Altruism and Absolute Morality

DougShrapnel · #1 10-16-2005, 04:06 AM

When people talk ethics and absolute morality they think altruism. The absolute morality of man may have nothing at all to do with altruism. Altruism says that someone elses life is worth more than your own life. In order to get to a AM we must think in terms of man, based in the reality of the world. I believe that we will find AM if we look at mans life as valuable to him. Additionally, that people are owners of their own life.

edit: the use of the world absolute morality is to be taken as, a wholey inclusion set of principles that do not end in contradictions when applied to any situation.

DougShrapnel · #2 10-16-2005, 06:31 AM

Or better topic maybe: To say that there is no absolute morality is to say that someone does not have any rights.

chezlaw · #3 10-16-2005, 06:47 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Or better topic maybe: To say that there is no absolute morality is to say that someone does not have any rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if rights are a construction of society. Unless you mean absolute rights and I'm not sure what you would mean by that.

chez

DougShrapnel · #4 10-16-2005, 07:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or better topic maybe: To say that there is no absolute morality is to say that someone does not have any rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if rights are a construction of society. Unless you mean absolute rights and I'm not sure what you would mean by that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Well, if rights are a construction of society then morals as well are a construction of society. I might want to say: In order to show AM we must have some natural rights. NR are usually defined to include liberty, and life. Some add the pursuit of happiness, some add other things. AM would most like be derived from NR. Or I might want to say that rights are truth elucidated by reason. And AM would follow from NR.

I am beginning to believe that ethics and morality are merely rational self-interest.

chezlaw · #5 10-16-2005, 07:44 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or better topic maybe: To say that there is no absolute morality is to say that someone does not have any rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if rights are a construction of society. Unless you mean absolute rights and I'm not sure what you would mean by that.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]Well, if rights are a construction of society then morals as well are a construction of society. I might want to say: In order to show AM we must have some natural rights. NR are usually defined to include liberty, and life. Some add the pursuit of happiness, some add other things. AM would most like be derived from NR. Or I might want to say that rights are truth elucidated by reason. And AM would follow from NR.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rights could be an attempt to codify AM but fail. It may even be that AM exists but can not be contained within a framework of rights.

Also I don't see how it follows from 'it is wrong to do something to someone' to 'people have a right not to have that done to them'.

[ QUOTE ]
I am beginning to believe that ethics and morality are merely rational self-interest.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even 'merely'. Morality is (imo) a part of self-interest. The question is which part and what is its nature?

chez

DougShrapnel · #6 10-16-2005, 08:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also I don't see how it follows from 'it is wrong to do something to someone' to 'people have a right not to have that done to them'.

[/ QUOTE ] This is backwards from what I'm trying to say, People have a right not to have this done to them, thus it it wrong to do that.

[ QUOTE ]
Not even 'merely'. Morality is (imo) a part of self-interest. The question is which part and what is its nature?

[/ QUOTE ] I'm beggining to think that all of morality is rational self-interest. Do you think that there is any situation where someone is being ethical without any regard to his/her own interest?

RJT · #7 10-16-2005, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that we will find AM if we look at mans life as valuable to him. Additionally, that people are owners of their own life.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a world void of an AM authority I think this is the case. We compromise our own self interest (our own rights) by allowing others into our individual world. It is a trade off don’t you think? A necessary trade off because “no man is an island”.

[ QUOTE ]
Or better topic maybe: To say that there is no absolute morality is to say that someone does not have any rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or that someone has complete rights - unlimited rights - might makes right is the only thing stopping one from exercising all of his rights

But, again, we bargain for our own rights and those rights that we value most when we allow others into our individual worlds - whether it be by living in a society or simply entering into a marriage.

DougShrapnel · #8 10-17-2005, 07:47 AM

It is good to know that there is a God, because otherwise you would stop being able to be reasonable. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Or that someone has complete rights - unlimited rights - might makes right is the only thing stopping one from exercising all of his rights

[/ QUOTE ] Can our reason give us flawed but close judgment in morals?

Sometimes I tell stories of hunters. They danced around the crackling fires. In their masks and their tribal attire, they danced to the god of the hunt. The winds blow the smoke from the colorful leaves up to the god of the hunt. An animal was sacrificed, it was to thank the Gods for the warning that the cold would soon come and game would be scarce. The sacrifice was also to the god of the hunt from providing men with more zinc in his nose then his lovely counterparts, he used this zinc to know which way was which. The natural place of man was so decided as the hunter by the gods. A sign was given, tomorrows hunt would be good, the whole town saw it, there was no denying it, and no one would dare. The hunters slept well and awoke at dawn to search thru the forest. They gathered their sticks with sharp rocks tied to the ends. They came across a track of a deer. The track was deeper than most, and it was filled with debris of the forest. The size of the track was smaller than normal. The hunters concluded that the deer had run thru here at a speed of 25mph, weighed about 90 pounds, and would take about 8hours for them to catch up to it. Drive on, the hunters continued. The wind picked up at the hunters back to hurry them on their way.

Deeper in the forest the men came across another track. It too was covered with debris from the forest, but these tracks where large and not deep. The hunters looked at line of the tracks and the curvature of the hill in the direction of the tracks. The hill was steep and at an angle. They knew the prey was right over the hill and knew exactly where the animals ended up. The hill would be good for them to sneak up on the creatures. The dance and sacrifice had paid off. There was no time, they rushed the hill and thru their spears. They adjusted for the arch of the hill, they adjusted for the speed of the wind, they adjusted for the size of the animal for the speed of the spear. They adjusted for the movement of the animal. And threw their spears where the animal would be when the spear would reach it. It was a slaughter, the dance last night would be put to shame by the one they would give tonight.

They went home. They went home without thinking about laws of motion. They went home without knowing about physics. They went home without understanding calculus. They made their way home with the help of the extra zinc in thier nose. They made their way home thanking god.

Can ethics be like calculus, geometry, and physics or must it be linked to religion? Or is it something else entirely? Will it forever remain in philoshpy? No right, no wrong, just opinion?