Moral Absolutism your opinion?

[Cadsuane]

You would never get a concensus with a statement like this... Personally, I find this kind of statement ridiculous (on par with statement about god existence). Maybe I will change my mind the day you physically hurt me with the number 2....but it's not going to happen anytime soon.

A physics model use a mathematical structure. Physics itself is simply the study of the matter. Mathematics try to produce the best structure that will allow us to modelize the universe....but it's just model, it's never the universe.

There is a mainstream idea of mathematical platonism that says mathematical entities like numbers, sets, theorems etc. are discovered and not invented. Then again I understand that they may be discovered within arbitrarily defined constructs, but this might be a quibble. A real number in base 10 might only have its value by virtue of being in base 10, but you can still correlate it to base n in a consistent manner, for example.

[Evensong]

The truths in math (and any other logical system) are true given the axioms. 2+2=4 is true given peano arithmatics.
And the truth of that statement is solid within peano arithmatics.

The truths in math are true exactly when given the axioms. But what happens when ultrafinitism steps in and rejects peano arithmatics?
I'm very, very far from being a mathematician or understanding maths (and am I ever aware of the fact now that I'm taking an obligatory calculus course), I'm just curious as to your opinion on the idea of an infinite set of natural numbers being true and on how one could argue with ultrafinitists?

[Zosi]

Regarding the math argument, since it's much more interesting than "LOL MORAL RELATIVISM"...

There are two different aspects of math. One is math as a generic formal system, which is pretty detached from the empirical world - it's the axiomatic method described earlier. After the initial axioms, everything follows without any particular reference to the physical world. The results depend on which axioms you pick - there are no "right" axioms in isolation.

The other is the scientific pursuit of picking the formal mathematical system that most closely models what we perceive as the physical world. The connection is in the axioms - the idea is that we choose axioms that we believe model the behavior of the physical world, and if the results continue to model behavior as accurately, we say that they're "true".

The catch is that both of these are entirely human actions. We have no way of knowing whether our axioms and representations of math are "right" in any absolute sense - we just know that they accurately model the physical world as we experience it more accurately than any of the models that we've tried before. In that sense, the "truth of math" is no more discovered or invented than anything else in the empirical sciences.

[guartz]

btw I just remembered kierkegaard's universal value. Like, applicable at all times. Which is non-violence. Hence the popular, though misused universal ethical principle from the libertarians, the famous "non-aggression" principle. From there ethics, universal ethics, can be surmised.

[Kuya]

I think that a few moral rules that are absolute are very useful. Particularly because moral rules do not prevent you from breaking them, allowing you the freedom of practicality in case another more important thing is at stake (such as your life), however, indoctrinating human beings with a few absolute morals makes it less likely that they will break said rules, but again, that doesn't assure that they will always follow them, nor should it.

[guartz]

I think that a few moral rules that are absolute are very useful. Particularly because moral rules do not prevent you from breaking them, allowing you the freedom of practicality in case another more important thing is at stake (such as your life), however, indoctrinating human beings with a few absolute morals makes it less likely that they will break said rules, but again, that doesn't assure that they will always follow them, nor should it.

well, to barrow a phrase, the "core rules" of ethics, like in theory, the non-aggression principle, are shared innately, so no indoctrination is necessary. Much like, self-ownership and self-awareness. But what you say is true to branching ethics, like for example, aggression is wrong, so avoid lying. Or, aggression is wrong, so don't cut people with knifes.

[Klaatu]

http://www.motifake.com/demotivation...1225143426.jpg

[Zosi]

however, indoctrinating human beings with a few absolute morals makes it less likely that they will break said rules, but again, that doesn't assure that they will always follow them, nor should it.

Which would make them relative morals which are falsely presented as absolute. That construction might be (and I think certainly is) useful, but it doesn't mean that absolute morals in the literal sense exist. For a moral rule to be "absolute", there can be no exceptions - it's just wrong.

[guartz]

Which would make them relative morals which are falsely presented as absolute. That construction might be (and I think certainly is) useful, but it doesn't mean that absolute morals in the literal sense exist. For a moral rule to be "absolute", there can be no exceptions - it's just wrong.

what about absolutes that are psychological in nature?

[Zosi]

what about absolutes that are psychological in nature?

Please learn the difference between "universal" and "absolute". The fact that certain ideas may be hard-wired into our brains does not mean that they're *right*, simply that they're evolutionarily useful in the context that we live in, or at least were at some point.

[Zanz L. Barre The 3rd]

If I were to stab you in the face I think most of you would be willing to call that morally bad.

Personal experience clouds judgment. Due to the fact that we're human, emotions often distort our opinions on what is good or bad when "we" experience. Some or even most would argue that discussing moral absolutism beyond the ability of the human social order is moot, but estranging ourselves from the human is what often enables intellectual prosperity.

[Kuya]

Please learn the difference between "universal" and "absolute". The fact that certain ideas may be hard-wired into our brains does not mean that they're *right*, simply that they're evolutionarily useful in the context that we live in, or at least were at some point.

I'm not sure why you even used the word right seeing as how you marked it. For some unknown reason you're saying that in order for something to be absolute, it has to be right. Good luck defining that, bub.

[Kuya]

And let's not kid ourselves. By absolute it means that you'd have to be knowledgeable of every situation in which there might be an exception, which is impossible seeing as how, if you were to experience what you consider "every possible situation where there might be an exception", that does not mean that you actually experienced every possible situation.

What i am saying is, empiricism only works with things you experience, and since it's ontologically impossible for a human being to experience everything, it is therefore impossible to establish anything as absolute.

edit: to repeat myself just in case, in order to establish something as correct in every relevant situation, first every relevant situation must be cognoscible, if not, then it is impossible to establish what is or isn't absolute.

[wipers]

You should take some Philosophy classes.

[Mizango]

tbh this is the only reasonable answer to this thread.

lol

[wipers]

No reasonable person deals in absolutes.

[Zosi]

I'm not sure why you even used the word right seeing as how you marked it. For some unknown reason you're saying that in order for something to be absolute, it has to be right. Good luck defining that, bub.

Unknown reason? Actually, it's the very definition of moral absolutism. An "absolute moral" is something that is ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong, regardless of any context or situation that you may be in.

You don't seem to really understand what you're arguing about - I'm NOT the one that's claiming that moral absolutes exist. I'm not sure why you're attacking me over them. In case it makes it any clearer, the post that you quoted was me saying that "universal" ideas that we all have due to evolutionary adaptation are not necessarily "right" in any absolute sense - they're simply useful. It might be evolutionarily advantageous to hold a belief as an absolute truth regardless of whether it actually IS absolutely true in every single situation, precisely because we can't always know what will happen.

[Kuya]

Unknown reason? Actually, it's the very definition of moral absolutism. An "absolute moral" is something that is ALWAYS right or ALWAYS wrong, regardless of any context or situation that you may be in.

You don't seem to really understand what you're arguing about - I'm NOT the one that's claiming that moral absolutes exist. I'm not sure why you're attacking me over them.

I never claimed moral absolutes exist, perhaps you don't know what you're talking about, kid. I said that some morals should be treated as absolutes and therefore allowed no exceptions. A moral absolute has nothing to do with things humans always do or always don't do, that is not an issue of morals, it sounds more like an issue of a natural absolute. And my criticism of your statement was your defition of absolute morality as something that is always right, because the term right is incredibly relative unless specified for the purposes of argument; you did not do this, and therefore your definition is worthless.

First define right, and then you may be allowed to define moral absolutism that way.

[Zosi]

I never claimed moral absolutes exist, perhaps you don't know what you're talking about, kid. I said that some morals should be treated as absolutes and therefore allowed no exceptions. A moral absolute has nothing to do with things humans always do or always don't do, that is not an issue of morals, it sounds more like an issue of a natural absolute. And my criticism of your statement was your defition of absolute morality as something that is always right, because the term right is incredibly relative unless specified for the purposes of argument; you did not do this, and therefore your definition is worthless.

First define right, and then you may be allowed to define moral absolutism that way.

Please, take a philosophy class, you don't even understand the terminology well enough to realize that you aren't disagreeing with me.

[Kuya]

I don't really care about you washing away the issue with "i go to schal lol". Define what is right. I have not taken a philosophy class, and whether i do or not is my prerogative. If you have however, then i invite you to educate me, if not, then you should probably get out of here as you have no purpose here.