Disturbing trend in high schools

kcbrown wrote in post #14725272
No, but you claim to subscribe to it, which means you claim to at least know something about it.

But if your knowledge about it is incomplete, then you cannot ever be sure about the rightness or wrongness of something, because it's possible that the something in question is something that an exception is made for in the absolute moral standard you subscribe to.

We all know something about it, otherwise we wouldn't be able to argue the concepts of moral right and moral wrong.

Without absolute morality, you cannot even argue morality...

Without absolute morality, there is no concept of goodness or badness...


That by itself proves its very existance.

DutchinCLE wrote in post #14725286
Again, you bring a very extreme example. More realistic would be: for us to eat a steak can be thought of as immoral by several million Hindu's..
Yet we still serve up a nice steak with a beer, and enjoy it.

It is a useful example.

It is a genuine example.

Therefore it is a legitimate example.


So what would you have done?

Would you have ordered the neighbour or the vegetarian option?

mtimber wrote in post #14725305
We all know something about it, otherwise we wouldn't be able to argue the concepts of moral right and moral wrong.

But without absolute knowledge of this absolute standard, you simply cannot be sure that any given act is moral or immoral, can you?

Sure you can. Morality is still morality, even if it is not defined by some source that is external to man.

Of course there is, from the point of view of any given individual.

mtimber wrote in post #14725314
Would you have ordered the neighbour or the vegetarian option?

Do you eat steak, and be found immoral by millions of hindu's?

kcbrown wrote in post #14725194
The food in question most certainly rightfully belonged to another party.

Who did it belong to?

mtimber wrote in post #14725328
Who did it belong to?

Farmers, ranchers, and whoever else happened to reside in the area at the time.

kcbrown wrote in post #14725316
But without absolute knowledge of this absolute standard, you simply cannot be sure that any given act is moral or immoral, can you?

Sure you can. Morality is still morality, even if it is not defined by some source that is external to man.

Of course there is, from the point of view of any given individual.

Without the concept of Absolute Morality, the concepts of "goodness" and "badness" cannot exist.


So by simple logical deduction it is clear that Absolute Morality exists.

Of course that predicates the Laws of Logic, but we won't go there.

kcbrown wrote in post #14725316
Of course there is, from the point of view of any given individual.

Really?

You decide that "goodness" is the right to keep your car.

Your neigbour decides that "goodness" is the right to take your car.


Which one is right?

DutchinCLE wrote in post #14725321
Do you eat steak, and be found immoral by millions of hindu's?

I am a vegetarian, so suspect I would have ended up in the cooking pot for my heretical tendencies...

mtimber wrote in post #14725346
Without the concept of Absolute Morality, the concepts of "goodness" and "badness" cannot exist.

Please show this to be the case. I'm skeptical.

I am not arguing the existence of an absolute moral standard (some people, like yourself, obviously subscribe to such a thing). That such a thing actually exists independently of man is something I cannot disprove.

But that such a thing exists does not automatically imply that it is internally consistent, nor does it imply that it is consistent with the real world.

kcbrown wrote in post #14725341
Farmers, ranchers, and whoever else happened to reside in the area at the time.

Then they should not have taken it.

The populace in war zones are often driven to starvation because the soldiers steal their food.

kcbrown wrote in post #14725368
Please show this to be the case. I'm skeptical.

I am not arguing the existence of an absolute moral standard (some people, like yourself, obviously subscribe to such a thing). That such a thing actually exists independently of man is something I cannot disprove.

But that such a thing exists does not automatically imply that it is internally consistent, nor does it imply that it is consistent with the real world.

The concept of good or bad can only be defined, if there is an absolute standard to measure it by.

Good and bad can be defined, therefore such a standard intrinsically exists.


Its internal consistency is supplied by the fact that without it, the concepts of goodness and badness would not exist.

mtimber wrote in post #14725354
Really?

You decide that "goodness" is the right to keep your car.

Your neigbour decides that "goodness" is the right to take your car.


Which one is right?

From my point of view, I'm right. From my neighbor's point of view, he's right.

From a third party's point of view, we might both be wrong!

But this scenario is one we can use to explore some of these questions in greater detail.

Suppose the reason my neighbor believes it right to steal my car is that his is broken down and his wife has suffered a medical emergency that requires him to take her to the hospital right now or she'll surely die. He can't wait for the ambulance to show up, I'm out of town, and nobody else is close enough for him to carry his wife to.

Is it still wrong for him to steal my car?

mtimber wrote in post #14725389
The concept of good or bad can only be defined, if there is an absolute standard to measure it by.

What do you mean, here, by the term "absolute"? Be precise. It's important.

Look at it this way.

Empirical scientific experimention can only be practiced if the laws that are used to measure the experiment are absolute.

Without those laws in place, it would be impossible to test anything as you would not be able to control any aspect of the experiment.


Imagine turning a bunsen burner on to testing the boiling point of water and the flames came out, and water evaporated on Monday, but froze on Wednesday.

Science would be impossible without those laws that exist in the universe.


Morality operates on the same principles, without absolute standards, morality cannot be measured and therefore cannot exist.