[_ Old Earth _] absolute morality

[dragon]

anyone know of any psychological studies on absolute morality?

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

anyone know of any psychological studies on absolute morality?

I doubt there is any since science does not, for the most part, believe in absolutes but mere situational ethics.

 

[Sara929]

I believe Geisler has an excellent paper with regards to philosophicall studies on absolute morality. Not quite the same thing though.

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

I believe Geisler has an excellent paper with regards to philosophicall studies on absolute morality. Not quite the same thing though.

Well perhaps one day I will check that out.

Just so people in the post knows I made my statement based on the fact that modern psychology takes the secular humanistic approach to things and secular humanism does not really accept absolute morality, or absolute truth for that matter. I for one am not much for modern psychology but for Christian psychology.

 

[Drew]

I am sure what the original post means since I see psychology as having nothing to say on the question of whether or not absolute morals exist (and if they do exist, what they are).

Nevertheless, while not a "secular humanist", I want to make a brief attempt at providing an argument about morality that I think they might make (or that I would make, if I was in their shoes). Here goes:

1. Certain things are considered desirable by all people - security, food, shelter, pleasure, freedom to "do what one wants", intellectual satisfaction, etc. ,etc.

2. Since we all share limited space and resources, conflicts will inevitably arise among individuals as they pursue these goals.

3. Viewing society as a "system" of interacting agents, certain general principles exist which, if followed, will lead to an overall maximization of the "average happiness" of each member in that society - if no one was constrained at all, chaos would ensue and everyone would be unhappy.

4. These principles are experienced by each us as a kind of "moral code". In a sense these "laws" are absolute since there is indeed a "best way" for a society to constrain its individual members to maximize the happiness of everyone. But, they are not absolute in the sense of coming "from God".

For we Christians, the "party line" (I think) is that morality somehow "comes from God". While not disagreeing with this, I think we need to explain what we mean by this and see if it can be integrated into the above argument (which I think is quite compelling in certain ways).

 

[Blazin Bones]

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 593#142593

Those of you who have been posting in this topic may fond this thread interesting as well.

 

[dragon]

i know i read some on toddlers being disturbed by death/harming of others (basic understanding of right/wrong)--just can't find them.

 

[Chupacabra]

i know i read some on toddlers being disturbed by death/harming of others (basic understanding of right/wrong)--just can't find them.

Still, this wouldn't prove absolute morality. From the moment of birth, we experience the process of socialization, so values would be transmitted at least somewhat by the time a person is a toddler.

 

[Blazin Bones]

There is a very simple way to disprove this idea.

Person one: You murdered that is wrong
Person two: The murder is only wrong in you're eyes because there is no absolute morality
person one: Then what makes your reason as an absolute?

There is a Moral absolute. Final

 

[Asimov]

There is a very simple way to disprove this idea.

Person one: You murdered that is wrong
Person two: The murder is only wrong in you're eyes because there is no absolute morality
person one: Then what makes your reason as an absolute?

There is a Moral absolute. Final

That's not quite right Brutus. There is no absolute morality. There is objective morality.

 

[dragon]

actually, it kind of would--the study exposed children to issues which they hadn't learned yet--murder, torture, etc.

 

[Asimov]

actually, it kind of would--the study exposed children to issues which they hadn't learned yet--murder, torture, etc.

It's called empathy. We are social animals, therefore we are disturbed by death and harm.

 

[Chupacabra]

There is a very simple way to disprove this idea.

Person one: You murdered that is wrong
Person two: The murder is only wrong in you're eyes because there is no absolute morality
person one: Then what makes your reason as an absolute?

There is a Moral absolute. Final

Wow. You just mixed up the cliche argument for absolute truth with an argument against absolute morality. If person two claimed that person one was immoral for having his opinion, then it would stand. However, person two is merely stating that there is indeed no way to determine what is moral or immoral because that is subjective-- its all opinion. Thus, the above example proves nothing at all.

actually, it kind of would--the study exposed children to issues which they hadn't learned yet--murder, torture, etc.

I'd have to know how old the toddlers in the study were, for one thing. Socialization is a long process, but it gets started quickly. Next, Asimov is correct about empathy. If you expose someone to torture, the toddler is likely to think, "I sure don't want that happening to me!" or something to that effect, ergo they feel it is wrong. This makes plenty of sense, however it still proves little except that there is a natural tendency for compassion. Similarly, if you put several young children together amongst a collection of toys or shiney things, they will invariably start to fight sooner or later. If being appalled at torture is proof of its being immoral, then surely the aforementioned example would prove the virtue of competition and violence. Also, if you exposed the toddlers to a man shooting another man and they are shocked, one would assume that the shooter is immoral, but context is still important. What if the shooter was an undercover cop who was attacked first? Is it still immoral?

By the way, the ethics of exposing children to graphic and violent images are very questionable. Do you know who did this study?

 

[Blazin Bones]

Chupa said: ... person two is merely stating that there is indeed no way to determine what is moral or immoral because that is subjective-- its all opinion.

Brutus says: Opinion hindges on the argument of absolute truth, so absolute morality would be defined by the absolute truth, which there must be.

 

[keebs]

Brutus says: Opinion hindges on the argument of absolute truth, so absolute morality would be defined by the absolute truth, which there must be.

What are you talking about? Opinion hindges on subjectivity, not in any way on absolute truth. How in any way can you justify the statement you just made?

 

[dragon]

chupacabra,

still proves little except that there is a natural tendency for compassion.

isn't having a natural tendency for compassion the same as having absolute moral understanding?

i don't remember anything about the study regarding title, author of article...i just thought someone on this site would have run across similar studies that i could then look up to find this one.

 

[Chupacabra]

isn't having a natural tendency for compassion the same as having absolute moral understanding?

i don't remember anything about the study regarding title, author of article...i just thought someone on this site would have run across similar studies that i could then look up to find this one.

Morality is essentially what is right or wrong. Being shocked or appalled at something does not mean one believes it is wrong. Also, look at the example I provided-- children are also prone to fighting, so does that natural tendency also constitute a moral absolute?

 

[dragon]

absolute morality posits that humans are born with a basic understanding of right/wrong, preceding any learning/instruction.

shock--a disturbance in the equilibrium or permanence of something, or to strike with surprise, terror, horror, or disgust

how can equilibrium be disturbed or horror/disgust felt if an understanding of what is supposed to be right doesn't exist?

children are also prone to fighting, so does that natural tendency also constitute a moral absolute?

not really, what people understand and how they choose to react to that understanding are two different things. people have free will, unfortunately (well, maybe not unfortunately ).

 

[Nocturnal_Principal_X]

Being a Psychology major one would think I would have thought of this already…well I did not.

Check out the following link about “Lawrence Kohlberg's
stages of moral development†below:

A SUMMARY OF LAWRENCE KOHLBERG'S
STAGES OF MORAL DEVELOPMENT

No doubt an interesting theory but the question is where did society get the notion of morality in the first place…I believe God gave it to us.

 

[KnarfKS]

There hasn't been a mention of the corrupt human nature. I believe that there is a correct morality that God has handed down. I don't think it is in everyone(sociopaths).

The corrupt nature would require us to at least learn some moral obligations. We by nature are evil and require guidance whether by learning or supernatural influences.


BTW mexican goat sucker??? Chupacabra will get it