Do you believe in Absolute Morality? What is it? I meditated, thinking about alot of the so called Morals of the world. I meditated just like Rene Descartes and became the skeptic. You can break down all morals to this: Do No Harm. Thus Do No Harm is in my opinion absolute Morality. Taking a hint from immanuel Kant, I added another one like he did. Do Good. I mean, it doesn't hurt to do good.
I'm not talking about the workability. I'm talking about what morality boils down to. I can argue the workability of pacifism some other time.
I can sort of see where you're coming from But then I think, when you are dealing with morality and fully capable adults, you also have to work in informed consent. like for instance if someone liked to be spanked during sex that would be a minor harm, but I think that, if they knew what they were doing, it would still be morally fine for a consenting partner to give them what they want. Same applies in other fields, like medicine and so on, you might administer a temporary harm to achieve a greater benefit (say chemo, it might make your hair fall out, but it could also stop your cancer), or to stop a greater harm (say euthinasia, giving relief from intense suffering). As long as the person(s) involved is/are a fully informed, capable and consenting adult(s) then maybe do no harm can be modified slightly. Also, I think do no harm, while noble, is somewhat unrealistic... maybe do the least amount of harm possible would be better to work with?
if somebody enjoys being spanked, its not harm. Temperary harm? Well, there is also the idea that if it helps it does not harm. I'd go with least harm possible if it really comes down to it, but No Harm is the ultimate so you have to stay as close to that as possible.
but no harm to what/who? just by existing you are harming stuff - using up resources, polluting, killing bacteria and so on. But then killing yourself would bring about harm as well, so it's impossible to exist at any stage and bring about no harm. I just don't think there is really much point in having ethics if they are impossible to follow, so, for my 'ethical guidelines' i'd go with a blend of do least amount of harm and informed consent.
Newski Are you speaking of an absolute morality within humanity [only]? Or thoughout the universe/reality itself? Occam
I don't think there is any absolute morality. All morality is relative. When you say 'do no harm', I'm afraid that needs to be broken down further, and the question has to be posed as to whether without an absolute morality, the concept of harm isn't equally relative. For instance, by harming a virus or bacteria, a human life may be saved. By harming a vicious assailant, one may live to fight another day etc. And the same is true for 'do good'. One man's good is another's bad.
Yes... Harm to a bacteria... Just like harm to an alien.... Who knows what THEY call good and evil Occam
Be so grateful that you can be satisfied with every action and moment. Help other be fed and satisfied
I'm gonna rip of aristotle and say the "Highest" good is somewhere in the middle between percieved "good" and "bad"... and it's up to the human intelect to settle it. Any absolute I can think of come along with it's own draw backs...
I think there are absolute morals... For the individual. I agree with Nietzsche when he say (something vaguely ressembling that): "Implant the seeds of your greatest hopes in your strongest passions* so your highest morals grow out of them". *passions in the negative sense I believe he meant to align your morals with your biological drives by giving them an important purprose and not fighting them. Actually it's more complicated than that but that's part of what could be considered a masterplan. Morals come from evolution, morals should serve life and the product of life. c'est à dire themselves, living beings, and the hypothetical gene-pool* in a specific environment (their family in virtually all cases). [*Actually genes don't really matter anymore, it's a mental thing. It can expand by other means than reproduction] Their children grow up and may find something to improve (thanks to the morals that favor progress) or live in another environment and feel reponsible enough to set their own rules. La boucle est bouclée. That doesn't mean non-breeders are evil, they can contribute in other ways. Of course "contributions" is just by living there's no inherent idea of sacrifice. The best gene-pool* wins the war, it shows how Good it is because it serves life better.
There 'may' be absolute human morals... [if we ALL agree, that is, absolutely agree, on one code] There can be no such thing as absolute universal morality. Occam
The word absolute implies objectivity and Subsequently PERFECTION. Pure objectivity is impossible, if only because you are not, as I am not, the singular conscious being in existence. Absolute morality necessarily requires a Perfect consciousness from which it would be realized, just by the concept itself: Absolute. The evidence, in my view, points to the fact that such a Perfect consciousness does not exist, this leads us isolated conscious beings to create our own morality. Which manifests itself on a functional societal scale as a Republic; a republic is a constantly dynamic attempt at aquiring absolute morality, while simultaneously realizing such a thing is impossible. However, this does no detract others from breaking the fundemental rule that is imperative for a republic to work: there is no Absolute morality. I THINK morality should be based on empathetic rationality. Rightists need to stop playing the God card, for it gives an unfair advantage to them in our Republic. How can a humble atheist such as myself try to convince somebody that its cool for dudes to marry, or that its wrong to execute those inacable of understanding what is [enigmatically] right and wrong, when I cannot promise them eternal bliss in the afterlife? All I have, is an offer of tolerance which does not playcate to the innate human tendency to look out for number one. FUCK
"And it harm none, do what you will." "That which you would not have done unto you, do not do unto others." Rabbi Hillel werx 4 me
Thumontico.. Agree. Well said. even if occam is not within the republic. He recons the US constitution and bill of rights is the best any nation has come up with yet. [bar the ammendments] Pity so many americans dont live by it. Occam
Pity the authors didn't live by it. But I also agree, it is the best so far, and is an ideal worth pursuing until it someday becomes a reality.
Why would absolute morals need an objective point of view to be "found" ? Morals are merely the human value we give to the world. If you just try to balance the equation of society it's mathematics. The naive morals you mentionned above (do not harm) are silly. What if you're defending yourself ? If someone jack yo' shit, isn't it normal to bust a cap in their ass ? People don't understand that morals is supposed (amongst other things) to be a tribal glue and connection with other tribes. Just like like a code in a corporation (it's just ethics but w/e), but different corps have different culture it gives different ethics. You wanting the same morals for everyone show how you oversimplify Mankind.
