Freethought & Rationalism Archive

monkey mind · 10-21-2002, 09:57 AM

Hi all. I'm not formally educated in philosophy, but I enjoy trying my hand at it in my own amateur way. I have a theory of absolute morality I've been thinking about, and I was wondering if you could tell me where I go right or wrong with it. I'm sure I'm not the only person to think of this possibility either, so if you want to just point me to an article or book that deals with it, that would be appreciated as well.

It seems to me that there is argument about whether morality is absolute, or if it is completely relative. How does one person tell another what is wrong? I think that there is an absolute right and wrong that everyone agrees on, and my reasoning is this.

1. Every animal has the instict of self-preservation.
2. In humans, this instict manifests itself intellectually as the view "I believe it is wrong for something to harm me."
3. Since all humans have the instict of self-preservation, then all humans hold this belief.
4. Therefore, morality becomes a question of convincing everyone else not to harm you.

I guess if my assumption that every animal has the instict of self-preservation is wrong, then the theory falls apart, but is there a way of proving or disproving this assumption? Does the fact that people commit suicide disprove it? But if everyone who commits suicide thinks that they will be better off dead, isn't that self-preservation?

When it comes to the question of What constitutes 'harm', then I guess at that point it does become relative. But I think at the root of it, there is an absolute basis for morality.

dangin · 10-21-2002, 10:14 AM

Close. Morality has it's roots in self interest, but in a slightly different version than what you propose. It is in your self interest to be a member of society, because life is easiest when you, as an individual, have full access to the society from which you draw support. Anti social behavior reduces your access to said society.

vixstile · 10-21-2002, 11:42 AM

I would have to say that no one is obliged to obey natural instincts as an authority for moral behavior. You either obey them by default, or make a conscious decision to obey them. But there is nothing that says you can't abandon them for some other moral system.

I would also say that genetically determined predispositions for certain behaviors play a far less prominent roll in your ultimate values. I believe your values, attitudes, likes/dislikes are for the most part shaped by up-bringing and your experiences, and more than likely greatly out-way any 'instinct'/'human nature'.

I think the big barrier in deriving universal morality based on genetically determined 'nature' is the fact that no two human beings can be raised in the same way, experience the same things in the same way, have the same thoughts, and untimely develop into the same person with the same values. I believe individual experience play a far more important roll in who you are. The root of morality is Your Self.

[Edited to change 'human behavior' into 'human nature']

[ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]

99Percent · 10-21-2002, 02:59 PM

The root of morality lies in the fact that we have free will. If you are going to argue that we act because of our predeterminable, inborn characteristics of human nature such as genes or evolution, then its not about morality, IMO.

Stephen T-B · 10-22-2002, 08:17 AM

Hello Monkey Mind.
Your first sentence applies to me, but after that we begin to drift apart.
You wrote:
�1. Every animal has the instinct of self-preservation.
2. In humans, this instinct manifests itself intellectually as the view "I believe it is wrong for something to harm me."
3. Since all humans have the instinct of self-preservation, then all humans hold this belief.
4. Therefore, morality becomes a question of convincing everyone else not to harm you.�

Regarding No.2, it is certainly the case that we deeply resent it if an animal or another human being harms us, and readily ascribe evil, vicious intent when it happens. But that has nothing to do with morality, does it? When a wasp stings me gratuitously, in a rage I crush it to death. But that�s not because I think it was immoral. I simply want revenge. If a dog bit my child, I would beat it - not to teach it morals but to teach it not to do it again.
Morality is a code which modifies our own behaviour, and our sense of morality comes from how we are instructed; what we are taught �at our mother�s knee� and what we pick up from our peers and experiences of life in the larger community.
Some people, in whom the social instinct is strong, develop their own sense of morality based on Do-As-You-Would-Be-Done-By (I think referred to as the Golden Rule.)
Some of us learn that a kindness is usually returned, and that integrity is essential for trust and that a society where trust doesn�t exist is not one which is pleasant to live in.
Some don�t.
Some need a religious leader to tell them what is moral and what is immoral, but personally, I adopted a stricter moral code after I ceased to have any religious beliefs. It was to do with becoming more mature.
My father, a Minister, said we instinctively know what is right and wrong.
My observations of human behaviour tell me that we do not.

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]

John 3 · 10-22-2002, 04:24 PM

Monkey Mind, I have struggled with the exact same idea for a little while now and I have concluded that the only way to prove that there is absolute morality is if we prove that there is a goal to the universe.

Doesn't evolution imply a goal?

Not according to darwin.

But I disagree and I think the proof is in "Symbiogenesis."

Every system has a goal. For systems of agents there are methodologies to reach that goal. Of the those methodologies there are conducive methods and methods that hinder the achievement of the systemic goal. From this one can construct a value system.

Its only logic that, for society to reach what ever goal it is trying to achieve, it must use compassion and cooperation.

Yet our logic is flawed because when we fled from the church and its religion, we left our goals there.

Now Darwinists want us to believe that all is relative and the individual must live by "survival of the fittest." Its the plight of man today.

Arrowman · 10-22-2002, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 99Percent:
The root of morality lies in the fact that we have free will. If you are going to argue that we act because of our predeterminable, inborn characteristics of human nature such as genes or evolution, then its not about morality, IMO.

If you see "morality" as something which exists independently of the human mind, then maybe. I believe that "morality" is a concept invented by humans to explain their own behavioural tendencies. To put it crudely:

Primitive people sit around the campfire, asking themselves the question "why is it that we have this aversion to harming each other?" Without the capacity to understand the concepts of evolution (and other related things) they decide that they must have some sort of "morals" which drive their behaviour. From there, it's but a short step to inventing an external driver (ie a God) which imposes morals.

Autonemesis · 10-22-2002, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by monkey mind:
I think that there is an absolute right and wrong that everyone agrees on, and my reasoning is this.

If this is the absolute morality, then its justification cannot depend upon a line of tentative reasoning no matter how clever, or how much I agree with it.

Quote:

1. Every animal has the instict of self-preservation.
2. In humans, this instict manifests itself intellectually as the view "I believe it is wrong for something to harm me."
3. Since all humans have the instict of self-preservation, then all humans hold this belief.
4. Therefore, morality becomes a question of convincing everyone else not to harm you.

Why can you not just declare "This is my assumption" and proceed from there?

Quote:

I guess if my assumption that every animal has the instict of self-preservation is wrong, then the theory falls apart, but is there a way of proving or disproving this assumption?

Why does it need it? If it's a moral absolute, then just adopt it as axiomatic and reason out the rest of your moral code from that basis.

Quote:

Does the fact that people commit suicide disprove it? But if everyone who commits suicide thinks that they will be better off dead, isn't that self-preservation?

How about the possibility that people who committed suicide simply weren't aware of this moral code and the reasons and assumptions behind it. Is it not possible to do immoral things out of error, rather than out of innate immorality?

Quote:

When it comes to the question of What constitutes 'harm', then I guess at that point it does become relative. But I think at the root of it, there is an absolute basis for morality.

I see no reason to call this morality "absolute." It stands on its own merits, and offers a way to predict a desirable or undesirable outcome for your actions. This is in marked contrast to a list of "thou shalt's" and "thou shalt not's" which constitutes the usual religious authoritative morality, the kind that believers usually call "absolute."

Tell me why "absoluteness" is a quality you desire in a moral code. Would not appropriateness be as desirable as absoluteness? Are there other needs a moral code needs to fill, other than universality?

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]

John 3 · 10-22-2002, 07:11 PM

"Tell me why "absoluteness" is a quality you desire in a moral code. Would not appropriateness be as desirable as absoluteness? Are there other needs a moral code needs to fill, other than universality?"

What else would you base a moral code on? What would be appropriate when there are various appropriatnesses conflicting with eachother? All axiomatic systems are incomplete, but the universe is finite and thus completable (if thats the correct mathmatical word).

Absolute morality refers to the perfection of a finite system, not necessarily the infinite. And while we realize that we are mere measely pleablians compared to that perfection, it would be wise of us not to ignore it, or scoff at it, or forget about it.

monkey mind · 10-22-2002, 09:47 PM

Just want to say thanks for the posts. I'm too tired for a complete reply now, but you've all given me some great points to think about.

I think one of the reasons why people want an "absolute" morality is so that we can tell other people how to behave and thus feel more secure believing that they won't harm us.

Sort of a step by step thing, I start to think that it is in my own self interest to fit into society. I start to straighten out my morality and start to improve my behaviour. In turn I look to see if others are doing the same. If I don't see other people also striving to improve their morality then I might not become completely convinced that improving my behaviour is in my self interest.

The problem is that I can only compare other people's morality to my own. If their idea of morality is different from mine, it doesn't make me secure.

[edited to fix grammatical errors]

[ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: monkey mind ]

10-21-2002, 09:57 AM	#1
monkey mind Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: canada Posts: 140	the root of morality? Hi all. I'm not formally educated in philosophy, but I enjoy trying my hand at it in my own amateur way. I have a theory of absolute morality I've been thinking about, and I was wondering if you could tell me where I go right or wrong with it. I'm sure I'm not the only person to think of this possibility either, so if you want to just point me to an article or book that deals with it, that would be appreciated as well. It seems to me that there is argument about whether morality is absolute, or if it is completely relative. How does one person tell another what is wrong? I think that there is an absolute right and wrong that everyone agrees on, and my reasoning is this. 1. Every animal has the instict of self-preservation. 2. In humans, this instict manifests itself intellectually as the view "I believe it is wrong for something to harm me." 3. Since all humans have the instict of self-preservation, then all humans hold this belief. 4. Therefore, morality becomes a question of convincing everyone else not to harm you. I guess if my assumption that every animal has the instict of self-preservation is wrong, then the theory falls apart, but is there a way of proving or disproving this assumption? Does the fact that people commit suicide disprove it? But if everyone who commits suicide thinks that they will be better off dead, isn't that self-preservation? When it comes to the question of What constitutes 'harm', then I guess at that point it does become relative. But I think at the root of it, there is an absolute basis for morality.

10-21-2002, 11:42 AM	#3
vixstile Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 2,029	I would have to say that no one is obliged to obey natural instincts as an authority for moral behavior. You either obey them by default, or make a conscious decision to obey them. But there is nothing that says you can't abandon them for some other moral system. I would also say that genetically determined predispositions for certain behaviors play a far less prominent roll in your ultimate values. I believe your values, attitudes, likes/dislikes are for the most part shaped by up-bringing and your experiences, and more than likely greatly out-way any 'instinct'/'human nature'. I think the big barrier in deriving universal morality based on genetically determined 'nature' is the fact that no two human beings can be raised in the same way, experience the same things in the same way, have the same thoughts, and untimely develop into the same person with the same values. I believe individual experience play a far more important roll in who you are. The root of morality is Your Self. [Edited to change 'human behavior' into 'human nature'] [ October 21, 2002: Message edited by: vixstile ]</p>

10-22-2002, 08:17 AM	#5
Stephen T-B Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Leeds, UK Posts: 5,878	Hello Monkey Mind. Your first sentence applies to me, but after that we begin to drift apart. You wrote: �1. Every animal has the instinct of self-preservation. 2. In humans, this instinct manifests itself intellectually as the view "I believe it is wrong for something to harm me." 3. Since all humans have the instinct of self-preservation, then all humans hold this belief. 4. Therefore, morality becomes a question of convincing everyone else not to harm you.� Regarding No.2, it is certainly the case that we deeply resent it if an animal or another human being harms us, and readily ascribe evil, vicious intent when it happens. But that has nothing to do with morality, does it? When a wasp stings me gratuitously, in a rage I crush it to death. But that�s not because I think it was immoral. I simply want revenge. If a dog bit my child, I would beat it - not to teach it morals but to teach it not to do it again. Morality is a code which modifies our own behaviour, and our sense of morality comes from how we are instructed; what we are taught �at our mother�s knee� and what we pick up from our peers and experiences of life in the larger community. Some people, in whom the social instinct is strong, develop their own sense of morality based on Do-As-You-Would-Be-Done-By (I think referred to as the Golden Rule.) Some of us learn that a kindness is usually returned, and that integrity is essential for trust and that a society where trust doesn�t exist is not one which is pleasant to live in. Some don�t. Some need a religious leader to tell them what is moral and what is immoral, but personally, I adopted a stricter moral code after I ceased to have any religious beliefs. It was to do with becoming more mature. My father, a Minister, said we instinctively know what is right and wrong. My observations of human behaviour tell me that we do not. [ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

10-22-2002, 09:47 PM	#10
monkey mind Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: canada Posts: 140	Just want to say thanks for the posts. I'm too tired for a complete reply now, but you've all given me some great points to think about. I think one of the reasons why people want an "absolute" morality is so that we can tell other people how to behave and thus feel more secure believing that they won't harm us. Sort of a step by step thing, I start to think that it is in my own self interest to fit into society. I start to straighten out my morality and start to improve my behaviour. In turn I look to see if others are doing the same. If I don't see other people also striving to improve their morality then I might not become completely convinced that improving my behaviour is in my self interest. The problem is that I can only compare other people's morality to my own. If their idea of morality is different from mine, it doesn't make me secure. [edited to fix grammatical errors] [ October 22, 2002: Message edited by: monkey mind ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-21-2002, 10:14 AM	#2
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Close. Morality has it's roots in self interest, but in a slightly different version than what you propose. It is in your self interest to be a member of society, because life is easiest when you, as an individual, have full access to the society from which you draw support. Anti social behavior reduces your access to said society.

10-21-2002, 02:59 PM	#4
99Percent Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: my mind Posts: 5,996	The root of morality lies in the fact that we have free will. If you are going to argue that we act because of our predeterminable, inborn characteristics of human nature such as genes or evolution, then its not about morality, IMO.

10-22-2002, 04:24 PM	#6
John 3 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: West Va. Posts: 17	Monkey Mind, I have struggled with the exact same idea for a little while now and I have concluded that the only way to prove that there is absolute morality is if we prove that there is a goal to the universe. Doesn't evolution imply a goal? Not according to darwin. But I disagree and I think the proof is in "Symbiogenesis." Every system has a goal. For systems of agents there are methodologies to reach that goal. Of the those methodologies there are conducive methods and methods that hinder the achievement of the systemic goal. From this one can construct a value system. Its only logic that, for society to reach what ever goal it is trying to achieve, it must use compassion and cooperation. Yet our logic is flawed because when we fled from the church and its religion, we left our goals there. Now Darwinists want us to believe that all is relative and the individual must live by "survival of the fittest." Its the plight of man today.

10-22-2002, 07:11 PM	#9
John 3 Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: West Va. Posts: 17	"Tell me why "absoluteness" is a quality you desire in a moral code. Would not appropriateness be as desirable as absoluteness? Are there other needs a moral code needs to fill, other than universality?" What else would you base a moral code on? What would be appropriate when there are various appropriatnesses conflicting with eachother? All axiomatic systems are incomplete, but the universe is finite and thus completable (if thats the correct mathmatical word). Absolute morality refers to the perfection of a finite system, not necessarily the infinite. And while we realize that we are mere measely pleablians compared to that perfection, it would be wise of us not to ignore it, or scoff at it, or forget about it.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.