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.

Tags: Morality

Views: 2441

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

ok, moving away from joining, forgetting my understanding of things 'relating', let's move forward with this 'binding' notion then.  Structure is created when things 'bind' now - but does that structure actually exist or is it also just a concept?

It is actual that binding accounts for structure. Because of this actuality, binding of physical things then accounts for physical structures.  We can describe it, and relate to it, but all of it happens with or without us as a reality, and was actual before humanity existed.  In the same way, binding of perceptions account for conceptual structure. It is clear that order is able to work beyond the physical.  Why else would concepts even be possible?

It seems you are trying to lead to the notion that there are two kinds of order.  Even if there are, and it doesn't seem there is, that other kind of order is still connected to order.  Concepts are built on order.  No concept exists without context.  Either way we are getting to the next part which is that value is measurement based on order.

But the answer to the question "is it like this or that", has to be no.  But you may have something that proves that wrong.  I sense if you do that then it is close to being revealed.

Actual physical binding creates order and the relationship of ideas is not actual, physical, or binding but it constitutes the same thing but in a different way....

I give up - you've got nothing more than word salad all the way through this thing. I know you'll just cast the blame on others for not understanding you because you are obviously just way beyond us all - so far that you can no longer communicate with more mortals.

Good luck sorting it out.

No blame needs to be cast Heather.  I appreciate your contribution to the the discussion.

As I read your initial manifesto, it seems to me that you have taken "God" and substituted "order" in God's place. If you were religious, you'd be saying that it is God who, either through a direct act of his almighty will causes subatomic articles to bond into atoms (the elements) and the atoms to form compounds. He knows when every sparrow falls and when every cosmic ray shatters an atom.

But let's face it: If you want a poster child for disorder, it's the subatomic level.

"...disorder is not actual.  It is conceptual."

"At the very foundation of the level of actuality lies order."

"... the nature of order upon which any concept is structured necessitates a most perfect form."

"... even as a concept, [morality] has to have an absolute and most perfect form..."

What I get from this is that disorder, as a concept, has to have an absolute and most perfect form.

But my ceiling is leaking now, so I think that's my cue to save this for later ....

  • Abstract language refers to things that are intangilble, that is, which are perceived not through the senses but by the mind, such as truth, God, education, vice, transportation, poetry, war, love.  
  • Language that is too abstract for general understanding might be indicative of a thought disorder. 

Morality is a social and cultural construct that is dependent on the empathy between a species vs the communal survival mandate.

There is no absolute when discussing philosophy period.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, but in what way is "There is no absolute when discussing philosophy period" not an absolute statement about philosophy?

sophistry, but point taken - philosophy aint maths now is it...

Not sophistry. Logic.

RSS

  

Events

Blog Posts

Labels

Posted by Quincy Maxwell on July 20, 2014 at 9:37pm 28 Comments

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service