Why do we seek moral absolutes?

[coberst]

Why do we seek moral absolutes?

Let’s consider the moral argument that is often rendered to justify making abortion illegal.

The argument goes something like this: murder (killing an innocent person) is morally and legally prohibited, the fetus is an innocent person, abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion is murder.

This argument turns on the premise that the fetus is a person. The category person must be absolutely and universally understood and fixed to make this argument work. The category (concept) person must be either value-neutral or it must be based upon some absolute value. If such is not the case then each time we consider this matter, person can take on a different meaning.

If each “application of the concept determines its meaning, either (1) we would need a rule for applying the concept in various cases (and this would be the same as saying that the meaning of ‘person’ is fixed), or (2) we would be left with the possibility that different people might apply the concept differently.”

If the category person is a function of our personal value system then we can expect that our view of this matter would vary accordingly. We might avoid this variability if the concept person is value neutral and thus does not depend upon our personal value system. Another way is to claim that we all have access to some absolute or ultimate value that is binding upon each of us.

Without absolute truths we recognize that we must depend on the judgment of fallible, and frail creatures living within constantly evolving communities; non critical individuals who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations.

“In sum, moral absolutism is motivated by a very widespread human longing for clarity, certainty, order, and constraint in a world that confronts us constantly with change, obscurity, doubt, contingency, and aggression.”

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

[RichardHresko]

Why do we seek moral absolutes?

Let’s consider the moral argument that is often rendered to justify making abortion illegal.

The argument goes something like this: murder (killing an innocent person) is morally and legally prohibited, the fetus is an innocent person, abortion kills the fetus, and therefore abortion is murder.

This argument turns on the premise that the fetus is a person. The category person must be absolutely and universally understood and fixed to make this argument work. The category (concept) person must be either value-neutral or it must be based upon some absolute value. If such is not the case then each time we consider this matter, person can take on a different meaning.

If each “application of the concept determines its meaning, either (1) we would need a rule for applying the concept in various cases (and this would be the same as saying that the meaning of ‘person’ is fixed), or (2) we would be left with the possibility that different people might apply the concept differently.”

If the category person is a function of our personal value system then we can expect that our view of this matter would vary accordingly. We might avoid this variability if the concept person is value neutral and thus does not depend upon our personal value system. Another way is to claim that we all have access to some absolute or ultimate value that is binding upon each of us.

Without absolute truths we recognize that we must depend on the judgment of fallible, and frail creatures living within constantly evolving communities; non critical individuals who are forced to make decisions with little training or understanding of critical thinking skills within what are typically highly ambiguous situations.

“In sum, moral absolutism is motivated by a very widespread human longing for clarity, certainty, order, and constraint in a world that confronts us constantly with change, obscurity, doubt, contingency, and aggression.”

Quotes from Moral Imagination by Mark Johnson

There is a confusion in your use of the term "value" -- in some phrases you use "value" as a synonym to "significance" and in others as a judgment.

The idea of a "value-neutral" morality is a contradiction, since morality must determine some things to be good and others evil.

Also, the idea that a concept must be "absolutely and universally understood" to form the basis of an argument is plain and simple not true. The concept must merely be ascertainable in enough detail by the parties involved most of the time. That's why there are courts to interpret laws.

I am not sure that many rational people seek moral absolutes. Most, like Mr. Johnson, recognize that the world is scarcely knowable to the degree of certainty that would make moral absolutism a reasonable stance to take. The idea that a one-size-fits-all system can conceivably answer all questions is simplistic and naive.

[coberst]

Most of what each of us learns, whether moral or anything else, we learn via social osmosis.

I went to Catholic schools and we were taught our Catechism, which gave us all the moral absolutes very early in life. Protestant churches taught about morality in Sunday school.

In the United States I can think of no other place where morality is taught, of course, it is taught in the home but this is the parent passing on what they were taught in Sunday school or by the nuns or by social osmosis.

Our (American) culture has kept its hands off of teaching morality because everyone is reluctant to trespass on the territory that religion has classified as its own.

[MarkBastable]

Our (American) culture has kept its hands off of teaching morality because everyone is reluctant to trespass on the territory that religion has classified as its own.

You have got to be kidding.

[RichardHresko]

Most of what each of us learns, whether moral or anything else, we learn via social osmosis.

I went to Catholic schools and we were taught our Catechism, which gave us all the moral absolutes very early in life. Protestant churches taught about morality in Sunday school.

In the United States I can think of no other place where morality is taught, of course, it is taught in the home but this is the parent passing on what they were taught in Sunday school or by the nuns or by social osmosis.

Our (American) culture has kept its hands off of teaching morality because everyone is reluctant to trespass on the territory that religion has classified as its own.

I would suggest reviewing the catechism. It conveys the fundamental doctrines of the Church, but nowhere does it imply or state that "all the moral absolutes" are taught there.

Coberst, it would certainly aid those who wantto have a discussion with you, and probably clarify your thinking for yourself, if you would avoid grand statements about what the Catholic Church does, or American culture does, as though these were monolithic entities unless you can cite specific sources (authors, texts, and page numbers) that are exactly on point for your claims.

[coberst]

The point of the OP s to focus attention upon our inclination to seek absolutes and that this inclination tends to lead us into catastrophes.

We must learn how we think and why we do the things that we do so that our species may last a bit longer. Our greatest problem is learning how to just get-along. Our technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people and if we do not become more sophisticated we will destroy our species and perhaps all life on this planet.

[MarkBastable]

Our technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people and if we do not become more sophisticated we will destroy our species and perhaps all life on this planet.

Well, that's evolution for you. The planet doesn't care about us, and neither does any other species. If we - as part of nature, and accordng to our own nature - destroy ourselves, then some other species will become dominant. It's not that big a deal in terms of the story of a planet. Also,it's unavoidable. If not soon, then eventually, we'll go the way of the of trilobites.

[RichardHresko]

The point of the OP s to focus attention upon our inclination to seek absolutes and that this inclination tends to lead us into catastrophes.

We must learn how we think and why we do the things that we do so that our species may last a bit longer. Our greatest problem is learning how to just get-along. Our technology has placed extraordinary power into the hands of ordinary people and if we do not become more sophisticated we will destroy our species and perhaps all life on this planet.

It is not at all clear that understanding more details of how we think will enable us to choose more wisely. The latter will come with a deeper sense of a shared humanity. This may or may not require more sophistication.

Perhaps our desire to control is part of the problem, and thus more "sophistication" is attempting to cure poisoning with more poison.

[coberst]

Well, that's evolution for you. The planet doesn't care about us, and neither does any other species. If we - as part of nature, and accordng to our own nature - destroy ourselves, then some other species will become dominant. It's not that big a deal in terms of the story of a planet. Also,it's unavoidable. If not soon, then eventually, we'll go the way of the of trilobites.

If we were to destroy our self only, without destroying the planet and perhaps many of the other species I might agree with you.

[coberst]

It is not at all clear that understanding more details of how we think will enable us to choose more wisely. The latter will come with a deeper sense of a shared humanity. This may or may not require more sophistication.

Perhaps our desire to control is part of the problem, and thus more "sophistication" is attempting to cure poisoning with more poison.

Therein lay the rub. The problem is the old bootstrap problem. How does one convince someone who is not sophisticated enough to understand the argument that they need to become more sophisticated.

[RichardHresko]

Therein lay the rub. The problem is the old bootstrap problem. How does one convince someone who is not sophisticated enough to understand the argument that they need to become more sophisticated.

Or that the problem appears to be sophisticated because one did not formulate it properly to begin with.