Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Let’s consider the moral argument that is often rendered to justify making abortion illegal.
The argument goes something like this: murder (killing an innocent person) is morally and legally prohibited, the fetus is an innocent person, abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion is murder.
This argument turns on the premise that the fetus is a person. The category person must be absolutely and universally understood and fixed to make this argument work. The category (concept) person must be either value-neutral or it must be based upon some absolute value. If such is not the case then each time we consider this matter, person can take on a different meaning.
If each “application of the concept determines its meaning, either (1) we would need a rule for applying the concept in various cases (and this would be the same as saying that the meaning of ‘person’ is fixed), or (2) we would be left with the possibility that different people might apply the concept differently.â€
If the category person is a function of our personal value system then we can expect that our view of this matter would vary accordingly. We might avoid this variability if the concept person is value neutral and thus does not depend upon our personal value system. Another way is to claim that we all have access to some absolute or ultimate value that is binding upon each of us.
Without absolute truths we recognize that we must depend on the judgment of fallible, and frail creatures living within constantly evolving communities; non critical individuals who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations.
“In sum, moral absolutism is motivated by a very widespread human longing for clarity, certainty, order, and constraint in a world that confronts us constantly with change, obscurity, doubt, contingency, and aggression.â€
Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
coberst;1223668 wrote: Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Let’s consider the moral argument that is often rendered to justify making abortion illegal.
I personally do not seek moral absolutes, all we can hope for is a fragile framework, like meccano that can be rebuilt to suit the situation.
Let’s consider the moral argument that is often rendered to justify making abortion illegal.
I personally do not seek moral absolutes, all we can hope for is a fragile framework, like meccano that can be rebuilt to suit the situation.
I thought I knew more than this until I opened my mouth
-
Omni_Skittles
- Posts: 2613
- Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 2:10 am
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
why would you want to abort a life? or fetus or whatever...
Smoke signals ftw!
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
There are no moral absolutes! If morals are involved then each case should be judged individually on its merits.
A foetus isn't considered to be a child until it has a heartbeat, so you cannot automatically say that it is a person and should be treated as such. At that point the welfare of the mother is paramount. What if she is in a situation where domestic violence rules. Maybe she doesn't want to bring a child into a home where she knows it will be battered or even murdered. Maybe her love for her child won't allow it to suffer such torture. What if the foetus is the result of rape? There have been cases of girls as young as 8 becoming pregnant. Would you force an 8 year old to go through the trauma of pregnancy and birth? What about an 11 year old? Or 12? Or 13? Shouldn't the welfare of the mother ALWAYS be considered paramount? After all, that foetus becomes a baby who needs his mother to take care of him, feed him, love him, protect him. What if the mothers situation is such that she just can't do that? What if her mental health or physical circumstances don't allow it? Are you saying that mother and baby should be forced to put up with ANY circumstances just to allow that child to live? I'm sure these circumstances would damage the mental health of most mothers and children forced into this situation and would result in a damaging lifestyle for all concerned. And you want to FORCE people to live this life of abject misery?
I know you like to question things but sometimes it seems as if you don't put any thought or feelings into the things you ask. I think your whole OP is outrageous and stereotypically male! Your argument isn't even an argument! You simply state that abortion is murder without considering any of the implications or finer details! Thank God you are not a politician or a member of a medical board! :-5
Without absolute truths we recognize that we must depend on the judgment of fallible, and frail creatures living within constantly evolving communities; non critical individuals who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations.
Isn't this what politicians are? :wah:
A foetus isn't considered to be a child until it has a heartbeat, so you cannot automatically say that it is a person and should be treated as such. At that point the welfare of the mother is paramount. What if she is in a situation where domestic violence rules. Maybe she doesn't want to bring a child into a home where she knows it will be battered or even murdered. Maybe her love for her child won't allow it to suffer such torture. What if the foetus is the result of rape? There have been cases of girls as young as 8 becoming pregnant. Would you force an 8 year old to go through the trauma of pregnancy and birth? What about an 11 year old? Or 12? Or 13? Shouldn't the welfare of the mother ALWAYS be considered paramount? After all, that foetus becomes a baby who needs his mother to take care of him, feed him, love him, protect him. What if the mothers situation is such that she just can't do that? What if her mental health or physical circumstances don't allow it? Are you saying that mother and baby should be forced to put up with ANY circumstances just to allow that child to live? I'm sure these circumstances would damage the mental health of most mothers and children forced into this situation and would result in a damaging lifestyle for all concerned. And you want to FORCE people to live this life of abject misery?
I know you like to question things but sometimes it seems as if you don't put any thought or feelings into the things you ask. I think your whole OP is outrageous and stereotypically male! Your argument isn't even an argument! You simply state that abortion is murder without considering any of the implications or finer details! Thank God you are not a politician or a member of a medical board! :-5
Without absolute truths we recognize that we must depend on the judgment of fallible, and frail creatures living within constantly evolving communities; non critical individuals who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations.
Isn't this what politicians are? :wah:
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Rapunzel;1223765 wrote: There are no moral absolutes! Except that one, right? :sneaky:
Rapunzel wrote: A foetus isn't considered to be a child until it has a heartbeat, so you cannot automatically say that it is a person and should be treated as such.Of course we can! There are no moral absolutes, remember? You don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Many others don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Everybody thought the world was flat and believed in magic at one time. You sure are judgmental for one that doesn't believe in moral absolutes.
Rapunzel wrote: A foetus isn't considered to be a child until it has a heartbeat, so you cannot automatically say that it is a person and should be treated as such.Of course we can! There are no moral absolutes, remember? You don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Many others don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Everybody thought the world was flat and believed in magic at one time. You sure are judgmental for one that doesn't believe in moral absolutes.
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Accountable;1223776 wrote: Except that one, right? :sneaky:
Of course we can! There are no moral absolutes, remember? You don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Many others don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Everybody thought the world was flat and believed in magic at one time. You sure are judgmental for one that doesn't believe in moral absolutes.
Oh FGS get off your high horse! :-5
You're playing with semantics. And statistically speaking there are no absolutes, yet there is also an exception to every rule. :p
I was speaking generally, giving a general opinion, but FYI I DO actually consider all foetuses (foeti?) to be babies. Just because we know at what stage their heart begins to beat, we don't know when they are given a soul. At conception?
I believe there are at least 2 sides to every story and usually a lot more! I think situations should have all known sides discussed before the best possible course of action is taken. I was just annoyed that Coberst had such a rigid and judgemental outlook on a situation that he would never be fully involved in as he would never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or go through the trauma of having an abortion himself. I don't imagine it is a situation or choice that is ever lightly undertaken.
Of course we can! There are no moral absolutes, remember? You don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Many others don't consider a foetus [sic] a child. Everybody thought the world was flat and believed in magic at one time. You sure are judgmental for one that doesn't believe in moral absolutes.
Oh FGS get off your high horse! :-5
You're playing with semantics. And statistically speaking there are no absolutes, yet there is also an exception to every rule. :p
I was speaking generally, giving a general opinion, but FYI I DO actually consider all foetuses (foeti?) to be babies. Just because we know at what stage their heart begins to beat, we don't know when they are given a soul. At conception?
I believe there are at least 2 sides to every story and usually a lot more! I think situations should have all known sides discussed before the best possible course of action is taken. I was just annoyed that Coberst had such a rigid and judgemental outlook on a situation that he would never be fully involved in as he would never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or go through the trauma of having an abortion himself. I don't imagine it is a situation or choice that is ever lightly undertaken.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Rapunzel;1223810 wrote: I was just annoyed that Coberst had such a rigid and judgemental outlook on a situation that he would never be fully involved in as he would never have to deal with an unwanted pregnancy or go through the trauma of having an abortion himself.
Then I suggest you go back and re-read it. He was using it as an example showing how difficult it is for us mere humans to make really difficult decisions unless we establish an absolute to anchor to, whether it's real or not.
coberst wrote: This argument turns on the premise that the fetus is a person. The category person must be absolutely and universally understood and fixed to make this argument work.
See? The argument only works if we agree on the definitions. He's clearly pointing out not whether he agrees with abortion, but that we need absolutes so we don't feel set adrift in chaos.
Or something like that.
Then I suggest you go back and re-read it. He was using it as an example showing how difficult it is for us mere humans to make really difficult decisions unless we establish an absolute to anchor to, whether it's real or not.
coberst wrote: This argument turns on the premise that the fetus is a person. The category person must be absolutely and universally understood and fixed to make this argument work.
See? The argument only works if we agree on the definitions. He's clearly pointing out not whether he agrees with abortion, but that we need absolutes so we don't feel set adrift in chaos.
Or something like that.
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
The point of the OP s to focus attention upon our inclination to seek absolutes and that this inclination tends to lead us into catastrophes.
We must learn how we think and why we do the things that we do so that our species may last a bit longer. Our greatest problem is learning how to just get-along. Our technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people and if we do not become more sophisticated we will destroy our species and perhaps all life on this planet.
We must learn how we think and why we do the things that we do so that our species may last a bit longer. Our greatest problem is learning how to just get-along. Our technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people and if we do not become more sophisticated we will destroy our species and perhaps all life on this planet.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Maybe you choose your analogy poorly, but what is the catastrophe in it?
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Accountable;1223862 wrote: Then I suggest you go back and re-read it. He was using it as an example showing how difficult it is for us mere humans to make really difficult decisions unless we establish an absolute to anchor to, whether it's real or not.
See? The argument only works if we agree on the definitions. He's clearly pointing out not whether he agrees with abortion, but that we need absolutes so we don't feel set adrift in chaos.
Or something like that.
It's an interesting point.
It's not how I read it but it's an interesting point.
As you say, a poor analogy, which you have clarified, but one which does open up larger questions both within the analogy used and within the seeking of absolutes.
Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life).
With this reasoning, I don't see how there can be moral absolutes. Surely (especially with morals) every case would need to be judged on its own merits?
Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as deriving from the commands of deity. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable.
I think this proves a point. Religions, in general, are known to be fairly rigid and inflexible. The quote above states that their moral system is considered to be absolute, perfect and unchangeable. Statistically speaking, the Null Hypothesis shows that nothing can ever be 100% perfection, so surely there can be no absolute as an absolute MUST be a perfect solution.
So Coberst is saying we either need fixed rules or we depend on the judgement of "frail creatures . . . who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations."
I don't think this applies at all. In fact it's an 'airy-fairy' summation of the piece imo. Decisions and judgements are made, not by frail creatures, but by people of strong mind and generally good judgement, and are based on historical knowledge of what has occurred before and what the results were. They are not "forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills" as decision makers are usually judges or lawyers who have good understanding and can foresee the cause and effect of most decisions before they apply it as a law or rule, which can later be amended to suit changing circumstances. I agree, situations can be ambiguous, which is why laws or rules need to have the ability to be amended. Rules tend to be more fixed than laws, but as I said before, every rule has an exception.
Both quotes from:
Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See? The argument only works if we agree on the definitions. He's clearly pointing out not whether he agrees with abortion, but that we need absolutes so we don't feel set adrift in chaos.
Or something like that.
It's an interesting point.
It's not how I read it but it's an interesting point.
As you say, a poor analogy, which you have clarified, but one which does open up larger questions both within the analogy used and within the seeking of absolutes.
Moral absolutism is the meta-ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Thus lying, for instance, might be considered to be always immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life).
With this reasoning, I don't see how there can be moral absolutes. Surely (especially with morals) every case would need to be judged on its own merits?
Moral absolutism may be understood in a strictly secular context, as in many forms of deontological moral rationalism. However, many religions have morally absolutist positions as well, regarding their system of morality as deriving from the commands of deity. Therefore, they regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable.
I think this proves a point. Religions, in general, are known to be fairly rigid and inflexible. The quote above states that their moral system is considered to be absolute, perfect and unchangeable. Statistically speaking, the Null Hypothesis shows that nothing can ever be 100% perfection, so surely there can be no absolute as an absolute MUST be a perfect solution.
So Coberst is saying we either need fixed rules or we depend on the judgement of "frail creatures . . . who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations."
I don't think this applies at all. In fact it's an 'airy-fairy' summation of the piece imo. Decisions and judgements are made, not by frail creatures, but by people of strong mind and generally good judgement, and are based on historical knowledge of what has occurred before and what the results were. They are not "forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills" as decision makers are usually judges or lawyers who have good understanding and can foresee the cause and effect of most decisions before they apply it as a law or rule, which can later be amended to suit changing circumstances. I agree, situations can be ambiguous, which is why laws or rules need to have the ability to be amended. Rules tend to be more fixed than laws, but as I said before, every rule has an exception.
Both quotes from:
Moral absolutism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Accountable;1223957 wrote: Maybe you choose your analogy poorly, but what is the catastrophe in it?
The catestrophy arises when we make bad judgments based upon erronious assumptions about the world around us.
The catestrophy arises when we make bad judgments based upon erronious assumptions about the world around us.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
That's how it occurs, but what is it?
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
coberst;1224086 wrote: The catestrophy arises when we make bad judgments based upon erronious assumptions about the world around us.
How i agree with that !!!
How i agree with that !!!
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
Accountable;1224293 wrote: That's how it occurs, but what is it?
It is like pornography you never know it till it happens.
It is like pornography you never know it till it happens.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Why do we seek moral absolutes?
coberst;1224313 wrote: It is like pornography you never know it till it happens.
Dude, you've got to work on your analogies. But we're (okay, I'm) getting wrapped around the axle on your analogy rather than your point.
coberst wrote: The point of the OP s to focus attention upon our inclination to seek absolutes and that this inclination tends to lead us into catastrophes.Hmm, the catastrophe of 9/11 was definitely involved with absolutes, those of the murderers. Their inclination to seek absolutes led them to heap a catastrophe upon us. For them it was glorious. Bush's subsequent "with us or agin us" absolute was definitely not good. I'm sure many look at the whole thing as a catastrophe.
I don't think the world wars were because of moral absolutes. Not the attacks, anyway. They came into play later as a result of catastrophe, not the other way around.
Same with our civil war. Slavery was only a side dish at that picnic. Historians emphasized its role to make all the carnage more palatable.
I'm willing to be swayed, coberst, but I'm not sure I agree with you. Moral absolutes - or near-absolutes to be more accurate - help us make decisions. They sometimes lead to catastrophe, they sometimes help us deal with catastrophe. I don't think they tend to lead us one way or another.
Dude, you've got to work on your analogies. But we're (okay, I'm) getting wrapped around the axle on your analogy rather than your point.
coberst wrote: The point of the OP s to focus attention upon our inclination to seek absolutes and that this inclination tends to lead us into catastrophes.Hmm, the catastrophe of 9/11 was definitely involved with absolutes, those of the murderers. Their inclination to seek absolutes led them to heap a catastrophe upon us. For them it was glorious. Bush's subsequent "with us or agin us" absolute was definitely not good. I'm sure many look at the whole thing as a catastrophe.
I don't think the world wars were because of moral absolutes. Not the attacks, anyway. They came into play later as a result of catastrophe, not the other way around.
Same with our civil war. Slavery was only a side dish at that picnic. Historians emphasized its role to make all the carnage more palatable.
I'm willing to be swayed, coberst, but I'm not sure I agree with you. Moral absolutes - or near-absolutes to be more accurate - help us make decisions. They sometimes lead to catastrophe, they sometimes help us deal with catastrophe. I don't think they tend to lead us one way or another.