to_hobbes

Sure, it goes right along with what I said in that debate on "what is absolute truth" in this thread.

Absolute morals are those perfect rules of the universe that we could never know. But we must still try and figure them out and we get better and better and are learning about what absolute morals are as humanity grows.

If there were no human beings or other sentient beings in the universe, absolute morals would still exist, for example, lets say that the rule "never kill another human bing unless you are defending your home" turns out to be an absolute moral (it probably isn't but lets say it is). Even if humans didn't exist in the universe, as long as it's possible for humans to exist in the universe -- now, a million years ago, or a million years in the future, anywhere -- if that entity known as "human" can exist then there is an ideal way for humans to all get along, and that example rule is part of the ideal method. This idealism is absolute morals. So it's like, if God exists, then He knows exactly what those absolute morals are. But we humans could never know what He knows.

At least, that's how I define absolute morals. And that's why I say no one knows what they are, and why no one can agree, and why the morals we actually do follow are imperfect and relative.

I hope that answers your question.

romansh

Hi hobbes .... yeah it did ..... I'm afraid.

So you believe in something that you have no evidence for?
We would not recognize it as such if it were right here before us?

now call me skeptical ..... but I can think of a few things like that?

Absolute morality could only exist if a theistic god exists?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to give you a hard time, but it's for both our absolute goods ...

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

to_hobbes

No problem

No, I don't believe in things there is no evidence for, but I think there is evidence for absolute truth simply because there are certain morals that are consistently similar across all societies and races (similar but not exact). I do not see evidence for God as the religious people of this world describe him, but I do see evidence for a grand set of rules that describe exactly how humanity ticks -- the rules for how can get along with each other. Why else would it be that so many philosophers across the world and throughout history agree with "thou shalt not kill", or "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

To me, absolute morals are just like the laws of physics: we don't know exactly what they are or who put them there, but we are getting pretty good at describing them. A while ago, people understood Newton's physics to be the laws of the universe. Then it was Einsteins laws. And we'll probably come across another breakthrough that proves Einstein's laws inaccurate (hopefully someday).

Morals are the same way. We must study morals as we study Science, because thats the only way we come closer to knowing the truth. Through a rigorous, empirical study of ethics, we come ever closer to knowing the truth of absolute morals, even if we never attain that truth perfectly (which is impossible). Unfortunately, unlike physics, there isn't a mathematic language
we can use to describe ethics.

I would say my opinions are consistent with agnosticism.
What do you think?

romansh

some are very different and they all seem to change with time?
apparently it's thou shalt not murder, to some, but you're right I grew up thinking 'kill', personally prefer it. But we have rules for killing as well.... executions, warfare come to mind?
what's the difference between ordinary morals and testing the laws of physics. Similarly The way I look at it is morality is human concept and render unto Caesar that is Caesar's.
Do you think game theory good lead to rules of ethics.... for example Prisoners' Dilema tends to come to the conclusion of tit for tat, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which by and large is comes down to a blend of the New and Old Testaments? I'm sure there is an equivalent in the Qu'ran.?
I'll ask the questions if you don't mind? .........

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

to_hobbes

I don't mind.

Yes, I guess it is "Thou shalt not murder," but why does the definition of "murder" change across cultures? Because to this day, people haven't developed an ethical theory that everyone can agree on for when it's OK to kill someone. Some people say it's OK to kill for your country or to defend your home, or to kill an animal just to be able to eat food. Some say it isn't OK to kill any living thing in any circumstance. But we got the "don't kill unless..." part down to a general consensus it seems.

Sure, some ethics are very different across societies and can change over time. But some are similar. I would say that those similarities in ethics across cultures and time are the points where ethical theory is more mature. We have plenty of experimental data to back that hypothesis. Lots of people have been killed throughout history, it almost always isn't a good thing for one reason or another.

To be sure, I can agree that the human application of ethics is relative. But in order to be consistent with my own views on absolute truth, I have to say there are absolute morals as well. But I don't think this is contradictory because I never claimed that absolute morals were something humans can know absolutely.

And lastlty, I'd never thought of it before, but game theory would be a very good mathematical language for the rigorous study of ethics. Very clever! Of course, we can all agree on the meaning of the numbers 0, 1, 2 and so on. But its harder to agree on ethics.

I think I see why you keep probing me though. If you are saying that my analogy between ethics and scientific truth is a false analogy, you could be right, and I would like to know why you would think so.

romansh

Hi again hobbes

I'm not sure I believe in an absolute ..... other 0 kelvin (which is not attainable), and vodka which is.

leaving the cultural and the theological aside for the moment.... out of my depth.

After your last post I had to ask myself an awkard question... "Can I imagine an absolute law of physics" (or chemistry ....I'm a chemist by trade). My intial answer made me uncomfortable..... we could get as close as damn it to make no difference. My only concern is that I'm answering this with knowledge I have at the moment..... absolute knowledge of anything .....history is not on our side.....we're not closer since the dawn of mankind..... Nevertheless I will ponder your awkward question.

Regarding analogies..... analogies are like models..... all models are wrong, just that some are more helpful than others. Anyway game theory may give us a numerical handle on ethics and morality ..... but I will let you assign a number to the value of life, peace of mind.....

For me an absolute is like taking a candle out on a blustery night..... we have to protect that flame from the winds of reality.

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

to_hobbes

Well, I've appreciated our conversation so far, but unfortunately we seem to be on different frequencies. I had hoped my analogy would help explain, it is just a model, like you said.

I have a dual view of reality. Absolute truth, absolute ethics, the non-existence of free will, or the existence of God -- I think these things only exist in a realm outside of our understanding, and therefore are meaningless to humans.

From a Scientific view, you and I couldn't agree more. There is no absolute in the universe, except as an abstraction in our mind (like absolute 0 Kelvin). And this is true because we have an imperfect understanding of the perfect universe we live in.

So, in hopes of understanding your view better, what question did I ask the you thought was awkward, and why?

romansh

No ... I don't think we are at different frequencies.
I'm just questioning my own certainty.....

going into this conversation I was fairly sure absolute truth...morality call it what you will, does not exist.

hobbes .... you have driven me to doubt, to question
........ hold that thought for a minute.

do you believe in good an evil? ..... so to speak...

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams

to_hobbes

Yes, I think there is a such thing as good and evil. But you should be careful with how it is defined. There is difference between "absolute good and evil" and a "what I think is good and evil". The relative terms are used by humans and therefore are used relative to an individual's point of view. However what is absolutely good or evil is something we can't know for sure, we can only become more and more certain of what is good or evil as time goes on.

That is to say, good and evil are absolute truths that no one knows but we all try to figure out for the sake of being a moral person.

No one really knows what is "good" or "evil". Anyone who asserts they do know is merely asserting their analysis of ethics. But the only worth-while analysis are those who bother to study the facts.

To use myself as an example, I assert that organized religion is evil. A religious person would disagree with me so my views are relative. However, I study history and come to my conclusion, I use historical fact as evidence to support my view, so I think am closer to knowing what is truly evil and truly good.

romansh

It's my bed time here.....

But I am sensing a pattern here ..... everything has an absolute?

Goodnight from here.
Ohyo Gozamaisu ..... over there?

see you tomorrow....

__________________
There is a theory which states that if ever anybody discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. ........... Douglas Adams