Absolute Morality/Natural Law?
Hi all
Is there such a thing as an absolute morality/natural law?
I just saw a video about this on YouTube. I can't post URLs just yet as I haven't been a member for 5 days yet, but basically it was a defence of the notion of an absolute morality and a rejection of moral relativism. The YouTuber gave the example of murdering babies and how it is an immoral action, even if the person murdering the babies doesn't think it is.
This is what I posted in the comments section -
What do you all think?
leejosepho
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f3882/f38829d122293dbb65e35390a846891b4a21c3a5" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock
We know there are absolutes in physics, such as "gravity always wins" whenever our own efforts to overcome it have either ended or have failed. So then, it only seems logical that it would be immoral to tell a child s/he could safely jump from a cliff and fly ...
... and if that is so, then is morality being violated because physics are not being respected and taught or because someone simply does not care what happens to the jumping child?
But then when other people *do* care and take action to stop the deceiver, are they doing so out of respect for physics, out of respect for the lives of children who have yet to learn about gravity or ...?
The questions can go on almost endlessly, of course, so I just accept the thought of some kind of original authority behind it all.
_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================
We know there are absolutes in physics, such as "gravity always wins" whenever our own efforts to overcome it have either ended or have failed. So then, it only seems logical that it would be immoral to tell a child s/he could safely jump from a cliff and fly ...
Nonsense. Have you ever heard of escape velocity? And a skilled base jumper can jump from a tall building and safely soar about using a paraglider.
ruveyn
If morality is assumed to be a given from a god, any value proposition based on this will automatically be lost to anyone who does not accept the premise (i.e., belief in that) among other philosophical challenges; even many theists are hesitant to accept command morality. However, natural-law morality can remove the need for a god and rely on "nature" instead, but then nature can sound almost like a synonym for the god used in command morality. Natural law can try to be empirical, almost a scientific study of what constitutes morality. They may show nearly all cultures find certain actions wrong; it may then be argued that societies that didn't have the taboo would fail quickly, but then that argument sounds much like consequentialism.
Natural Laws are also known as "Physical Principles", like the aforementioned Gravitational Principles.
Please do not confuse one for the other.
Furthermore there is not a single "moral law" that is implicit in physical law. The Cosmos knows nothing of right and wrong.
ruveyn
Natural Law (as opposed to the laws of physics) is a distinct philosophical concept. The work of Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes etc are examples of natural law. These men believed that law already "existed" (either in nature or delivered by god) and that it is the duty of humans to find and obey these laws. Natural law debates sort of died out during the beginning of the 1800's, but got reignited after the Holocaust.
From wikipedia
That just laws are immanent in nature; that is, they can be "discovered" or "found" but not "created" by such things as a bill of rights;
That they can emerge by the natural process of resolving conflicts, as embodied by the evolutionary process of the common law; or
That the meaning of law is such that its content cannot be determined except by reference to moral principles. These meanings can either oppose or complement each other, although they share the common trait that they rely on inherence as opposed to design in finding just laws.
Whereas legal positivism would say that a law can be unjust without it being any less a law, a natural law jurisprudence would say that there is something legally deficient about an unjust law. Legal interpretivism, famously defended in the English speaking world by Ronald Dworkin, claims to have a position different from both natural law and positivism.
Besides utilitarianism and Kantianism, natural law jurisprudence has in common with virtue ethics that it is a live option for a first principles ethics theory in analytic philosophy.
The concept of natural law was very important in the development of the English common law. In the struggles between Parliament and the monarch, Parliament often made reference to the Fundamental Laws of England which were at times said to embody natural law principles since time immemorial and set limits on the power of the monarchy. According to William Blackstone, however, natural law might be useful in determining the content of the common law and in deciding cases of equity, but was not itself identical with the laws of England. Nonetheless, the implication of natural law in the common law tradition has meant that the great opponents of natural law and advocates of legal positivism, like Jeremy Bentham, have also been staunch critics of the common law.
Natural law jurisprudence is currently undergoing a period of reformulation (as is legal positivism). The most prominent contemporary natural law jurist, Australian John Finnis, is based in Oxford, but there are also Americans Germain Grisez, Robert P. George, and Canadian Joseph Boyle. All have tried to construct a new version of natural law. The 19th-century anarchist and legal theorist, Lysander Spooner, was also a figure in the expression of modern natural law.
"New Natural Law" as it is sometimes called, originated with Grisez. It focuses on "basic human goods," such as human life, knowledge, and aesthetic experience, which are self-evidently and intrinsically worthwhile, and states that these goods reveal themselves as being incommensurable with one another.
The tensions between natural law and positive law have played, and continue to play a key role in the development of international law.[102]
(sorry can't post links just yet)
If we assume natural law to exit, than it may prescribe some sort of absolute morality wouldn't it? My issue is where natural law, if it even exists, comes from.
Everything there is, is matter and energy in space-time. That includes you and me. Democratus was right.
ruveyn
If we assume anything without valid material evidence to support it, then that is called "Faith", which is a religious principle.
If we assume that someone is a witch, then we should not allow that person to live, right? (Exodus 22:18)
If we assume that someone has worked on Sabbath, then they must be put to death, right? (Exodus 31:14)
If we assume that someone is a homosexual, then their fate must be the same, right? (Leviticus 20:13)
If we assume that someone has blasphemed the Name of the Lord, then their fate must also be the same, right? (Leviticus 24:16)
The validity of all of these "Laws" (and others) is based on the assumptions that: (1) God exists; (2) God spoke these "Laws" to Moses; (3) Moses recorded these "Laws" accurately; (4) these "Laws" have existed in their original form for over 3500 years; and that (5) these "Laws" are still relevant today.
Please provide valid material evidence for the existence of "Absolute Morality" (without assumptions); then we can have a meaningful conversation on the topic.
Well that's the thing. Can an absolute morality be discovered using reason and the scientific method?
Advocates of the "science of morality" make the claim that morals can be found using the scientific method. (wikipedia "science of morality") - is this possible?
I personally have no idea to be honest. I became interested in this dilemma by looking at the Holocaust and NAZI laws. On the one hand, it could be logical with moral relativism (ie there is no set of absolute morals, morals are confined to cultural factors etc) to conclude that the Holocaust or female genital cutting is culturally permissible, although most people I don't think would go to that extreme logical conclusion (I have read some defences of FGM, but they appear to be in the vast minority). Can something like the Holocaust be defended by using moral relativism? It touches also on the idea of human rights, and if they are innate to all of us on virtue of being human, or culturally dependent.
It was the Holocaust that got people talking about Natural Law again. When natural law first died out in the early 1800's it was seen to be "nonsense on stilts" (Jeremy Bentham), and as such legal positivism came into the fore. One of the tenants of legal positivism is that "there is not any inherent or necessary association between the validity conditions of law and ethics or morality." (wikipedia) Using positivism then, one could argue that the NAZI laws were in fact proper laws. Without the Holocaust, it is doubtful whether natural law debates would have been resurrected.
On the other hand, what are the sources of Natural Law? The Bible? Koran? Nature? etc. A lot of proponents of an Absolute Morality/Natural Law are usually right-wing Christian or Islamic fundamentalist who want to stamp their idea of god onto everyone (something I find troubling to say the least). I wonder if there can be a scientific and rational approach to discover an absolute morality/natural law. The fact that nearly 100% of people find things like the Holocaust abhorrent may either be a sign of an underlying natural law that people universally recognise, or it might be that there is no natural law but for other reasons it is almost universally condemned (such as a universal set of reasoning that isn't culturally dependent). Can science/reason give us definitive statements in morality, or is morality all relative? Or a mix of both? I wonder.
GoonSquad
Veteran
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7416d/7416d43a3a3d443352549a387ff2bd82d5b3ae51" alt="User avatar"
Joined: 11 May 2007
Age: 55
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,748
Location: International House of Paincakes...
Well that's the thing. Can an absolute morality be discovered using reason and the scientific method?
NOPE!
You’ve just discovered the problem with thinking too much. When you think too much, you come to true (and troublesome) conclusions like “there’s no absolute morality” and “freewill is nonsense.”
While both those conclusions ARE TRUE, they are not helpful because they don’t promote a stable functional society…but they do allow things like the holocaust, nihilism, boy bands, etc…
Notions of absolute morality (natural law) and freewill aren’t true, but they are what sociologists call functional. They promote happy, stable, prosperous societies. That’s why people think they’re true and that’s why people should be encouraged to think they’re true.
Kant, Hobbes, and Locke were wrong in thinking that reason could lead us to some universal, absolute moral code… The truth is reasonable, rational people from successful cultures will generally have similar notions about right and wrong because right and wrong really translate to functional and nonfunctional.
What’s functional for society will be deemed good, and what’s nonfunctional will be deemed bad.
We don’t need God, natural law, or anything like that to establish morality. All you need is enough people to agree. As the Thomas theorem states, if people believe a thing to be true, it is true in its consequence—and that's close enough.
_________________
No man is free who is not master of himself.~Epictetus
In my humble opinion, no.
On Reason: What passes for "reason" in my experience is little more than the use of convoluted arguments to wear down the opposition with words and seemingly endless digression - a "filibuster", in other words.
On Scientific Method: The scientific method is used to experiment, observe, and measure. Such an experiment is at least partially immoral, in that a control group is required - a group for which the concept of moral behavior has not been introduced, or for which morality has no meaning.
Setting up a double-blind experiment to observe the degree of morality (from 0 to 1, perhaps) would involve the possibility of observing totally immoral behavior, and doing nothing about it.
Measuring morality presents its own problems. What is actually being measured? Are the measurements entirely objective? Has all subjectivity been removed? What is the independent standard for calibrating the measuring devices? What units are the measuring devices calibrated to?
No, Absolute Morality can only be agreed upon by consensus, and not determined by reason or science.
There's also the facts of record keeping. Right and Wrong? The universe does have a concept of that through consciousness, and it's based on genetics, and survival instincts. What's right and what's wrong depends on how actions are interpreted through the lens of living. What's good for mankind, what's detrimental, are all concepts belonging to that very careful record keeping. I'd say it's depends on a tally of actions, and their results with peoples reactions. For example, if I walked up to you and slapped you in the face, you wouldn't think very kindly of me, the general consensus in that record keeping book of life for such an action shows a number of results in the negative category.
But it's all relative too depending on your culture. If you were a pygmy, eating humans would seem rather natural, but they don't have the medical data available to them to show it's unhealthy, again that good record keeping and ways of doing things. Some technology IS better than others.
... and it's the survivors who write the history books, after all.
Which is likely at the root of the maxim, "Might makes right".