absolute morality - relative morality = 0 ?

[chezlaw]

I recognise problems with the existence of any absolute morality. However
[ QUOTE ]
Since no two situations are the same, we'd need an infinite set of absolute morals which are merely relative morality in drag.

[/ QUOTE ] isn't necessarily true. A finite set of rules could handle an infinte set of situations. Thats a digression I hope to avoid.

As you point out it's clear that if there's no absolute morality then the statement I made must be true which I suspect is most likely the case. What I'm wondering is is there any way any sort of absolute morality could make it false (god or no god).

What I'm aiming at is a quasi-ought. If I can do no better (morally) than trust my moral feelings and cannot prove an absolute morality doesn't exist, then if I want to be as moral as possible I should act in accordance with my moral feelings.


chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
'feelings'?! If there is an absolute morality, then it follows that it should be...

nevermind this is stupid.

read Kant's 'critique of pure reason' and then get back to me. the basic idea about morality: the universal moral law can be deduced and studied logically like any other natural science. he explains much better than i can. nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks mate, very helpful.

What's the point of not making an attempt to understand what I'm saying and then posting to say there's no point.

At least I tried to understand your point before posting to say your post was pointless. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

chez

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]


I'm thinking it doesn't matter where the moral feelings come from. I'm not saying they are correct (assuming an absolute morality to make the concept of correctness valid).

The question I wondering about is, how can I do better, in any situation, than trust my moral feelings? Assume the feeling may be misleading, then what can I do that is better?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to find ultimate truth/morality here and I dont make any claim that my moral feelings are true.

I think (via introspection) that my moral feelings reflect my understanding of the world. I don't think they can get out of line, that is if I ever understood that something was morally wrong then I would feel it was morally wrong.

Part of the question is: could my moral feelings ever conflict with my understanding (this is an introspective empirical question, to which I think the answer is no).

The second part is: could I ever expect to behave more morally in a given situation then to follow this feeling/understanding. (assuming there is an absolute morality).

chez

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm thinking it doesn't matter where the moral feelings come from. I'm not saying they are correct (assuming an absolute morality to make the concept of correctness valid).

The question I wondering about is, how can I do better, in any situation, than trust my moral feelings? Assume the feeling may be misleading, then what can I do that is better?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]To be fair to chez, I believe he is restating his theory of the repugnance of "gods" punishment. Although, in doing so he may just (big if) stumble upon evidence of absolute ethics.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm thinking it doesn't matter where the moral feelings come from. I'm not saying they are correct (assuming an absolute morality to make the concept of correctness valid).

The question I wondering about is, how can I do better, in any situation, than trust my moral feelings? Assume the feeling may be misleading, then what can I do that is better?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

If your trying to find ultimate truth/morality, then understanding where the thoughts that drive your actions/more thinking come from, is important in order to realize that a conceptual understanding of morals is not the same as being moral. If you act from your guiding principles because you intrinsically feel they are truth, then that is Ultimate truth to the degree that you understand that innate quality about/of yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]To be fair to chez, I believe he is restating his theory of the repugnance of "gods" punishment. Although, in doing so he may just (big if) stumble upon evidence of absolute ethics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very similar although I believe that was logically watertight whereas this includes the no god situation which requires more investigation of the nature of the moral feelings.

chez

[jester710]

Chez-

I'm thinking this might be a stupid question, but my brain has been malfunctioning recently ("recently" defined as "since birth").

What if you consistently followed your moral feelings, but they were later proven to be consistently wrong when compared to the absolute morality? Could you ever get to the point where you'd say, "My moral feelings have been wrong every time I've trusted them, therefore I'll go against them in the hopes that I will do what is right"?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Chez-

I'm thinking this might be a stupid question, but my brain has been malfunctioning recently ("recently" defined as "since birth").

What if you consistently followed your moral feelings, but they were later proven to be consistently wrong when compared to the absolute morality? Could you ever get to the point where you'd say, "My moral feelings have been wrong every time I've trusted them, therefore I'll go against them in the hopes that I will do what is right"?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that if I realised my moral feelings were 100% correlated with absolute morality but they always pointed the wrong way, then the feeling would switch to point the right way. Thats why I say it seems that the feelings line up with understanding.

An analogy might be wearing glasses that invert everything. After a short while the brain corrects and everything is the right way up.

I think the worst case is when moral feelings/understanding are completely independent of absolute morality. In that case I still don't see how I can do better than follow my feelings/understanding (although it doesn't make any difference whether I follow them or not).

chez

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
A finite set of rules could handle an infinte set of situations. Thats a digression I hope to avoid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, fair enough ( but isn't a finite set that handles infinite situations how relative morality works, as I tried to illustrate with my traffic example ... in case you want to clarify later ;-)

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm wondering is is there any way any sort of absolute morality could make it false (god or no god).

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's the part I'm quibbling over. Your statement premises a concept called "absolute morality" but until we can get somebody to define what that means your question is unanswerable. My contention is that Absolute Morality is impossible, god or no god ... but that's based on what I think Absolute Morality means, which isn't fair to somebody making a claim based on their defnition of Absolute Morality. In another thread I'm waiting for RJT to give me his definition of AM so I can illustrate there could be other ways of it existing besides god-driven. AM undefined is just two words put together but when you take it into the field "that dog won't hunt".

[ QUOTE ]
... and cannot prove an absolute morality doesn't exist, then if I want to be as moral as possible I should act in accordance with my moral feelings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been ducking the "feelings" part because feeling ( as I use the term) are way too kludgy trust with such a delicate balancing act as morality. I'd gladly kick in my 2c on whether you can do better once I hear what your 'absolute morality' consists of. Perhaps the way you conceive it there are better answer than the one you're suggesting.

luckyme..
..if I thought I was wrong, I'd change my mind

[J. Stew]

[ QUOTE ]

Part of the question is: could my moral feelings ever conflict with my understanding (this is an introspective empirical question, to which I think the answer is no).

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how attached to a conceptual understanding of reality that one is. If belief in concepts rather than what actually is, is strong, then that will sway a person's thinking towards right vs. wrong which creates duality. That duality is just a concept in the mind though, but which then leads to more thinking along those same lines, which causes confusion as to what is actually truth or 'right'. If the mind believes concepts are reality, then the body/mind is imprisoned by thought. It would be like having a bad childhood memory and everytime you think about it you feel terrible. That is when the mind is strongly attached to a belief/thought. The mind that is able to see thoughts come and go without being swayed by them is the mind that sees reality/truth IMO and which from morals feel right/truthful.

[ QUOTE ]
The second part is: could I ever expect to behave more morally in a given situation then to follow this feeling/understanding. (assuming there is an absolute morality).


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there's anything more one could do except to be their own mind. I think what causes problems is that everybody has their own attachments which sway their judgment this way or that way. The natural mind that remains after attachments are exposed, and which is/has been there the whole time, knows truth because it views reality without the haze of conceptual bias or, just views the reality/truth of the moment.