Are there eternal moral truths?

[Sculptor1]

That's not really the question. Even if Germany would win WWII it still wouldnt justify what the Nazis did. The question is not whether any society felt what is moral or not. It is whether there are eternal truths. Rape or torturing babies surely can come under something as an immoral act? At any given time? No?

No, not even that.
The point about the actions of the German state is that they were purely legal and justified on moral grounds.
Hitler mobilised that great arbiter of moral reason; disgust and order. He made all but the "German" disgusting, and led them to a well ordered moral society in their own terms.
Raping a non-human is not rape.
In the earliest legal document on earth: The Gortyn code, it sets out the "penalties" for rape. The price did not go to the woman for compensation but to her husband. Such an act was only illegal if the victim was owned in some way, and the crime was against the owner.
When you read it, the document reads like a price list, where the wives attract a much higher price than other women. Slaves could be raped with only a small fee to be paid to the owner.
This was the norm- the eternal moral truth ancient Greek style and it was seen as progressive.

So in answer to your question Rape or torturing babies surely can come under something as an immoral act? At any given time? No?


The answer is definitely, NO.

[Leontiskos]

That's not really the question. Even if Germany would win WWII it still wouldn't justify what the Nazis did.

According to Lucky and Sculptor, it would.

[Good_Egg]

That's not really the question. Even if Germany would win WWII it still wouldnt justify what the Nazis did. The question is not whether any society felt what is moral or not. It is whether there are eternal truths. Rape or torturing babies surely can come under something as an immoral act? At any given time? No?

Nobody on this forum is arguing that rape is a good thing. What we're arguing about, it seems to me, is the status of our shared conviction (that rape is bad).

Does it have the status of an objective moral law, that can be known by reason ? A truth that binds all men equally ?

Or the status of a cultural taboo - something that none of us in our culture would do, but we mustn't look down on Nazis and other cultures who have different customs ? A cultural truth that binds only us Westerners ?

Or the status of an idiosyncratic personal conviction ? A subjective personal code of ethics that binds only ourselves, and we have no objection to rape committed by others ?

If you have any reasoned argument to bring to the table, please feel free to throw in your tuppennyworth. If all you have is a feeling, welcome to the club....

[CIN]

The moral agents in your system are moral ends of equal value, not ends in themselves. If they really were ends in themselves then they could not be sacrificed for the sake of further ends (and treated as means). Since you believe they can be treated as means, they are not "ends in themselves" (as that term has been understood since Kant).

I'm not interested in a supposed distinction between moral ends and ends in themselves. Angels on pinheads. Nor am I interested in Kantian exegesis. Kant is not my interlocutor, you are. But if I have caused confusion by using a Kantian term in a non-Kantian sense, for that I apologise.

Of course people can be treated as means. If I go in a shop and buy something, I'm using the shop assistant as a means. Nothing morally wrong with that. Society could not function if we didn't use people as means. Perhaps you mean merely as means.

In the case of the six patients, what is required for the surgeon to be treating each of them as an end rather than merely a means? One answer might be: give them life. But of course he can't do this for all six. So on this reading, it's impossible to treat all six as ends in themselves.

What do you think is required for the surgeon to treat all six patients as ends in themselves? Or do you think the five unhealthy patients somehow don't deserve to be treated as ends in themselves?

[Leontiskos]

The moral agents in your system are moral ends of equal value, not ends in themselves. If they really were ends in themselves then they could not be sacrificed for the sake of further ends (and treated as means). Since you believe they can be treated as means, they are not "ends in themselves" (as that term has been understood since Kant).

I'm not interested in a supposed distinction between moral ends and ends in themselves. Angels on pinheads. Nor am I interested in Kantian exegesis. Kant is not my interlocutor, you are. But if I have caused confusion by using a Kantian term in a non-Kantian sense, for that I apologise.

I don't think one needs to take a class in Kantianism to understand what "ends in themselves" means, and I suspect that most people are fairly clear that the fellow who is murdered for his organs is not being treated as an end in himself. This isn't rocket science.

Of course people can be treated as means. If I go in a shop and buy something, I'm using the shop assistant as a means. Nothing morally wrong with that. Society could not function if we didn't use people as means. Perhaps you mean merely as means.

It seems to me that the shop assistant is being treated as a mere means. Perhaps you disagree?

(I don't understand your distinction between a means and a mere means)

In the case of the six patients, what is required for the surgeon to be treating each of them as an end rather than merely a means? One answer might be: give them life. But of course he can't do this for all six. So on this reading, it's impossible to treat all six as ends in themselves.

Yes, but that is a very strange reading.

What do you think is required for the surgeon to treat all six patients as ends in themselves?

Well, if they are each to be treated as ends in themselves then we surely can't kill one of them for the sake of the others. There is probably no more obvious way to transgress such a principle than to murder someone--to destroy their very existence--as a means to a further end. Again, this should be perfectly obvious.

[CIN]

Of course people can be treated as means. If I go in a shop and buy something, I'm using the shop assistant as a means. Nothing morally wrong with that. Society could not function if we didn't use people as means. Perhaps you mean merely as means.

It seems to me that the shop assistant is being treated as a mere means. Perhaps you disagree?

(I don't understand your distinction between a means and a mere means)

If the shop assistant is being paid a decent wage, he's being treated as both a means and an end. If he's a slave, he's being treated merely as a means.

What do you think is required for the surgeon to treat all six patients as ends in themselves?

Well, if they are each to be treated as ends in themselves then we surely can't kill one of them for the sake of the others. There is probably no more obvious way to transgress such a principle than to murder someone--to destroy their very existence--as a means to a further end. Again, this should be perfectly obvious.

So if you let the five unhealthy patients die when you could save their lives, how is that treating them as ends in themselves?

[CIN]

That's not really the question. Even if Germany would win WWII it still wouldn't justify what the Nazis did.

According to Lucky and Sculptor, it would.

Indeed. And I don't recall them proving that morality is subjective. As subjectivists always do, they simply assume that it is.

[CIN]

So if there is an eternal truth, then what sustained that truth before humans ,and what sustains it in the absence of humans?

For all you know, there could be intelligent sentient beings in other universes that pre-existed ours. Your ignorance is not a valid argument.

A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions. Judgements are not true or false but rely on criteria

Unsupported assertion.

But deep down I do believe that things like "always helping a person in need" is a moral truth or good that all people should ascribe to.
Now I ask you in all seriousness... How many times have you ignored; walked by; or refused to engage with a beggar on the street?
When given the chance to donate to "Children in Need" on TV have you switched channels, or just switched of your mind?
There is no way any one person can possibly sustain this "moral truth".
And it usually boils down to helping a friend.
Even then there are circumstances in mitigation. They say a friend will helo you move, but on a great friend will hwlp you move a body.

Your implied argument is this:
1. People do not live up to their moral principles.
2. Therefore moral principles are subjective.
This argument is invalid.

All morality is about mitigation, context, relativism and subjectivity.

Unsupported assertion.

There is nothing eternal about morals as there is nothing eternal about human society.

Invalid inference. As I mentioned before, there could be societies that pre-exist ours.

[CIN]

That's not really the question. Even if Germany would win WWII it still wouldnt justify what the Nazis did. The question is not whether any society felt what is moral or not. It is whether there are eternal truths. Rape or torturing babies surely can come under something as an immoral act? At any given time? No?

No, not even that.
The point about the actions of the German state is that they were purely legal and justified on moral grounds.

The words in bold are an unsupported assertion. You are assuming the truth of subjectivism without arguing for it.

Hitler mobilised that great arbiter of moral reason; disgust and order. He made all but the "German" disgusting, and led them to a well ordered moral society in their own terms.

Again, calling Hitlerian society 'moral' assumes the truth of subjectivism or relativism without arguing for it.

Raping a non-human is not rape.
In the earliest legal document on earth: The Gortyn code, it sets out the "penalties" for rape. The price did not go to the woman for compensation but to her husband. Such an act was only illegal if the victim was owned in some way, and the crime was against the owner.
When you read it, the document reads like a price list, where the wives attract a much higher price than other women. Slaves could be raped with only a small fee to be paid to the owner.
This was the norm- the eternal moral truth ancient Greek style and it was seen as progressive.

So in answer to your question Rape or torturing babies surely can come under something as an immoral act? At any given time? No?


The answer is definitely, NO.

Your implied argument is:
1. Moral codes differ in different societies.
2. Therefore morality is subjective.
This argument is invalid.

[Leontiskos]

Of course people can be treated as means. If I go in a shop and buy something, I'm using the shop assistant as a means. Nothing morally wrong with that. Society could not function if we didn't use people as means. Perhaps you mean merely as means.

It seems to me that the shop assistant is being treated as a mere means. Perhaps you disagree?

(I don't understand your distinction between a means and a mere means)

If the shop assistant is being paid a decent wage, he's being treated as both a means and an end. If he's a slave, he's being treated merely as a means.

You said, "If I go into the shop and buy something...," so I was under the impression that you were treating the assistant as a consumer treats a cashier, rather than as an employer treats an employee. Whether the shop assistant is being treated as a means by their employer is a different question from whether the shop assistant is being treated as a means by you.

What do you think is required for the surgeon to treat all six patients as ends in themselves?

Well, if they are each to be treated as ends in themselves then we surely can't kill one of them for the sake of the others. There is probably no more obvious way to transgress such a principle than to murder someone--to destroy their very existence--as a means to a further end. Again, this should be perfectly obvious.

So if you let the five unhealthy patients die when you could save their lives, how is that treating them as ends in themselves?

How is it not? What is your argument? Apparently it is something like, "You have to give medical care to everyone who needs it, otherwise you are not treating them as an end in themselves." That idea makes no sense to me. Feel free to defend it.

[LuckyR]

That's not really the question. Even if Germany would win WWII it still wouldn't justify what the Nazis did.

According to Lucky and Sculptor, it would.

Indeed. And I don't recall them proving that morality is subjective. As subjectivists always do, they simply assume that it is.

I'm not in charge of assigning the definitions of words/concepts. Thus it isn't up to me (or you, for that matter) to "prove" that the ethical standards of a particular group are defined by the beliefs/actions of the prevailing majority within that group. Similarly, if the moral codes of individuals are somehow NOT defined by that individual, whom do YOU suppose defines them?

[Sculptor1]

So if there is an eternal truth, then what sustained that truth before humans ,and what sustains it in the absence of humans?

For all you know, there could be intelligent sentient beings in other universes that pre-existed ours. Your ignorance is not a valid argument.

There could be cream cakes at the bottom of the garden sprinkled with gold leaf, and fairy dust, but that does not mean I am going to find them.
You objection is empty since you have not shown how these "beings" are capable of communicating and sustaining an eternal truth.

A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions. Judgements are not true or false but rely on criteria

Unsupported assertion.

A no brainer. A fact. A certainty.

But deep down I do believe that things like "always helping a person in need" is a moral truth or good that all people should ascribe to.
Now I ask you in all seriousness... How many times have you ignored; walked by; or refused to engage with a beggar on the street?
When given the chance to donate to "Children in Need" on TV have you switched channels, or just switched of your mind?
There is no way any one person can possibly sustain this "moral truth".
And it usually boils down to helping a friend.
Even then there are circumstances in mitigation. They say a friend will helo you move, but on a great friend will hwlp you move a body.

Your implied argument is this:
1. People do not live up to their moral principles.
2. Therefore moral principles are subjective.
This argument is invalid.

No its means you are a hypocrite

All morality is about mitigation, context, relativism and subjectivity.

Unsupported assertion.

A no brainer. A fact. A certainty.

There is nothing eternal about morals as there is nothing eternal about human society.

Invalid inference. As I mentioned before, there could be societies that pre-exist ours.

A no brainer. A fact. A certainty.

[Sculptor1]

I think utilitarians do not generally regard equality as an intrinsic good (cf. https://www.utilitarianism.net/objectio ... m/equality). I do, however. Suppose we have a choice between (1) Fred and Bill each experiencing 50 units of pain, and (2) Fred experiencing 95 units while Bill experiences 0 units. Utilitarianism says that (2) is better than (1). I currently hold that neither is objectively better, but I prefer (1) to (2), on the grounds that since the total amounts of net pleasantness in the two scenarios are not much different, it is more important to distribute the net pleasantness fairly than to minimise the total. If the differences were very great, I would take a different view: if, for example, the choice were between (3) Fred and Bill each experiencing 50 units of pain and (4) Fred experiencing 5 units of pain while Bill experiences 0 units, I would say to hell with equality, we should go for (4) because the total pain is very low.

The equality principle, in my view, derives from the fact that since sentient beings capable of un/pleasant experience are always, by virtue of that capability, to be considered ends in themselves, and since it is not obvious that there is any meaning to the idea that one being could be more an end in itself than another, such beings should always be treated equally as ends in themselves.

Unjustified assertion

Historically, most people have thought otherwise:

This is false. This is a statement it is not even possible to verify with historiography.
We may never enter the minds of dead people. Though we can still read the writings of a tiny minority we can never know what "most people" thought.
You can tell me that is an unjustified assertion. But you are not going to convince anyone.

...for example, most humans throughout history have thought that non-human animals are less to be considered ends in themselves than humans;

See above...

...and in earlier centuries, white people often considered that black people were less to be considered ends in themselves than white people.

ditto

[Pattern-chaser]

I don't recall them proving that morality is subjective. As subjectivists always do, they simply assume that it is.

I think it's fair to observe that we use the term "subjective" in a negative sense, to mean "not objective". For objective means something along the lines of universal or 'mind-independent', and "subjective" is most commonly used to mean not-universal or 'not-mind-independent'. This usage allows us to judge quite easily whether something is universal or not; "proof" seems like a hammer to crack a nut, when the truth is not 'self-evident' (a cop-out), but is verifiable by direct empirical observation, without the need for analysis or other intellectual processing.

[Leontiskos]

A "moral truth" is a judgement upon certain actions and interactions of conscious entities or upon how conscious entities could be affected by those actions.

Unsupported assertion.

A no brainer. A fact. A certainty.

No, it's not a certainty or a fact, it's a self-evident falsehood. You have conflated "truth" with "judgment." A truth is not a judgment and a judgment is not a truth. Not only is the conflation an unsupported assertion, it also begs the question at hand. Redefining truth as judgment is not only an irrational assertion, it is also an attempt to prop up moral skepticism apart from arguments or reason.

By and large, this isn't a philosophical forum at all. It's mostly just people spouting strange hairbrained ideas with comical self-confidence.