The value of anything is established by its properties. If values aren't really arbitrary, then there is an absolute morality. The rest of this is trying to explain why values can't be arbitrary, they can only be misunderstood as arbitrary.
This thread is an argument that order is the basis of all concepts. Order is very rigid, so when you build a concept like a moral system on it, like all concepts should be built, it is going to lead to absolute results. Morality is based on values, and the only way to justify morality is to prove your values are accurate. My argument is that values aren't arbitrary, thus there is an absolute morality.
Original post below:
Many atheists shy away from absolute morality because it sounds religious. I argue that there has to be an absolute morality because the universe is absolute. This may seem wrong as there are many subjective things. I am contending that this isn't true because subjectivity resides on the conceptual level and like disorder and change is not a part of actual existence, but rather merely descriptive. Absolute morality has to exist because the base foundation for morality is order, which enables it to have structure as a social concept. This means that even as a concept, it has to have an absolute and most perfect form as a social concept.
I have been working on this for a while, and I think I am nearing completion, but I am wondering what faults may be found with this line of thought... I have had to return to the drawing board to correct my errors a few times already.
This below is an addendum:
What I am contending is that once morality is conceived as a concept, the nature of order upon which any concept is structured necessitates a most perfect form.
Individual perception causes humans to see the concept with innaccuracy in contrast to the order with which the concept maintains structure in conceptual reality. This creates subjectivity.
But where I am really going with this is that order is the base functional principle of any structure in the universe.
At the very foundation of the level of actuality lies order. Without order, molecules neither form nor bind. Order enables structure, which in turn enables every other level of existence. Order permeates every level of existence as its foundation, including anything that exists on the conceptual level. For this reason, structural order serves as the archetypal basis that justifies having a moral system.
Disorder is mistaken as coexisting with order, but it exists on the conceptual level only and is a name given to an observation of change. It is not a counterpart to order. That means disorder is not actual. It is conceptual.
These things tie together to start to point out that best action can be established on the basis of the order of the universe, and the lack of actuality of disorder which would be its only challenger.
If I'm reading too much into it then I'm obviously dealing the the content of the post, aren't I? I've already addressed the difference between the Grand Canyon, individual conceptualizations of the Grand Canyon, and the lack of a Morality Canyon in one of my replies to you. In point of fact, that reply was to a comment of yours where YOU seemed unaware of the differences.
Again, if English is a problem for you, I suggest writing in your first language.
So agree then that what is actual must exist in the present tense physical reality?
Sure. What is actual must exist now in physical reality. I do hope you plan to build on this rather than just leaving it as another rhetorical-herring. (how is THAT for metaphor?)
Yes, Fernando, :D
Heather, he's already admitted to me that when he uses a word, it can be a kind of neologism, where it has a particular novel meaning attached to it which you need to learn in order to have meaningful communication. For example, when he uses "metaphysical," it doesn't mean what it means in the everyday world of discourse. it just means what it means in his mind, which is an impediment to communication and understanding.
As far as I can tell he hasn't yet revealed whether or not he thinks his theory will have practical application. If not, why bother trying to understand it?
You used metaphysical, and I said "sort of" and I didn't think it was descriptive enough. In existentialism, metaphysical means more than the two definitions you gave.
I'm still getting the sense that this is all rhetorical construct.
"Rhetorical construct' is my personal euphemism for bullshit.
No it doesn't clarify much yet because it is the first step in a progression of thoughts. I am slowing down and breaking this down because some people can't seem to make it past this point, and it is absolutely necessary to deal with future points. Is there anything about that most recent point I made that didn't make sense?
Gotta say, while I don't think you meant to sound condescending, when I read "once you understand you will find the precision was largely accurate..." - that sounded to me like a nice-ish way of saying "I'll dumb it down for you and then you'll see that I was right all along..."
Einstein was able to explain his theory to laymen. A theory very contrary to the common view of reality. And while people didn't believe it right away, at least they understood what he was saying.
I think my own belief that all morality is local (personal, group, tribe, family) is easy to comprehend and, whether you embrace it or not, is understandable by just about anyone.
Let's suppose that John is on to something. Of what use can it be if he can't bring the explanation into focus before people yawn and wander off?
Morality/ethics shouldn't be complicated or counterintuitive, or what's the point?
Unseen, if you remember from my first post, it was a request for scrutiny of a work in progress. I am not presenting the completed work here I am asking for help sorting out the thoughts.
Also, I am not Einstein.
But the answer is obviously that no use is there if it can't be brought into focus. That is why I made the thread in the first place, to try to help bring an idea into better focus. If you saw where I started, you would see that I have had to do this over and over again. Each time I find I get a lot closer to the answer.
What I meant by that was that I was accused of randomly putting words in there and these words actually do form a linear progression of thought.
That might be because I feel like putting it in the plainest English makes it less accurate so I feel I am dumbing it down. But someone gave me a lecture today about how it isn't dumbing it down, it is just making it easier to transfer and that extra accuracy is useless if it doesn't get the concept through.