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: 2374

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Great.  Now we are at:  Joining perceptions together creates concepts.

With things that are real, they do not have a location like "in reality" because that was a location based conceptual reference.  

So you just say Joining/bonding is the cause of structure.

How is that not true when applied to concepts? 

Ok, so we moved the very definition of order to 'physical bonds' and now we are moving it again to any relationship between things either physical or conceptual?

If morality requires order, then morality evolved as this world moved from disorder to order. If morality only exists because it was first conceived in the mind, then absolute morality required its origins to begin in an absolute mind. Any discussion about absolutes falls down at this point. And if absolute morality exists, then by definition absolute right and wrong, absolute good and evil etc must be part of the equation. An objective morality ends up as a "greatest good for the greatest number of people" morality which by definition is subject to the variables of society, culture etc.

If order is defined by "things joined together" then it raises the question of purpose or intent - was this reasoned or chance-based? Did this order just come together in some form of symbiotic good fortune that resulted in a "whole is worth more than the sum of the parts"  ordered union? Or was it a more parasitic absorption of one to produce a better other? And if so, are there any morality implications? Or was it reasoned as in a building, in which order presides for a moment before the inevitable corrosion etc breakdown begins - and order begins to be judged by economic considerations, which may contain some moral elements. And what does the inevitable breakdown of a defined "order" imply about the order itself?

If order is conceptual, does it require an ordered mind to conceive? If order requires conception before becoming an actual, where does the conception occour? If order is ultimately defined by an existing actual that defines all order both actual and conceived, then again this takes us back to an absolute mind.

Okay so we are back to this now:  It needs to be edited, because the original clearly had errors.  Perceived observations is better just as perceptions. 

Concepts are created by joining perceptions 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.

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.

RSS

Support T|A

Think Atheist is 100% member supported

All proceeds go to keeping Think Atheist online.

Donate with Dogecoin

Members

Blog Posts

Zella Mae Jarrett

Posted by Philip Jarrett on April 19, 2014 at 11:35pm 4 Comments

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

Services we love

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Into life hacks? Check out LabMinions.com

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2014   Created by Dan.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service