I didn’t read any of the titles that Banno listed earlier and now they appear to be ghosted so I can’t make any judgment about fairness. — praxis

Here's a link to the list:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/680631

On in particular got my hackles up - "The eternal soul (Vitalism): was Darwin wrong?" It is not primarily a religious thread and I found it really useful.

Generally, it seems to me that “believers” have ample opportunity to express their “beliefs” on this forum. — praxis

I think this is true and I'd like to see it stay that way. My primary complaint is about this thread. There are other members who express even stronger feelings about religious posts than Banno does, but the moderators have been reasonably open.

philosophically, this is where I think there is evidence for something like vitalism: — Wayfarer

I read through the abstract and introduction of the article you linked.

I don't see this as a philosophical question at all. It's a series of unanswered scientific questions. I don't see any need to hypothesize some sort of non-physical process or factor like elan vital.

that is analogous to a form of the hard problem of consciousness. — Wayfarer

I think the only similarity between the issues is that many people are unable to believe that the deeply personal experiences of our minds could arise from physical sources. I have no problem believing it.

Protection from atheists or other “believers”? The latter is most typical, I think. — praxis

Here on the forum, atheists. I haven't seen any sectarian prejudice here. My posts have been about posters here on the forum.

In the world, sectarian conflicts. What difference does it make? The principles are protection of religious freedom, freedom of association, freedom of speech, anti-discrimination, equal application of the rules, fairness.

You consider religious folk vulnerable and in need of protection? — praxis

Here on the forum certainly. In the world at large.... sometimes.

Meh. Take it up with the mods. — Banno

I'm using this thread to get my opinion across to them and others, just as you did. This whole thread was set up as a polemic to influence the moderators. I'm just using it to provide a counterbalancing opinion. Others on the thread have done the same. You set this up. We're just playing along.

The simple point is we do not need two threads on the evils of hell at the same time. — Banno

That wasn't the point you were making. What you ask for is much broader. It bothers me that the moderators, who have such knee-jerk reactions to any hint of prejudice for any other vulnerable or protected group, don't provide that same consideration for religious beliefs.

Many of the posts in this thread show your argument for the hollow shell it is. It has nothing to do with philosophy. It's all about your personal antipathy to religion.

Edit: On inspection it seems there has been a general clean-up, . Thank you to the moderators for intervening. — Banno

Congratulations on your success in promoting bigotry here on the forum.

Have look down this page and contemplate the quality philosophical content. — Banno

I have five posts on this page. They were all civil and substantive. Many of the others also were.

Sometimes I do comment on specifically theological OPs that this is a philosophy forum not a theology forum. But I don't know if a lot more should be done about them. 'The dogs bark, the caravan moves on'. — Wayfarer

Although there is a lot of crap here on the forum, including a lot of religion crap, I have been impressed with the quality of some of the religion-related threads recently.

Banno How about banning antitheists?
— I like sushi
What did we do wrong? :gasp: — 180 Proof

As I've noted here before, atheism and religion are the only topics where bigotry is encouraged on the forum.

I noted that ↪T Clark pointed to the factual error in the OP of that thread and didn't comment. — Banno

I'm a bit confused about the reference to me in this. I do agree with @Wayfarer that the vitalism thread was a worthwhile one.

While I agree that specifically theological topics are not part of the general philosophy curriculum, I don't agree that philosphical consideration of theological subjects, or theological perspectives, should necessarily be excluded. — Wayfarer

I don't think you can have a full discussion of metaphysics without including religion.

Why? Is this a divine revelation you have had, an arbitrary definition you have adopted or what? There are threads on current affairs, on environmental issues, on the latest space telescope, etc, which have good claim not to be philosophy by most definitions. — unenlightened

This is a really good point. There's a lot of science and pseudo-science on here, but you don't see much about cracking down on scientific posts that are clearly not philosophy of science. I'm happy to see those threads here, as well as the ones you mention and the ones about religion. Bad quality bothers me a lot more than whether or not something fits the forum mold exactly.

Good post. Well thought out and argued.

No, it's based on the assumption of common human motivation
— T Clark

Then why the variation cross-culturally? — Hanover

Some cultures have purity rules, dietary rules, sexual prohibitions, caste systems, gender rules, body modification rules, ritualistic demands, etc etc. These ethical rules often violate progressive liberal views on what empathy demands. — Hanover

Here's what I wrote in a previous post.

My understanding of morality splits the difference between subjective and objective views. As I see it, morality at its most basic is a reflection of human nature. We are social animals. We like each other and like to hang around with each other. We have empathy. Add on top of that the needs of running societies ranging from just a few people to millions and you get a complex mix of biological, psychological, sociological, and cultural. — T Clark

How are you distinguishing a priori from "hardwired"? — Hanover

A priori generally refers to knowledge. When I say "hardwired" I'm talking about motivation, values, feelings.

proclaim that the true way to determine morality — Hanover

I wasn't trying to proclaim anything. I wasn't suggesting a way to determine right from wrong. I just gave my understanding of how moral feelings and judgements might have developed.

This is based upon a false assumption of the universality of ethical norms. — Hanover

No, it's based on the assumption of common human motivation.

It is simply not the case that all cultures hold to the same moral rules, which would presumably be the case if morality was the result of genetic evolution (as opposed to social evolution). — Hanover

You have misstated my position.

You're making a claim that ethical knowledge is a priori, — Hanover

No, I'm not.

alleviate the need that we teach our children rights from wrong. — Hanover

As I've said, at it's most basic, morality is based on empathy. A sense of commonality with other people. I think a lot of that is built in. Hardwired. How much? I don't know.

So yes I would agree with you that morality is objective in some senses and subjective in others. — PhilosophyRunner

Agreed.

Yes, but even if that is the case, I suggest it is still subjective. — PhilosophyRunner

I don't know that you and I disagree. As I wrote, there is a sense in which it is objective. That means there's another sense in which it is subjective. It's a matter of perspective. The important part for me is that there is something human about morality. It's not infinitely malleable and it's not rigidly determined because it's constrained by its relation to humanity.

there can't be an absolute objective morality - one where I say you are objectively morally wrong in any instance. — PhilosophyRunner

As I wrote in my first post in this thread:

My understanding of morality splits the difference between subjective and objective views. As I see it, morality at its most basic is a reflection of human nature. — T Clark

If morality is, as I claim, a reflection of human nature, there is a sense in which it is objective. It's how we're built by evolution, genetics, and development as supported by socialization and learning.

the back bone of the modern Judiciary system — Nickolasgaspar

I think our morality is different, and should be different, from laws and rules imposed by authorities.

Instead most of you visit ideas that they are either tautologies or factually wrong (based on modern knowledge) or metaphysical at best. — Nickolasgaspar

I think all formal moral philosophy is metaphysics.

I have not spent long studying formal philosophy. — PhilosophyRunner

Most of us here are amateurs. Many of us have not read much philosophy. I started a thread about how you don't have to read philosophy to be a philosopher. You don't need to apologize.

Let's say 80% of the babies selected the "nice" puppet and 20% the "bad" puppet. Here are three competing senses of morality: — PhilosophyRunner

The babies didn't really make moral judgements at all. They acted based on their preferences. I think that's true of all of us. I think what we call moral judgements are rationalizations we come up with to justify our feelings and actions.

That is an interesting video. It suggests that even babies have a concept of right and wrong. I haven't seen the full study referenced in that video, but I imagine more babies selected the "nice" puppet that the "bad" puppet? I.e it was not 100% or 0%? — PhilosophyRunner

@Isaac posted this link:

The relevant chapter of the Handbook of moral development is also available online here

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/f/1145/files/2017/10/Wynn-Bloom-Moral-Handbook-Chapter-2013-14pwpor.pdf — Isaac

I haven't read it yet, but I'm going to.

that’s what I’m saying. — Brad Thompson

I don't think you and I are saying the same thing. Definition is defined as a written or spoken statement of the meaning of a word or phrase. It seems that you are equating "working definition" and "meaning." Is that correct? A meaning and a definition are not equivalent.

I’m also saying that the difference between a working definition and a formal definition has massive pedagogical and societal consequences. — Brad Thompson

I don't see how this is true.

Chronicling is NOT Philosophy. Kant or any other great philosopher of the past didn't have access to the epistemology available to us today....so its mainly a waste of time to either criticize outdated philosophy or to try and understand what they really meant when you can use our current knowledge and arrive to informed and far superior philosophical conclusions. — Nickolasgaspar

Science has learned a lot since the 1700s and the questions we ask have changed, but I don't see that the fundamentals of epistemology have changed.

As I understand him, Kant specifically suggests we take on a proscribed, deontological approach that we should all implement so that a rigid moral code is established. He's really not into everyone having their own take. — Tom Storm

I think you're being as rigid as you claim Kant is.

So Nazi's win with our help.... — Tom Storm

Doesn't matter what Kant would do, it matters what he suggests we should do. People don't generally discount the American Declaration of Independence just because the signers owned slaves. Doesn't mean we should ignore it, but the words matter all by themselves.

So, your objection is overruled.

Which leads us to telling the Nazi's where the Jews are hiding if we know. God forbid we should ever usher in lying. — Tom Storm

As I indicated in my post, the thing I like about Kant's formulation is that it puts the responsibility on me. Perhaps he interpreted it rigidly, although I find it hard to believe he would be that rigid. To me, what it means is that it's ok for me to set the rules, as long as I'm committed to applying them fairly, including to myself. Especially to myself.

which word(s) would more accurately describe your goal. — universeness

I think "self-awareness" is the right word.

But I am interested on how others prioritise what you term 'intellectual contemplation,' when compared to but not completely exclusive of love/family relationships/social status/wealth/power and influence/possesions etc. — universeness

Intellectual contemplation is what I do. I don't try to do it. I don't will myself to do it. I just do it. It does itself. It doesn't interfere with other aspects of my life. It's how I address them. It's like asking whether my interest in screwdriver usage interferes with me driving screws.

Do you see your 'intellectual contemplations' as 'recreational,' then? — universeness

Yes. I don't do them with any specific reason. As I noted, they do themselves.

Is that its priority level for you? — universeness

It's not a question of priority. It's what I do.

Your use of 'self-awareness' here is too 'surface,' for me. — universeness

I think you and I have a different understanding of what self-awareness is.

The relevant chapter of the Handbook of moral development is also available online here

https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/campuspress.yale.edu/dist/f/1145/files/2017/10/Wynn-Bloom-Moral-Handbook-Chapter-2013-14pwpor.pdf — Isaac

Thank you.

And back to Kant. He gave his categorical imperative three formulations. I think this one is particularly relevant to this discussion - "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." He doesn't say that moral acts are universal laws. He says that we should will that they become universal laws. We should act as if they are. Reminds me of a poem I love by Carl Dennis, "As If." Here's an excerpt:

...You get up and wash
And come to breakfast served by a woman who smiles
As if you're first on her short list of wonders,
And you greet her as if she's first on yours.
Then you're off to school to fulfill your promise
To lose yourself for once in your teaching
And forget the clock facing your desk. Time to behave
As if the sun's standing still in a painted sky
And the day isn't a page in a one-page notebook
To be filled by sundown or never filled,
First the lines and then the margins,
The words jammed in till no white shows.

Here's a link to the entire poem if you're interested.

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetrymagazine/browse?contentId=39050

Which brings to mind another poem - "The Black Cottage" by Robert Frost, which I've quoted here previously many times:

For, dear me, why abandon a belief
Merely because it ceases to be true.
Cling to it long enough, and not a doubt
It will turn true again, for so it goes.
Most of the change we think we see in life
Is due to truths being in and out of favour.

Again, a link to the whole poem.

https://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-black-cottage/

The formulation of the categorical imperative I like more is - "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end." He claims that the three formulations are equivalent, but they don't seem that way to me. This seems similar to the Golden Rule. I wouldn't mind if that were absolute. I'm willing to "will that it should become a universal law."

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

If anyone is interested, there are other versions on the web which might be accessible there in Timbuktu.

Why does it seems so important to so many of us to continue to struggle and wrestle with 'the big questions,' and at some point in our life, become convinced that we have personally achieved some deeper, wiser more profound understanding of life, — universeness

The opening post was very scattershot, all over the place. Lots of seemingly unrelated questions. So I'll just pick the one I'm interested in answering.

My goal is self-awareness. I don't think that's unusual. If I were a Buddhist or Taoist, I'd probably try to accomplish that through meditation. As an intelligent westerner, I primarily do it through intellectual contemplation. Thinking. Thinking is what I do and have always done. Before I retired I thought for a living as an engineer. Now I think recreationally here on the forum. For me, that is what philosophy is - a path, not the only path, to self-awareness.

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.

This is from Austin City Limits - "Don't Think Twice" by Susan Tedeschi. The violin solo always sends shivers down my spine.



Here's another version of the same song by Tedeschi. This time it's the organ solo.

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.

Hey, PR. Howze about you respond to some of the responses to your post.

Jasper Fforde's Thursday Next series. — Paine

I've just started reading this and I'm enjoying it a lot.

If you like Titus Groan read the second book too. Gormenghast is just as good. — jamalrob

I did read "Gormenghast" finally. I was....disappointed isn't the right word, but it didn't have the magic for me that "Titus Groan" did. While reading, it struck me that might be the point, at least partly.

This applies to books too. There are so many great books of all kinds. That's the reason I reject "must read" or "best books o all time" lists. It might be more helpful to present lists of bad books. — Bitter Crank

Whenever I hear anyone complaining about the quality of books I always want to say - We get to choose from 5,000 years of written works. There are tens of thousands of wonderful books, not even counting the merely good ones. They're available without leaving our homes, many of them free. Starting in the past 20 years, the same has been true for TV, movies, and music. This is the golden age of access to art of all kinds.

It's a bit of a cliché I'm afraid - George Orwell, Gore Vidal and Pauline Kael (film essays), Susan Sontag, PL Travers, Clive James, Martin Amis, Andrew O'Hagen, Gideon Haigh, Martin Gardner, Salman Rushdie, Umberto Eco, Hunter Thompson, Evelyn Waugh, George Packer. — Tom Storm

Thanks.

This has been on the back burner for awhile; should it move up? — Noble Dust

Here's a link to a review I did.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/642269