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.
As I read your initial manifesto, it seems to me that you have taken "God" and substituted "order" in God's place. If you were religious, you'd be saying that it is God who, either through a direct act of his almighty will causes subatomic articles to bond into atoms (the elements) and the atoms to form compounds. He knows when every sparrow falls and when every cosmic ray shatters an atom.
But let's face it: If you want a poster child for disorder, it's the subatomic level.
"...disorder is not actual. It is conceptual."
"At the very foundation of the level of actuality lies order."
"... the nature of order upon which any concept is structured necessitates a most perfect form."
"... even as a concept, [morality] has to have an absolute and most perfect form..."
What I get from this is that disorder, as a concept, has to have an absolute and most perfect form.
But my ceiling is leaking now, so I think that's my cue to save this for later ....
Morality is a social and cultural construct that is dependent on the empathy between a species vs the communal survival mandate.
There is no absolute when discussing philosophy period.
I'm sorry, but in what way is "There is no absolute when discussing philosophy period" not an absolute statement about philosophy?
sophistry, but point taken - philosophy aint maths now is it...
Not sophistry. Logic.
we are dealing with language and social constructs here hence why I used the word sophistry..
and yes, the irony of misusing language, .. it illustrates the point brilliantly... anything that is solely described by language alone cannot be absolute as in definite and unarguably true...
just like what we know about the universe is NOT absolute... we really don't have any absolutes if we are going to be purists.. the closest we come is with maths, everything else is always up for debate...
Language is a very peculiar thing. We share words but meanings are private and peculiar to each person. Obviously, since we communicate, meaning overlaps in a Venn diagram kind of way. For example, an atheist woman and an Arab man talk about "wives," but obviously what they mean by that term are very different things. This is an extreme example, but every word we use is an example to some degree or another.
Meaning can reside outside words, too. A young man and his girlfriend are walking down the main street of their town. They stop in front of a jewelry store to look in the window and she says, "That's a nice bracelet." You think you know what that means? Let me add a fact then: her birthday is a week away. That colors and changes the meaning, of the sentence in a way that dictionaries and grammars can't explain.
Reading this I just felt a 'hint' of the absolute. The 'no........period.' gives it away.
Unseen. It seems you are talking about looking at a large structure. You see how the structure is disordered. But I think looking at it in a broad overview misses what is actually going on.
I'll repeat what I said earlier to Heather. Things like molecules are structurally ordered. When this order disappates, nothing is there anymore and because nothing is there anymore, things like those molecules have nothing to hold them together so they fall apart. Isn't that what causes disorder in any structure?
When you say there is a lot of disorder at the subatomic level, I pretty much agree. Where I disagree is that disorder is anything more than a concept used to describe how nothing is making a connection somewhere. An example of it can be something that became disordered. That deterioration appears to be because in some places nothing is making those vital connections anymore.
What is making the connection when order stops doing it, so to speak?