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.
I'll hop on board here - but let us also note that we are in agreement that morality is neither actual nor real.
Order/disorder are vectors, however, not a binary categorization at all. Maximum disorder may have no actual instance in physical reality but the stages of decay towards disorder do exist, are actual, and are typically what we refer to when we are discussing disordered systems.
The concept of morality is neither actual nor real. We are in agreement.
I am not sure where you are going with the direction of the next part. I am envisioning a chess board scenario of you leading me somewhere. I just want to make sure that it is clear that disorder is the name given to presence of empty space in or at the edge of a structure that once had structure in those spaces.
Do you have any evidence that empty space=disorder? I ask because that defies common usage. Staring into empty space, a person who looks into it and comments or even thinks "This space is disorderly" probably is just learning to use English and doesn't really understand that to speak of order OR disorder requires things to be ordered. In the absence of things, the term "disorder" makes no sense and is inapplicable.
Well I checked with a physicist when he was giving a lecture on the origins of the universe and how the LSST project he is a part of is helping us to map out the stars ect...
I know it defies common usage. But that is because disorder has to be in or at an edge of a structure that once had structure in those spaces. I also have to leave room for on the edge where structure is forming. Disorder is a concept used to examine something structural.
This part isn't actually malarkey - it isn't common usage but it is a very scientific usage, in terms of complete expression of entropy. It's sort of like velocity, which is your distance/time when time = 0. In the case of disorder you start with order, which loses order, becomes increasingly disordered until it finally is no more. That point where you cross over to absolute disorder is like time=0 for velocity; we define that state from as close as we can possibly observe it, closer and closer, extrapolating the final value and calling it 'instantaneous velocity' or 'absolute disorder'.
As far as rhetorical chess goes, I'm not playing a forward strategy - I'm just making sure we are in agreement as to what the pieces are and where they lay before you introduce a round of rhetorical cups and balls.
I'll agree to that definition of disorder but, for clarity, would like to point out that that is 'absolute' disorder.
I'll agree with that. Now I will try to move to the conceptual.
John, does an absolute morality have anything to do with The Good, which is the traditional standard according to which ethical systems operate? Striving to arrive at good decisions based on some standard, abstract or practical of what is good.
Yeah. Because good is derived from value. I am just about to get to that.
Now this brings us to the conceptual level. Concepts are created by joining perceived observations together and finding apparent associations. This makes all concepts dependent on a foundation of order.
Value is a concept. It is dependent on a foundation of order. From value comes morality. But value is used to figure out appropriate course of action. It is a mental measuring tool. What is important here is that the point of measuring tools is to be accurate. The only point in measuring anything if you can't be accurate is to be more accurate than otherwise.
And there you go with the rhetorical cups and balls. How exactly are all concepts dependent on a foundation of order?
I contend that because they are joined the perceptions are ordered just as any structure is on the physical level.
Even bad perceptions and incorrect assumptions get put together in some sort of order to form a concept. Without joining into some order, those perceptions can't become concepts. At least not as far as I can see.