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.
Yeah, I am not trying to explore all of the implications just yet. First the concept needs to be tested for validity which means that everyone needs to attack anything in it that appears to be a weakness. Then all the implications can be figured out for the rest of time lol. Though I do think it necessitates an elevation of logic as a virtue.
Would there be such a thing as morality if humanity would not exist?
No, it is a human concept.
Like..color, you say?
But best by nature is not designed to answer best color. It is designed to answer many things. And I don't think it can answer that question for that very reason, because it has a broad purpose. The nature of morality is definitely designed to answer best action, as it is specifically designed for that purpose.
Micheal, it ties into that first idea about the differentiation of conceptual reality from actual physical reality. An absolute form of an ideological concept, the archetypal form is born the moment any ideal is conceived even if the details of the archetype remain undiscovered.
I think you do misunderstand the definition I am giving, because absolute doesn't need to mean it exists in the physical reality. It can also mean most perfect form.
A form that has achieved the highest possible complexity that its foundational capacity can support with perfectly connected structural integrity.
I can understand that. My point I want people to understand is that morality is an archetype. I believe it is an inadequate one. If you take a look at what I said to John Major, you may see how it all ties together.
Once you understand it as an archetype, you can find the parent of the archetype which is what is "best" the parent of "best", the grandpa of the archetype of morality is explained in my reply to John Major.
Why it matters concerns whether the ideal is valid. No longer do we have the luxury to say that there is no right or wrong as some do.
What this also does is calm the concerns of the religious that since morality is seen as not only to our benefit but justified by God, removing God removes the justification for morality.
It properly identifies morality as not being justified by God but rather by order.
But it also keeps people from thinking of archetypal morality as a religious concept when it doesn't require God.
And above all, it provides a non-selfish reason to justify being a good person.
Is this “absolute morality” one on which we can all agree? I hardly think so. “Thou shalt not kill!” That sounds to me like a moral statement that deserves to be considered absolute; but there are plenty of people - war mongers and death penalty advocates come to mind - who wouldn’t agree.
Philosophically, there would seem to be such a thing as absolute morality; but as a practical matter, it is not possible.
Dale, I think the solution is that people figured out how to make it practical a long time ago. My proposal is to keep it as an archetype, and try to adhere to it as best as you can, but realize your limitations. I think the functional and actual aspect of it is ingrained in even animal nature.
What do you mean "people figured out how to make it practical a long time ago." So, then, this moral order dictated that the Spartans should throw deformed children, runts, or other babies not fitting their ideal off a cliff.
Or...did this solution that people figured out come along temporally later than that? When exactly did people figure it out? I ask because people have been doing all sorts of things that are accepted as right in one culture but rejected in other cultures. That disparity goes on even today. Contradictions like this argue against any sort of perfect order.
I'm not seeing that anything at all was figured out, at least not in terms of practical results.