thefugitivesaint

Benjamin, to answer your question (one that has been addressed at great length within these forums): Morality is nothing more than a cultural construct erected to reinforce the contingent values and interests of a particular moral tradition. (but, please do not mistake me for an extreme relativist. we do not hold and maintain moral principles for arbitrary reasons. There is a very practical reason why any given society would decree a prohibition against murder, even though each existing, and previously existing, society has, and will have, different definitions of murder).
Moral absolutism is obessessed with the problem of grounding and securing moral objectivity. It seeks an absolute grounding by searching for a definitive set of determinate moral rules which are universally binding on all rational beings, and are unchanging across cultures and throughtout history.

What moral absolutism leaves out from its take on morality and morals is any sense of the development, growth, and historical transformation of our experience and our moral knowledge as moral agents. Absolute moral rules are supposed to be objective precisely because they are not affected by the contingencies and vicissitudes of our historical experience.

This picture of moral concepts, laws and reasoning is a static, nondevelopmental and nonevolutionary one which has very little to do with actual human deliberation. It is also at odds with what neuroscience, cognitive science, evolutionary psychology,etc. are learning about human conceptual structure, judgment, and reasoning.

Granted, absolutism does get right that there exists a shared and stable aspect to our species basic moral concepts. But, across cultural and environmental lines we are basically the same biological organism so common expressions of moral concepts is not a far fetched phenomenon.

When it comes to my own particular stance on morality/morals i am an advocate of subjectivism. I beleive that human beings are the ultimate source of morals, values, purposes and meanings (given the available information we currently possess about the universe and the absence of available proof of other life outside of this planet). I believe moral values find their source in human need and interest and are an outgrowth of our the specific development of our species and its need for cooperation which is necessary for our collective survival.

In general i think that absolutist moral stances (including Objectivist ones here as well) are riddled with to many holes to be of any practical use and involve to many false claims and confused premises

By the way, i am an atheist.

-theSaint

p.s.
if this post sounds slightly odd here it is due to the fact that it was a response i wrote for another thread and i merely copied here as i thought what i had to say applied. thanks.

[ December 01, 2001: Message edited by: thefugitivesaint ]</p>

99Percent

By reading thefugitivesaint's post I get the feeling that there is a major confusion arising about moral absolutism, which I will attempt to clarify.

We are discussing two types of morality, one is the group morality such as cultural, religious or whatever, and then there is individual morality which may or may not be the same as the group morality the individual belongs to.

Each of us has developed as an individual, a specific set of criteria in which to base moral codes and acts accordingly. These are clearly subjective since no one can determine exactly what these values are since each no one can read our minds or knows absolutely our past experiences that molded these moral codes.

However when we are dealing with each other in a group, then we need to have a set of very limited but universal objective rules we can all agree on or else we cannot coexist on the very fundamental level of our interactions. These are what should be objective morals at the group level and should form the basis of government.

On the other hand objectivism also deals with individual morals and is based on the perception and interpretation with reason of objective truth of reality.

thefugitivesaint

99% please explain how moral "rules" as you called them could be "very limited but universal"?

If these "rules" are "universal" then they have to apply to ALL people EVERYWHERE or they are not, by definition, "universal".

If they are "limited" then that means their effects or influence only applies to a set range or a confined parameter. This would mean that they are not, in anyway, "universal".

99Percent

Well "universal" applies to our human realm of interaction. Just like you can say that all human beings have hands with five fingers each. Sure, you can always find exceptions, if you are so inclined to do so, but these are rare.

thefugitivesaint

i understand what "universal" means 99% but your "clarification" does not address my question.

-theSaint

99Percent

thefugitivesaint: By following your discussion in the Political Discussion Forum, I can deduct that what I define as "human" is really meaningless for you. So any further discussion here is eventually pointless...

DRFseven

But in that discussion, 99, you were arguing with fugitive that people are not animals! And you say fugitive's definition is meaningless? Come on; you realize that we ARE animals, don't you?

99Percent

DRFseven: What fugitive's definition are you talking about? I did not sse any. Are we animals really? Then why do you complain if a man tries to rape you? After all a man's only reason of being as an animal is gene survival or is it not?

Megatron

Agnostic atheist, about 40% egoist, and 60% moral subjectivist w/objectivist foundation of values... (kinda what Bill Snedden & Zar said, combined.)

pug846

I think you are each using the term animal in different senses...DRF, is using it in a biological way, and I'm sure you would agree that in that sense, we are animals and part of the animal kingdom.