Absolute Morality: Does it exist?

reply to post by Gorman91


A star for you....

You wrote... Quote;

And nobody has a right to force their religion onto another.

The best statement you have made yet...

Peace....

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


we practice infanticide since 1973 to the
tune of 1.5 million abortions a year.

reply to post by 547000

It's easy to talk about karma when you're rich and have comforts, but when you live in continual poverty karma is an easy thing to abuse.

no one promised to you or whoever else to've easy life troubles are given to humans not to kill/harm/humiliate'em, but to give them chance to move towards Ideal & to become Creator.

reply to post by SarK0Y


An arrow? Lol dude. I don't know. Under the same, what can get you 1? The number 2-1? In which case infinity would get you 1+1+1... We invent symbols to represent things with. The number one is just as worthy as the number infinity.

reply to post by adjensen


Absolute Morality is that which can only be gleaned by Reason, that is to say... Reasonably.


I am Alive.

You are Alive.

You and I *LIKE* being Alive.


So, the Logical perspective of Morality is the Preservation of life.

But what of Plants and animals that we eat?


Well, since we must eat to live, the Definition of Logical Morality would be "The preservation of Life, unless it's death is used to sustain life."

Which would be Predation.


So, where does consciousness come into the equation?


Well... one of the things that is Most Beneficial to Life, is the proper application of Our Consciousness to apply reason and knowledge to changing the world around us.


Like, for example... Terra-forming a Planet, so that it can now maintain life.



Absolute Morality would be the Logical (Common Ground) that all life and consciousness stands upon, and can agree upon.

By observing Reality.

-Edrick

reply to post by SarK0Y


Well, I want to be a creation to be doted on by a Creator, not to take His place, so I don't think I agreed to this.

reply to post by Gorman91


Infinity is not a number. We use the symbol of infinity to represent a concept, but infinity itself is not a number.

reply to post by AProphet1233


logic is a human invention so it is not absolute.
math is a human invention so it is not absolute.
science is a human invention so it is not absolute.
morality is a human invention so it is not absolute.



www.proofthatgodexists.org...

reply to post by 547000


Yes it is.

In mathematics, "infinity" is often treated as if it were a number (i.e., it counts or measures things: "an infinite number of terms") but it is not the same sort of number as the real numbers. In number systems incorporating infinitesimals, the reciprocal of an infinitesimal is an infinite number, i.e. a number greater than any real number. Georg Cantor formalized many ideas related to infinity and infinite sets during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He also discovered that there are different "kinds" of infinite sets, a concept called cardinality. For example, the set of integers is countably infinite, while the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite.

Infinity is a concept. But in math, it is a set number. Very simply, the highest or lowest possible number that can exist.

For example, a common joke is that the population density of the universe is zero, and so nobody actually exists. because space is unlimited, but mass is limited. Therefore, any mass put into that space is a division of infintiy. N/inf. = zero. It is no longer a concept, it is a set number with a set value. We just cannot know that value. It is like a known unknown. Not a contradiction, simply the way we treat it.

We do the same thing with virtual particles. Virtual Particles do not exist. We merely create them to properly understand that which the human brain cannot. A concept? Not necessarily. Freedom is a concept. But it has no physicality other than the word itself. Infinity both has a symbol and a quantifiable mass or value. Just not the our understanding.

No, if you studied math, you would know infinity is not a number; if it were, you could construct the number which is infinite + 1, which is greater than infinity, contradicting the hypothesis that infinite is a number greater than all real numbers. Just because the symbol is treated like a number in many contexts of continuous math doesn't make it a number. The limit can go towards zero, as the value you plug in gets larger and larger, but infinity has no set magnitude.

Originally posted by 547000
No, if you studied math, you would know infinity is not a number; if it were, you could construct the number which is infinite + 1, which is greater than infinity, contradicting the hypothesis that infinite is a number greater than all real numbers. Just because the symbol is treated like a number in many contexts of continuous math doesn't make it a number. The limit can go towards zero, as the value you plug in gets larger and larger, but infinity has no set magnitude.

edit on 9-9-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

absolutely correct, we cannot Infinity call Number, moreover, we cannot classified type of Infinity among Math Objects let's take classical equation, A/Inf. == 0==> 0*Inf==A (A -- any Number). in short words, logic completely failed to deal with Infinity

reply to post by SarK0Y


I would have to disagree with that. There are kinds of infinities that can be classified among sets, which are mathematical objects. I'm not well read in Cantor's theories so I'll leave it at that.

reply to post by 547000

theories for infinite sets give to us very funny result: one Infinity can be greater than other Infinity -- where are there at least a little logic? or that: x approaches to Inf., but Inf is no Number -- x goes to NoWhere? logic works completely perfect with finite sets, any theories about Infinite Sets are Nothing, but Math speculations -- there're no solid proofs, no practical value.

reply to post by adjensen

I tried to reply to this earlier, when the thread was a page shorter at least, but lost the post. This is just a response to the OP. I haven't read much of the thread.

Originally posted by adjensen
I have seen a number of people on ATS remark that, in their view, absolute morality doesn't exist. That is to say that morality, which are the principles and behaviours that we apply to determine what is right, and what is wrong, is fluid, and that there is no absolute (constant and unchanging) right and wrong.

Morality is relative, but wait: I mean that morality, meaning code and precept, varies among societies, groups within a given society, and among individuals. People have different moral codes. Some people think it's a sin to eat pork. Others think it's a sin to abort babies (a subject to which I will, briefly, return later). Yet others think it's a sin to make money. The variation in what people think is good and evil is the true relativity of morals.

To conclude from this relativity of moral prescription and sanction that there is no absolute ethics is, however, fallacious. You are right on this. Note, however, the important distinction between ethics and morals.

I believe that there is an absolute ethics, a true and universal (for humans) set of values that enables us to determine what is right from wrong. It is not a set of prescriptions, not a list of commandments; it is a set of rules and tests that enables us to determine what, in a given situation, are the right and wrong things to do. To build on Mike_A's example from his post in page 1 of the thread, it allows us to determine that however wicked it may be to rape a child, it might yet be right to do so under coercion in order to save the child from being murdered outright. Not a decision any of us would want to have to make; but the absolute ethics helps us determine which of two evils is lesser. We may hope that in another context, it could also help us to choose the better of two goods; perhaps when, for example, the choice lies between a career and a friendship.

If one thinks of the sexual abuse of children, I, for one, am physically sickened by the idea. It bothers me more than most other things that I can think of. But when I think back on my life, I can't remember anyone ever drilling the lesson of how vile child abuse is into my head. Can't even remember anyone ever even discussing it to any degree. But I also can't think back to a time in my life when I didn't find this behaviour horrifyingly repugnant.

My take away of that is that this particular absolute morality points to something which underlies it -- something which is a fundamental piece of who I am, and which not only directs me to the absolute moral position on the subject of child abuse, but which makes me an extremist on the matter. So I'm left to assume that my absolute morality is not a result of an adoption of a non-absolute morality, and that if I had grown up in a society where child abuse was acceptable, I would still find it repugnant.

You know from our previous conversations that I believe the foundations of morality to be biological, that concepts and instincts such as altruism, cooperation, fairness, affection, reciprocity, kindness and so forth are characteristics that are built into our genes, part of our evolutionary legacy as social primates. What you say above may easily be co-opted as evidence for this hypothesis, but I believe that would be too hasty--particulary because in some societies, as we know, child marriage--even the marriage of middle-aged or frankly elderly men to prepubertal little girls--is known to take place. Indeed, such child marriages were common in ancient times. Though they were never the rule, except in places where patriarchies ran riot, I don't believe the taboo against having sex with children is anywhere near as strong as Western societies currently feel it is.

At this point you're probably thinking, I've got him. Because if the absolute ethics I spoke of earlier is not built into our genes, then it must come from someplace else, and God is the most obvious candidate. I disagree. Absolute ethics--the guiding principle of which, if you aren't religious, is essentially equivalent to the Second Commandment of the New Covenant*--consist, I believe, in the selective extension of kinship rights, as observed instinctively by social animals, to the widest possible circle of genetically unrelated kin. The process stopped being instinctive a long time ago and is now driven by reason and enlightened--largely economic--self-interest. Its highest manifestations have no religious sanction but are derived from the highest refinements of rational humanism--or, as you may prefer, the base desire for pelf.

On this subject only one thing more remains to be said. Those who conclude from the nonexistence of absolute morality that there is no absolute ethics, and use that conclusion to excuse whatever behaviour they feel inclined to that moment, are not champions of moral relativity in any philosophical sense; they are moral degenerates, beyond the reach of faith and philosophy alike.

There is, however something in your post that needs to be refuted. Doing so does not materially detract from the force of your argument; but I feel obliged, out of respect for the truth, to refute it anyway. It is this:

Infanticide is interesting. It is not uncommon for other species to kill their young who appear to be a likely "drag on the system." If morals were simply an application of "what's best for us," one would think that even an intellectualized species would not shy away from this. Civilization needs to be pretty far along before sufficient resources are available to care for non-sustaining group members. And yet, this moral absolute once again seems fundamental, and seems to have been around for a very long time.

Infanticide is a common human behaviour. It was prevalent in all ancient cultures, even the most civilized. The Golden Age of Athens was soundtracked by the cries of legions of unwanted infants exposed on hillsides to the depradations of marauding wolves; Rome, at least in legend, was founded by a pair of brothers so abandoned, to whom a she-wolf gave suck. And certainly the Romans--and their subjects--exposed their share of babies too. As did the Persians, the Etruscans, the Egyptians (remember Moses in the bulrushes?) and just about everybody else you care to name. The Chinese did it too, and were stil doing it until Mao took charge. Actually, they're probably still doing it, out on the dunes somewhere in the middle of Xinjiang Province. It still happens in India too, in Nepal, Tibet and Afghanistan. It happens in my own country. It happens on the streets of London, Paris and New York City, often in dumpsters.

And the ones who get dumped are, yes, the ones with the slimmest chances of survival, and of making a decent life for themselves. The ones who would be, yes, 'a drag on the system'.

Let us not forget, also, that all human societies eagerly (if not always legally) practise abortion, and have done so since time immemorial. There are Egyptian papyrii which detail methods by which abortion may be induced.

Nature gives us moral impulses; but it is reason coupled with compassion--in a word, humanity--that shapes them into moral codes and ethical systems.

*

reply to post by Gorman91

I chose logic instead. Common sense. The universal rights of man.

And how pray, is it logical or commonsensical that man should have any rights?

This is going to be good.

reply to post by NoahTheSumerian

M'eh. Loads to think about, will come back to this later on.

Meanwhile you get a star.

I'm recruiting.

Originally posted by SarK0Y
everything is natural in the Universum, my friend

ways to Death is no less natural than ways to Life

Star for you too.

One of my friends said it so simply: 'we are part of Nature, so nothing we do can ever be unnatural.'

reply to post by SarK0Y


When they say X approaches infinite, they mean X increases without bound.

Not having read Cantor's theories, I cannot say whether it's nonsense or not.

reply to post by Astyanax


Look at mankind without any rights. Having rights is clearly a positive.

Besides. Because we're human. No other reason is needed. Because animals want to be free

reply to post by 547000

When they say X approaches infinite, they mean X increases without bound.

yes, but it doesn't change situation: for example, x approaches 1 (each value of x