Can anyone provide me with some concrete examples of “moral absolutes”?
To say that “killing is always bad” ignores the fact that killing in self defense might be justified. Sorry if I’m being a bit dim here, but I need some examples of moral absolutes.
Thanks.
Can anyone provide me with some concrete examples of “moral absolutes”?
To say that “killing is always bad” ignores the fact that killing in self defense might be justified.
What do you mean by “absolute”?
That is the first step in understanding “moral absolutes” or any other kind of absolute.
For Ayn Rand’s examples of absolutes, you might start with “Absolutes,” The Ayn Rand Lexicon.
To say that “killing is always bad” ignores the fact that killing in self defense might be justified. Sorry if I’m being a bit dim here, but I need some examples of moral absolutes.
Your example is good enough. There is a general way to construct further examples if you want, though you seem to have the general idea. Take a true moral statement, and identify the essential contextual fact that makes the statement true: now drop that context. Context dropping is the essence of moral absolutism.
Can anyone provide me with some concrete examples of “moral absolutes”?
To say that “killing is always bad” ignores the fact that killing in self defense might be justified. Sorry if I’m being a bit dim here, but I need some examples of moral absolutes.
“Self defence is always justified”
Although the previous posters are correct - it’s generally absurd to claim that a certain action is always right or wrong regardless of context.
What do you mean by “absolute”?
That is the first step in understanding “moral absolutes” or any other kind of absolute.
For Ayn Rand’s examples of absolutes, you might start with “Absolutes,” The Ayn Rand Lexicon.
By absolute, I mean something that is always true or always the case. A moral truth.
Thank you Burgess for referring me back to The Lexicon, I’ll read that section.
Your example is good enough. There is a general way to construct further examples if you want, though you seem to have the general idea. Take a true moral statement, and identify the essential contextual fact that makes the statement true: now drop that context. Context dropping is the essence of moral absolutism.
Thank you, context is clearly important here.
“Self defence is always justified”
Although the previous posters are correct - it’s generally absurd to claim that a certain action is always right or wrong regardless of context.
Thank you too Hal. The self-defense example is an excellent one. I’ve been arguing with a self-described Nihilist who refuses to recognize any ethical absolutes. He’s a true cynic who insists that moral rights and wrongs are entirely subjective. It’s difficult to argue with such a constantly moving target.
You’ve all helped me a great deal. I’d apreciate any further thoughts you might have.
“Killing is always bad” … we all recognize that does not work.
“Murder is always bad”… hmm. That depends on how one defines “murder”. If “murder” is an “immoral killing”, then the statement is a moral absolute. If, however, some immoral killings are also subsumed by the concept of murder, then it is not a moral absolute.
Looked at this way, the deficiency appears to be in having the right words: the words that assume the right context.
As an aside: The Christians too have a problem with the formulation: “Killing is always bad”. A fair number of Christian vegetarian’s clai that the original 6th commandment is, and should be “Thou Shalt not kill”. They complain that many later interpreters have changed that to “Thou shalt not commit murder”, and similar narrower statements.
I’ve been arguing with a self-described Nihilist who refuses to recognize any ethical absolutes. He’s a true cynic who insists that moral rights and wrongs are entirely subjective. It’s difficult to argue with such a constantly moving target.
I doubt the value of ever discussing anything with a nihilist, unless you are a philosophical pathologist collecting specimens. If that is what you are doing, then you might try asking Nihilist if he is saying there are no absolutes. If he answers, “Yes!” – then he has just contradicted himself by stating an absolute.
Then you will find out whether he is honest, that is, facing reality or evading it. If he isn’t, surely you must have better things to do in life.
P. S. – Did you ask him what he means by “subjective” – and whether that meaning is itself subjective?
P. S. 2 – Is he saying there are no absolutes only in the realm of ethics, or everywhere? Again, you might ask him what he means by “absolute.” In Objectivism it apparently has two meanings, depending on context. First, in an ontological (metaphysical) context, it means “necessitated by the nature of existence and, therefore, unchangeable by human agency.” (Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 24)
Second, “absolute” (as in “contextual absolute”) means an idea that is “an immutable truth within the specified context.” (Peikoff, OPAR, p. 174.
The way I think of absolute – for epistemological and other, higher contexts – is that it means this: applicable, without exception, to a given context. So, if the question is – Are there moral absolutes? – the answer is: Absolutely! “Murder is wrong” is an example that applies fully in a normal, civilized context.
There are many absolutes in morality. Philosophical values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem are absolutes. The virtues are absolutes. That is a lot of absolutes and they cover all human action.
I doubt the value of ever discussing anything with a nihilist, unless you are a philosophical pathologist collecting specimens. If that is what you are doing, then you might try asking Nihilist if he is saying there are no absolutes. If he answers, “Yes!” – then he has just contradicted himself by stating an absolute.
Then you will find out whether he is honest, that is, facing reality or evading it. If he isn’t, surely you must have better things to do in life.
Your line about “philosphical pathologist” still has me laughing and I read it over an hour ago.
P. S. – Did you ask him what he means by “subjective” – and whether that meaning is itself subjective?
P. S. 2 – Is he saying there are no absolutes only in the realm of ethics, or everywhere? Again, you might ask him what he means by “absolute.” In Objectivism it apparently has two meanings, depending on context. First, in an ontological (metaphysical) context, it means “necessitated by the nature of existence and, therefore, unchangeable by human agency.” (Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 24)
Second, “absolute” (as in “contextual absolute”) means an idea that is “an immutable truth within the specified context.” (Peikoff, OPAR, p. 174.
The way I think of absolute – for epistemological and other, higher contexts – is that it means this: applicable, without exception, to a given context. So, if the question is – Are there moral absolutes? – the answer is: Absolutely! “Murder is wrong” is an example that applies fully in a normal, civilized context.
There are many absolutes in morality. Philosophical values of reason, purpose, and self-esteem are absolutes. The virtues are absolutes. That is a lot of absolutes and they cover all human action.
I’ll ask him the questions you posed. They’re excellent. Thank you again for assisting me with my thinking on the subject.
Burgess, you were absolutely right with your original comments. I can’t see any reason to continue discussing/arguing with Mr. Nihilist. This would be far more productive: :dough:
Just for laughs, I’ll quote a few things he said in our last discussion.
Mr. Nihilist made comments to the effect that “reality is subjective.” “Everything is point of view.” I asked him whether he thought reality exists independent of perception. His response:
The question is not whether or not reality exists. I have no doubt that there is, in fact, a real. The question is how it is perceived. The answer that SHOULD be obvious is that it is subjective. What may be wrong to one person is right to another, as is proved by the fact that people take “wrong” action. It’s that simple, man.
On the subject of Morality: he believes it isn’t “part of reality”. I wonder what it’s a part of then?
I’m not going to go any further into reality/perception of the real because I was recently introduced to Lacan and my world is currently standing on its head. However, on the subject of morality, my original point, I do not believe that morality is a part of reality. There is NO WAY that there can be absolute morals short of a higher power/god. NONE.
His view of Ethics:
Ethics. Independent of human perception, nothing is right or wrong. Good or bad. However, this also includes human perception in that there is no experience that can be deemed as ABSOLUTELY good or ABSOLUTELY bad.
I suggested he might read some Ayn Rand, and this is the response I received. I view it as Mr. Nihilist’s crowning achievment:
As for reading Rand. I will eventually. I have little interest in her right now but I’ll certainly read her for the simple novelty of doing so. I know the basic framework of her arguments, however, and have no problem dismissing them as silly. “Rationality” is a word that I despise. Societal norms are enforced through “rationality” the deviancy dismissed as “irrational”. There is no rationality beyond society. No objective rationality.
He despises rationality. I appreciate his honesty.