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.

Views: 2925

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Wait a minute - we just got finished saying that 'order' meant actual real physical bonds that exist now.  Concepts are perceptions of things that may not even have an actual real world instance.  I'm not seeing how an actual real physical bond is a necessary foundation of perceptions with no real world instance.

Order is a static concept, no? If I have a 10x10 matrix of marbles and one of them moves out of place, we have disorder, don't we? Thus, isn't change basically a form of disorder? Plato had a world of order, the plane  of Forms. Forms are perfect and so is the plane of forms. Perfection means nothing changes because it is perfect as it is.

It would seem to follow that nothing can really come out of absolute and perfect order.

I've also pointed out that nothingness isn't disorder. The absence of order is one thing; disorder is something else entirely. Nothingness isn't chaos. Far from it. Nothing is happening in nothingness. Chaos, as normally understood, might be, at least sometimes, described as turmoil or random order, which itself is a kind of order, at least in our language. Well shuffled cards we say are "in random order," indicating that sometimes even randomness is orderly in a peculiar kind of way.

How can you describe the subatomic level as orderly? That level is a level of constant and ongoing collisions. Collisions which shatter atoms and molecules and send their constituent particles flying off either to do damage or to bind. Sure there is order, but there is as much or more disorder.

Nah I misread that.  Nevermind.  You have some points worth answering.

One might also note that the latest findings in physics indicate that time may not be what we believe it to be and the past, present and future may actually all coexist.

Perfect order would be static since it wouldn't permit change.  But morals are determined by value and value is found at the crossroads between order and functionality.  Value is measurement that serves a purpose.  Its key concern is accuracy, as measuring for a purpose other than being either accurate or as close to accurate as possible is useless.

Nothingness is absolute disorder in physical reality.  You are using concepts as your examples.  This is why we went through the whole process of the physical for so long.  If you begin to see disorder as nothing, then you don't see subatomic level as having "more disorder".

That it can be applied to the conceptual isn't part of its definition either.  But it can be applied to both.

Ok, so now we are working with 'order' being a concept of how things, either physical or conceptual, relate to one another.  Is this it?

Concepts may be used to describe that things bind together but I am not referring to the concept.  I am referring to the reality that structure is created when things bind together.

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.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service