacrificing privacy and alone time for companionship, half truths and debt, we would, I believe, be more lenient in choosing acceptable behaviours. But then again our conscience would certainly be shaped by the expectations of our parents, seeing as we seek approval like it's Osama Bin Laden or rather the TV remote after the kids left the TV on their inane educational TV programs, again!

This is really a good thread idea OP. I hope to read what the inhabitants of GC and also the lurkers out there have to say.

Edited by tHe LoNLy StOnR, 16 May 2012 - 09:15 PM.
Because

Thanks, but that's why I say society pushed the others back,

As babies and young children, the molding by parents and society as a whole is the "pushing back" of unwanted reactions, and further back like traits, but still existing but rarely showing.

Of course I have no proof,

But an example would be ancient Greece, relationships between young boys and old men were common. I'm guessing in other civilizations aswell.

Today, after a couole thousand years of suppression in Europe of this former popular reaction, of older men attractiveness towards young boys , the feeling is labeled as taboo, ,the prevelance is low now.

But still you here about old men doing nasty shit. Most of them claim to be normal.

Its not to good of an example but its an example lol.

Also I feel as a child their is a large guilt factor, but as you continue to do immoral actions you grow numb towards it.

I strongly believe every "normal " human feels guilt, and if morals were 100% society and not 50-50. I don't see why are bodies would create such an undesirable emotion.

I think one moral absolute is causing disappointment in peers toward self.

No.

Moral nihilism is a concept of morality that is probably the closest to any universal truth that might exist, if it does anyways.

We are stuck between social mores constructs and nature programmed biochemistry, that alters how we behave and what we feel (is right or wrong).

Edited by PeruvianDank, 17 May 2012 - 01:44 AM.

No.

Moral nihilism is a concept of morality that is probably the closest to any universal truth that might exist, if it does anyways.

We are stuck between social mores constructs and nature programmed biochemistry, that alters how we behave and what we feel (is right or wrong).

So are u agreeing or disagreeing?

Because you basically said what I did, I said we have natural reactions and society "tampered it down through years of isolation "

And in a separate post I said its 50-50 between chemistry and society, not 100% society which I think is the popular view

absolute (noun) - A value or principle regarded as universally valid or viewed without relation to other things.

Morality is developed in relation to:
consequences (social or legal)
social conditioning

You see moral inconsitincies all the time. Can you really hate a nazi? He is just a victim of circumstance...

Also, definition of absolutely is "universally valid or viewed" which is not true. pyschopaths who don't experience empathy have a completely different set of morals.

there

I believe morality can be as absolute as anything else in this world, which is to say, it is universal, with exceptions, just as any other "absolute" has exceptions.


Math, and science are our most useful tools to deriving the most "objective truth" possible, and even these tools fail to properly describe exceptions that have been observed sometimes.

I think your askIng the question wrong though. Morality is a human construct. While other apecies may have constructed their own percoeves moralities, we mostly refer to human morality when we use the term loosely.

Human societies current moral construction is far from absolute in practice. People make their own exceptions to the rules (governments esp.) in ways that change daily. So cirrently no, morality is not absolute.

Morality CAN be absolute as anything else is, it simply needs to be worked logocally as any other "absolute" law has been.

Is something pious(good) because the gods love it, or do the gods love it because it's pious?

Pick the first statement, and this renders the rules arbitrary; meaning, morality is inculcated and is not innate. If you pick the second statement, then this raises the question, why isn't there a consensus on morality throughout the world? What's "right" in America, is NOT always going to be "right" in Japan.

But I pick the first statement... Shrewd morality, to a precise degree, is most definitely taught.

All morality MUST be constituted by the subject, the individual.

Edited by Boats And Hoes, 17 May 2012 - 05:05 PM.

The only way morality can be universal is in relation to the "will" - which is an entity ALL beings posses on earth. If something is harmful to the "will" it's deemed "bad"; and if something appeases the "will" it's deemed "good".

And by "will" I mean - The drive/force to enhance and augment your nature, by acting in accordance with your nature. What's "good" is usually equated with pleasure, and what's "bad" is usually equated with pain. Memory and empathy are the parents of ALL morality.

Edited by Boats And Hoes, 17 May 2012 - 06:01 PM.

The only way morality can be universal is in relation to the "will" - which is an entity ALL beings posses on earth. If something is harmful to the "will" it's deemed "bad"; and if something appeases the "will" it's deemed "good".

And by "will" I mean - The drive/force to enhance and augment your nature, by acting in accordance with your nature. What's "good" is usually equated with pleasure, and what's "bad" is usually equated with pain. Memory and empathy are the parents of ALL morality.

This, morality is entirely relative. Even arguments for an objective morality are largely based on some sort of God which even then doesn't make sense, how is an iron fist an obective morality? There's other arguments for it but they all work backwards from the conclusion and end up taking things as a-priori that frankly aren't.

I leaning more towards there being an absolute moral law.

Every civilization has had Some form of the golden rule.

I always hear people using the example though of the tribes that ate other people's brains because they believed it gave them the deceased mans' knowledge, and people ask 'well what about their moral laws'?

Even though they'd eat other people outside their tribe, within their own tribe they still conformed to a golden rule. They viewed people outside their tribe and different species almost so it didn't affect them.

Yes the brain and thinking patterns can be manipulated, but still through and through all throughout history practically all civilizations have had some form of the golden rule.

I leaning more towards there being an absolute moral law.

Every civilization has had Some form of the golden rule.

I always hear people using the example though of the tribes that ate other people's brains because they believed it gave them the deceased mans' knowledge, and people ask 'well what about their moral laws'?

Even though they'd eat other people outside their tribe, within their own tribe they still conformed to a golden rule. They viewed people outside their tribe and different species almost so it didn't affect them.

Yes the brain and thinking patterns can be manipulated, but still through and through all throughout history practically all civilizations have had some form of the golden rule.

As I said, this is a result of memory and empathy. If you couldn't memorize your conceptual self, how would you discern and set forth, absolutely, the precedent that hitting another being in the face is bad?

As far as physics, and basically all other objective knowledge of natures inner-workings, I'd say there is a form of absolute morality, but when it comes to Human ideals and Human philosophy, I don't believe any morals are absolute. I agree with a few others that have posted in that most of our beliefs and morals are due to circumstance and conditioning (even the knowledge we have learned about natures inner-workings).

No.

Moral nihilism is a concept of morality that is probably the closest to any universal truth that might exist, if it does anyways.

We are stuck between social mores constructs and nature programmed biochemistry, that alters how we behave and what we feel (is right or wrong).

I agree with this *****

No.

Moral nihilism is a concept of morality that is probably the closest to any universal truth that might exist, if it does anyways.

We are stuck between social mores constructs and nature programmed biochemistry, that alters how we behave and what we feel (is right or wrong).

So are u agreeing or disagreeing?

Because you basically said what I did, I said we have natural reactions and society "tampered it down through years of isolation "

And in a separate post I said its 50-50 between chemistry and society, not 100% society which I think is the popular view

I said No, already. There are no moral absolutes.

Moral nihilism/relativism all the way.

No its impossible, morality varies and can never be absolute, it only exists subjectively.

'Are their moral absolutes' what?

Morality is samsaric calamity.

Good stuff.

Edited by Perpetual Burn, 18 May 2012 - 05:07 AM.

Well I think what matters obviously is the contexts of events.

Which is why people call morality subjective, but I feel that the effects are absolute.

Why do we feel guilt? If the morals are purely the different societies values ,and not enternal what so ever?

Being wrong, causing disappointment , lying to self, having empathy towards others

Suicide to Christians is wrong and suicide in other times has been an honor, the connection was that to each there is a reason, but if the reason was proven to be meaningless, the decision would be a failure, and you'd feel as so.

Killing innocents for a war from jihadist is reasonable, but if the jihad was over and the person ended up blowing up a hospital for no reason I'm guessing the socialital(?) Reason for the murder being justified would evaporate, and the feeling of mass guilt and regret would ensue.

Just an example.



And psychopaths don't count.

its all realitive, according to Nietzsche

Rather, it was ‘the good’ themselves, that is, the noble, powerful, high stationed and high minded, who felt and established themselves and their actions as good, that is, of the first rank, in contradistinction to all the low, low-minded, common, and plebian. It was out of this pathos of distance that they first seized the right to create values and to coin names for values: what had they to do with utility (Nietzsche 113).