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.
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.
Judith, I am building my way into this, but I am doing it slowly and carefully to try to keep everyone from falling off the boat. Hopefully I can get the idea out soon.
This is starting to sound like the Bloom Box.
Are you starting to wonder if we're being punk'd? I mean his icon seems to be a guy with a girl's face for an earring!
Lol, no - they are both regulars in chat.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this point, so I am going to move on to the next. Is change actual?
No. It isn't. The reason why is change depends on both the past and the present. But the past does not exist, like I pointed out earlier. What is actual is only under what is under the umbrella of the present-tense verb "to be" in the physical.
Change is a mental concept. It is not real.
You are running the risk of undoing some of your work here. It seems to me that you've made an effort to establish a concept as actual in that, and when, it exists now in the physical reality of the brain. This is where morality exists, which is the only thing making it 'actual' (an 'actual' concept). In that sense, our concept of change is based on our actual concept of past state (past state not being actual but our concept of it being actual concept) compared with our actual concept of actual present state.
I can understand, and that is something I had to consider. For some time I had to be open to the idea that there was no actual morality. But I had a feeling that something so functional was very functional for a reason. I explored that and came up with this. But I have to go on and explain why from here. Morality as it stands is only a concept. But I see it tied to order. And I see disorder as being a mental concept. But I have to get to that next, unless you can see disorder as a mental concept already.
One might say that I'm witnessing, first-hand, disorder as a mental concept. Look, we're not all stupid here and that isn't the reason we aren't following you. I believe that everyone here grasps the 'concept' that there is physical reality, our concept of physical reality, and concepts for which their is no counterpart in physical reality.
The conceptual differences between order and disorder very greatly from person to person and, in general, are very vague. A physicist or engineer would likely view maximal disorder as a state having the least potential energy - with such a state having many potential instances. The same two would likely see maximal order as a state of highest potential energy - with such a state being extremely limited in instances.
I see order/disorder in many ways - one of them being like a physicist or an engineer. I have a very different view of order/disorder when it comes to social constructs. I think many here would share these perceptions.
Now do you intend to get into the nitty gritty of what sort of 'order' you are dealing in here, and how morality is bound to it? Are you open to the idea that entropic views of order/disorder may not have analogies in social constructs?