Absolute Morals and evolution

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that morality is absolute. The joy of which you speak when defining "good" comes directly from God's unchanging nature. He is the source of "true happiness". God, by definition, is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also of note, I mentioned before that we live in a shared reality. So, what might be "good" for one person, may be "bad" for a multitude. In the utilitarian, sense, then, we would strive to increse the net "good" over the entire population.

[/ QUOTE ]
It begs the question to say that moral right is that which brings the greatest good. Either "right" and "good" are defined in terms of each other, which is circular reasoning, or they must be defined according to some standard beyond the utilitarian process. This takes us back to "true happiness" or "joy" and ultimately to God.

[/ QUOTE ]

I defined "right" in terms of "good": an action is "right" if it is intended to do "good". "Good" is defined in terms of "happiness": something is "good" to the extent that it increase happiness. Happiness is vaguely defined... and mostly self-evident. This is not circular.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're stuck on details and missing the general principles. Differences in details don't make morality subjective. The general principles are objective.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're stuck on details and missing the general principles. Differences in details don't make morality subjective. The general principles are objective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Differences in people, makes morality subjective... else the word subjective is meaningless in this context. Anyway, perhaps I'm misunderstaning what you are saying, so a more detailed explanation would be helpful.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
And I believe that morality is relative. What brings true happiness to one person, may not bring true happiness to someone else. People are different. Happiness is a subjective, then.


[/ QUOTE ]
We've already established that we are speaking of "true happiness" and not "bliss" or "pleasure". That being said, another word for this "true happiness" is "joy" or "fulfillment". As a Christian, the source of that completness is God, and He is constant. Just something to think about...

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
Differences in people, makes morality subjective... else the word subjective is meaningless in this context. Anyway, perhaps I'm misunderstaning what you are saying, so a more detailed explanation would be helpful.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. When we talk about morality being subjective or objective, we're asking the question, "Can opposite actions in identical circumstances be morally equal?". If the answer is yes, then one action could be right for one person but wrong for the other in *identical* circumstances (that point is important).

What we are *not* asking is, "Can the same action in different circumstances have different moral values?" That question doesn't really tell us anything because the answer is obviously "yes".

So when you're saying that moral specifics can be different for two people, therefore morality is subjective, you're saying something like "John enjoys music so he should try to be a better musician to be happier, but since Jerry doesn't like music, this wouldn't be a moral goal for him since it wouldn't make him happy. Therefore, since being a better musician is a personal choice, morality is subjective." This line of argument misses the point. In general, people should act to achieve their values (which makes them happy). That's an objective moral virtue. The fact that different people have different *specific* values is beside the point, unless you're talking about drastic differences such as valuing murder or theft, etc...

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian, the source of that completness is God, and He is constant. Just something to think about...



[/ QUOTE ]

Your fairy tales really add nothing to the conversation at all. Dress up "happiness" however you want, but it doesn't add anything meaningful. Just something to think about.

[ QUOTE ]
We've already established that we are speaking of "true happiness" and not "bliss" or "pleasure". That being said, another word for this "true happiness" is "joy" or "fulfillment". As a Christian, the source of that completness is God, and He is constant. Just something to think about...

[/ QUOTE ]

As a non-Christian, the source of true happiness is my internal state of mind -- which is, of course, affected by numerous things including my relationship with others and various other things. This is true for you, too... but for you, your belief in God is very high on your list of things that makes you happy.

[ QUOTE ]
When we talk about morality being subjective or objective, we're asking the question, "Can opposite actions in identical circumstances be morally equal?". If the answer is yes, then one action could be right for one person but wrong for the other in *identical* circumstances (that point is important).

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless by "*identical* circumstances", you mean the person(s) also have to be identical, then I disagree with you. And, if you DO mean the persons(s) involved have to be identical, then the word "subjective" is meaningless in this context.

Albert comes across a man that was thrown from a car during a crash. Albert doesn't know about neck injuries, and that you shouldn't move someone, else you risk paralyzing them. I submit it would therefore not be immoral for Albert to pick up the man and drive him the the hospital.

Bob sees the same man. Bob, though, knows that moving someone with a neck injury can cause paralysis. It would be wrong, then, for Bob to pick up the man and drive him to the hospital.

The point is: RIGHT and WRONG, from my perspective, are heavily dependent upon the motives and intentions of the person involved. Motives and intentions are dependent upon the person involved -- their background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs.

So, I'll ask direct questions:

1) When you say "*identical* circumstances", do you mean the people involved must be identical?

2) If so, why? And, don't you think the word "subjective" then becomes meaningless in that case?

3) Do you think a person's background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs affects their motives and intentions for a certain action? If not, why not?

4) Do you think someone's motives and intentions is a factor in whether something is "moral" or "immoral"? If not, why not?

NOTE: I am NOT saying morality is purely subjective. One of the factors in my moral code that I'm still "fuzzy" on, is to what extent we expect someone to know what is "good" and what is "bad"? How learned/educated (on moral/ethical issues, and other areas that may play a factor into moral decisions) do we expect people to be? And is it immoral if they aren't? Anyway... I digress.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
1) When you say "*identical* circumstances", do you mean the people involved must be identical?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. As you said, that'd be meaningless.

[ QUOTE ]
3) Do you think a person's background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs affects their motives and intentions for a certain action? If not, why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it does.

[ QUOTE ]
4) Do you think someone's motives and intentions is a factor in whether something is "moral" or "immoral"? If not, why not?


[/ QUOTE ]

Of course.

In the example you gave, I wouldn't consider the circumstances to be identical since the two people have different amounts of medical knowledge. In order to make a case for subjective morality, you would have to create a situation in which both men DO have the same amount of medical knowledge, but one acts while the other does not because of a difference in *values*. Both men in your example are clearly acting to help the victim as much as they can. They're both trying to achieve the same goal and thus have the same moral value. A better example would be one of the men *not* doing what he thought would help because the victim was black/gay/Muslim, etc... (pick anything). If you said that not helping was okay since he personally didn't like black/gay/Muslim people, then you'd be saying morality was subjective.

OK. Let me try to summarize your answers:

Someone's motives & intentions is a factor in determining whether an action is moral or immoral. Their motives are affected by their background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs. "Identical circumstances" need not have identical people.

I guess instead of "identical people", I should have asked do the people involved need to have the same background, mental state, emotions, knowledge, and beliefs?

Because, you then say:

[ QUOTE ]
In the example you gave, I wouldn't consider the circumstances to be identical since the two people have different amounts of medical knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, at least in the case of "knowledge", you are saying that makes the situation different. So, then, would the people involved need to have the same background, mental state, emotions, and beliefs (in addition to the same knowledge)? If so, then isn't this pretty much the same person, then? If not, which of those things must the people have in common to make the situation identical?

[ QUOTE ]
In order to make a case for subjective morality, you would have to create a situation in which both men DO have the same amount of medical knowledge, but one acts while the other does not because of a difference in *values*.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why "subjective" means only a difference in *values*. Even then, values are at least partially resultant from a person's knowledge, background, and beliefs, aren't they? So, difference in knowledge will sometimes mean a difference in values.

But, OK... if I must... here goes:

Albert lives next door to a woman. He has seen this woman bring in a variety of men, and has heard lots of noises during what he supposes are sexual encounters. Moans, screams, "gitty-up cowboy", etc. On one occassion, he sees a man enter her house, and a bit later hears moans and screams. He puts on his headphones as usual, since he values privacy, and doesn't want to eavesdrop during his neighbor's sexual acts. The next day, he finds out the woman had been murdered, and that her screams were for help.

Bob lives next to the same woman. He hears the same things, but he doesn't really value privacy. He's into voyerism, and so he listens and sometimes even peeks into the windows. This night, he hears the screams, so he goes to check it out. He sees a man with a knife tieing her up and slapping her around. He calls the police, and saves the woman's life.

Did Albert act morally? Did Bob? Why or why not?