Couldn't human nature be immoral? — Banno

I identify human nature as one, and probably the most important, of the sources of morality. As I noted, we are social. We like each other. We have empathy. We need to be able to live together. So I guess the answer is human nature can't be immoral. If it were, we wouldn't have survived as a species.

Isn't this an example of the naturalistic fallacy? — Banno

From Wikipedia - "In philosophical ethics, the naturalistic fallacy is the mistake of explaining something as being good reductively, in terms of natural properties such as pleasant or desirable."

This applies to standards of morality. I've had nothing to say about that. My assertion applies to the source of morality. The question in the OP was "Can morality be absolute?" As I noted, since morality is based on fundamental human nature, in a sense it is absolute.

Wikipedia eventually makes clowns of us all.

But you think that morality derives from human nature. SO you do not think that we ougth in some way seek to overcome our nature?

SO you do not think that we ougth in some way seek to overcome our nature? — Banno

I've been as clear as I can be. This was the question I was responding to:

Given the recent societal disagreements about a number of morale issues, I have spent some time recently thinking about whether morality can be absolute. On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? Or are people's beliefs and views central in the creation of morality itself, and thus morality is subjectively dependant on those beliefs and views. — PhilosophyRunner

I don't see how your question is relevant.

I've been as clear as I can be. — T Clark

That's sad.

I've linked to this video several times here on the forum. I think it's fascinating and tells us something profound about human morality. 13 minutes. — T Clark

the video says:

Video unavailable
The uploader has not made this video available in your country

Yes, that does say something profound about human morality.

the video says:

Video unavailable
The uploader has not made this video available in your country

Yes, that does say something profound about human morality. — Banno

I think that's because under Scotty from Marketing, morality has been suspended in Oz.

It isn't and this is why I quoted the clarification he provided in the OP. My question was if he is arguing about object moral judgements(Situational morality) or absolute morality(an act is moral or immoral independent from the situation).
The title and his post are a bit in conflict.

How is "This moral view is objectively right" different to "this moral view is right"? What does "objectively" add? — Banno

I think it adds Ayn Rand.

That makes sense. Let's hope no one thinks it a good thing to do so.

First of all the OP clarifies that refers to objective moral judgments not Absolute morality. (I quote " On a given subject, is one particular moral view objectively right and the others are wrong, regardless of what people believe? ") — Nickolasgaspar

Hey Nick - I was responding to the first part of this and was perhaps a little loose in the OP quote I used.

Any views on this topic, or about my position? — PhilosophyRunner

Ok.

If rape is wrong because we have agreed it is wrong, it is good when we change our mind. — Hanover

This is like a William Lane Craig rhetorical flourish, huh?

I think societies have 'agreed' it is wrong because in most cultures it is held that actions which harm human wellbeing are wrong. Is rape right in the worldview of, say, Islamic State? I think it may well be, particularly if it is held that women are property and do not really hold full citizenship.

As a moral realist, you hold that an action is right or wrong outside of human experience and whatever decision making processes we employ. Morality must in some sense be transcendental. I don't think we have any evidence that this is the case, nor can I see how in practice we can determine how this might be the case. How would you demonstrate, for instance, that rape is wrong based on moral realism?

I think the question is, is there any true good? Is there anything which is unconditionally good, not a matter of either social convention or individual conviction? I don't know if that automatically entails absolutism - the requirement is simply for some good that is not simply a matter of individual or social judgement. And that seems a very hard thing to discern sans a religious doctrine.

As for objectivity, its range is restricted to what can be objectively validated. The dilemma for modern culture is that there are many ethical questions which cannot be so validated, hence are not objective, but that there are no shared criteria other than objectivity against which to make judgements. This is the crux of Hume's is/ought problem - that what is measurable is not the same as what is necessarily preferable.

I think the question is, is there any true good? Is there anything which is unconditionally good, not a matter of either social convention or individual conviction? — Wayfarer

Exactly, and I would imagine that in your case (and this is not a criticism) you would locate the source of transcendental values in idealism?

The universe was never designed to be a paradise. Ethics is, by and large, a pressing issue for what can suffer, the potential for pain immediately opens up a new dimesion to reality viz. ethics. How do we carve out a moral world, i.e. create jannat, from a universe that can also be converted into a jahanam?

And that seems a very hard thing to discern sans a religious doctrine. — Wayfarer

How so? Religious doctrine is written by people, no? Enlightened, divinely inspired, directly in touch with god...if you like, yeah. But still people.

So religious doctrine with regard to morality is to act as a past record of what people had found out about it.

Now. Why do we need a past record of what people had found out about it? Why not a current one? There are more people alive now than have ever been, so more people now should be directly in touch with god than have ever been.

Keeping a past record seems little more than archiving. If we want to know what's moral according to divine rule we'd be statistically better off consulting the current crop of religious cults than the written record of the previous crop.

let me define Morality and why Objective moral judgments are possible.
Morality is the abstract concept that describes specific behavior capable to promote the well being of Society and its individual members
Specific metrics in behavior(altruism, truthfulness, respectful etc) is how we know that well being is reinforced among members of a society.
So if specific behavior undermines well being or the prospect of it then we can objectively make a judgment for its immoral nature.

The universe was never designed to be a paradise. Ethics is, by and large, a pressing issue for what can suffer, the potential for pain immediately opens up a new dimesion to reality viz. ethics. How do we carve out a moral world, i.e. create jannat, from a universe that can also be converted into a jahanam? — Agent Smith

-first of we can not prove that the universe was designed. Teleology in nature needs to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt , not assumed.
Morality is the evaluation of human behavior not an intrinsic feature in the Universe. We as observers evaluate specific behavior as moral or immoral depending on the impact it has on the well being of the members of our society.
There is no need to introduce absolute concepts (truth, morality) in the discussion. Objective moral judgements can be produced by verifying specific metrics promoting our well being.

I think the question is, is there any true good? Is there anything which is unconditionally good, not a matter of either social convention or individual conviction? I don't know if that automatically entails absolutism - the requirement is simply for some good that is not simply a matter of individual or social judgement. And that seems a very hard thing to discern sans a religious doctrine. — Wayfarer

-I am not sure that the term "true good" or absolute moral judgments are useful in our quest for morality.
We understand that moral absolutes don't exist.
1.The act of killing is not immoral under all situations.
i.e killing a murdered who is ready to kill your family is objectively a moral act.
2. The act of killing is not an absolute immoral act.
i.e. by stilling the bomb from a terrorist before he manages to detonate it is an objective moral act.
3. Having sex is not an absolute immoral act.
i.e. having sex with your wife is has not moral value...having sex with a woman without her consent that is an immoral act.

So the above examples prove that absolute moral declarations are factually wrong statements and Situational ethics is the best way we have to make objective moral evaluations for every act.
By independently evaluating each act and realizing if it is in favor or against the well being of members and their society we can arrive to objective conclusions about the moral value of an act.

Specific metrics in behavior(altruism, truthfulness, respectful etc) is how we know that well being is reinforced among members of a society.
So if specific behavior undermines well being or the prospect of it then we can objectively make a judgment for its immoral nature. — Nickolasgaspar

Over what timescale?

@Nickolasgaspar

Ok, ok! I'd like to ask two questions, my attempt to cut through the noise and get to the meat and potatoes of morality?

To minimize/eliminate possible sources of confusion, I'll use emojis.

Are :sad: :cry: good/bad?

Are :smile: :lol: :rofl: good/bad?

Religious doctrine is written by people, no? — Isaac

That's the secular take on it. But the religious believe in the principle of revealed truth, which by definition is the revelation of a true good. I'm not saying you or anyone should accept that, but it's worth noting the difficulties involved in its absence.

And anyway, consider traditional philosophy, as distinct from religious revelation. According to Pierre Hadot, in ancient philosophy 'The Sage was the living embodiment of wisdom, “the highest activity human beings can engage in . . . which is linked intimately to the excellence and virtue of the soul”. So in that view, the sage is able to discern 'the good' which the uneducated and untrained do not. In that understanding, humans don't possess an innate ability to discern the good, at least not without training in philosophy, which is concerned with discerning the good, and the curriculum of philosophy is in learning that skill.

So the above examples prove... — Nickolasgaspar

I don't think they constitute any kind of proof, and actually I didn't use the term 'absolute'. What I'm asking is, what could be the grounds for certain acts or attitudes to be considered good independently of your or my or society's evaluation of them as good - a 'true good' if you like.

By independently evaluating each act and realizing if it is in favor or against the well being of members and their society we can arrive to objective conclusions about the moral value of an act. — Nickolasgaspar

which is basically an appeal to utilitarian ethics. Not that utilitarian ethics are necessarily bad.

timescale is not relevant.

humans don't possess an innate ability to discern the good, at least not without training in philosophy, which is concerned with discerning the good, and the curriculum of philosophy is in learning that skill. — Wayfarer

I included that (plus divine revelation) when I said...

Enlightened, divinely inspired, directly in touch with god...if you like, yeah. But still people. — Isaac

...

The point is there are more people alive now than have ever been. So if some small portion of humanity are open to enlightenment or divine revelation, then what those people are saying about morality right now is a better guide than what a far smaller group said about it in the past.

In other words, why are you privileging ancient people's access to god (which they then wrote down) over modern people's access to god.

timescale is not relevant. — Nickolasgaspar

If some course of action causes harm in the short term but greater good in the long term is is moral or not?

Its not an appeal....by default morality has an instrumental value in our society.

-"I don't think they constitute any kind of proof, and actually I didn't use the term 'absolute'. What I'm asking is, what could be the grounds for certain acts or attitudes to be considered good independently of your or my or society's evaluation of them as good - a 'true good' if you like"
-if you don't imply anything absolute so you should use the qualifier "true" for good.
As I already pointed out if we all agree that morality is an evaluation of which acts promote the well being of individual members and their society as a whole then of course this standard allow us to arrive to objective moral judgments.

Unfortunately your emojis weren't that helpful! Feel free to elaborate!

I believe morality applies to existence itself, not just human beings. Our own human morality comes from this.

that sounds like a common political excuse ! = )
Joking aside, In situational ethics it depends on ....the situation, I guess.
Your question could be a really good challenge..if only we can test it on a good example.
Do you think Chernobyl could be a good example?
The scenario is this. Young Ukranians lost their lives during their efforts to clean the area and contain the radio active core. Most of them were volunteers but they were not informed for the danger.
Let me know if you have a better example we can use.

Unfortunately your emojis weren't that helpful! Feel free to elaborate! — Nickolasgaspar

:brow:

I don't know the circumstances well enough. Perhaps something more simple. Denying a child sweets. Clearly causes measurable harm in the short term (crying, loss of pleasure), but the aim is greater good in the long term (health, and perhaps learning forbearance).