Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Philosophically lost]

I would like to believe there are eternal moral truths and a moral order. That are actions in this life matter and that no evil can become of a good man. But sometimes I wonder if moral truths are just made up by man and passed down through tradition. But deep down I do believe that things like "always helping a person in need" is a moral truth or good that all people should ascribe to.

[stevie]

It's an aspect of idealism to assign intrinsic 'truth' or 'reality' to mere concepts/ideas. Nevertheless even following mere concepts/ideas can have advantages for the life of individuals and collectives.

[Pattern-chaser]

I would like to believe there are eternal moral truths...

Isn't this just a subset of "I would like to believe there are eternal [i.e. 'Objective'] truths"?

[LuckyR]

I would like to believe there are eternal moral truths and a moral order. That are actions in this life matter and that no evil can become of a good man. But sometimes I wonder if moral truths are just made up by man and passed down through tradition. But deep down I do believe that things like "always helping a person in need" is a moral truth or good that all people should ascribe to.

That is not an unusual opinion for an individual with individual experience. OTOH, if one appreciates the wide disparity of the human condition, especially over millenia, morality becomes obviously subjective.

[AgentSmith]

From a Darwinian point of view, the answer to the OP's question is no!

Why?

Well, our bodies and minds will evolve over time. There's no hard and fast rule saying that our hedonic points(what makes us happy/sad) won't alter with time.

A mundane example to illustrate how unpredictable hedonic points are: one moment she was screaming how much she hated him, and the next moment, they were cuddling and whispering sweet nothings to each other in bed.

[JackDaydream]

I would like to believe there are eternal moral truths and a moral order. That are actions in this life matter and that no evil can become of a good man. But sometimes I wonder if moral truths are just made up by man and passed down through tradition. But deep down I do believe that things like "always helping a person in need" is a moral truth or good that all people should ascribe to.

My interpretation of your question is seeing it as being about the issue over whether morality and ethics are based on universal principles or ideas. Some writers, like
Aquinas, believed in the idea of a moral law which could be established. Kant believed in the categorical imperative, involving thinking what if everyone acted in such a way, as a measure of moral choices. It was also connected to the basic idea of treating others as one would like to be treated.

Many people dispute the idea of universal principles based on cultural variations. Also, the various situations of life and circumstances make it seem that exceptions to the universal ideas arise. It can be asked, is there any which is absolutely wrong morally? This may be where it gets tricky, but most people would probably say that murder and rape are morally wrong in the nearest absolute ways. Of course, even here, there is the question of whether murder of some harmful person, like Hitler or Saddam Hussein may be for the greater 'good'. But, in connection with attempts to think whether there are any actions which are absolutely right or wrong, it may that even though there are some variations and situations make moral action as being beyond black and white, it may be that there is some foundations for agreement. This may involve seeing the basis from which moral choices are made, such as how ends or consequences of actions may be important in thinking about principles.

[Gertie]

I would like to believe there are eternal moral truths and a moral order. That are actions in this life matter and that no evil can become of a good man. But sometimes I wonder if moral truths are just made up by man and passed down through tradition. But deep down I do believe that things like "always helping a person in need" is a moral truth or good that all people should ascribe to.

I believe that the qualiative nature of consciousness is what makes morality matter. That we conscious beings can experience flourishing or harm, happiness or suffering, and everything in between.

That's the basis for moral consideration towards each other, for 'oughts'. And showing such consideration is acting morally - 'the good that all people should ascribe to', or at least aspire to.

[PhilosophersStoned]

It seems to me that there aren't absolute and/or eternal moral truths, as it could be argued that everything taken into contest could be justified by reason, and right or wrong are individual beliefs. Therefore making each moral action always motivated by the wrong reasons, making it an action with no moral value anymore. If we take the trolley problem for example there is no choice that is, morally, as a whole accepted. if it is contextualised each answer might appear right.

[CIN]

It seems to me that there aren't absolute and/or eternal moral truths, as it could be argued that everything taken into contest could be justified by reason, and right or wrong are individual beliefs. Therefore making each moral action always motivated by the wrong reasons, making it an action with no moral value anymore. If we take the trolley problem for example there is no choice that is, morally, as a whole accepted. if it is contextualised each answer might appear right.

You say 'it could be argued that everything taken into contest could be justified by reason, and right or wrong are individual beliefs,' but the fact that this can be argued doesn't make it true. It can be argued that the earth is flat, but in fact it's round.

As regards the trolley problem, people do disagree about whether one should throw the switch and divert the train, and the reason they disagree is that they have different beliefs about the foundations of morality; but the fact that they disagree doesn't prove that neither side is right.

Moral subjectivists sometimes seem to think like this:

1. People disagree about morality.
2. Therefore there are no absolute moral truths.

But that's not a valid argument.

I think there are absolute moral truths. I would suggest that 'it's wrong to deliberately cause pain without good reason' is such a truth. Of course we then have to ask what counts as a good reason, but the fact that we haven't yet established that doesn't prevent the statement being true.

[LuckyR]

It seems to me that there aren't absolute and/or eternal moral truths, as it could be argued that everything taken into contest could be justified by reason, and right or wrong are individual beliefs. Therefore making each moral action always motivated by the wrong reasons, making it an action with no moral value anymore. If we take the trolley problem for example there is no choice that is, morally, as a whole accepted. if it is contextualised each answer might appear right.

You say 'it could be argued that everything taken into contest could be justified by reason, and right or wrong are individual beliefs,' but the fact that this can be argued doesn't make it true. It can be argued that the earth is flat, but in fact it's round.

As regards the trolley problem, people do disagree about whether one should throw the switch and divert the train, and the reason they disagree is that they have different beliefs about the foundations of morality; but the fact that they disagree doesn't prove that neither side is right.

Moral subjectivists sometimes seem to think like this:

1. People disagree about morality.
2. Therefore there are no absolute moral truths.

But that's not a valid argument.

I think there are absolute moral truths. I would suggest that 'it's wrong to deliberately cause pain without good reason' is such a truth. Of course we then have to ask what counts as a good reason, but the fact that we haven't yet established that doesn't prevent the statement being true.

Not only do you have to ask what counts as a good reason, but more importantly you have to ask wrong according to whom? That's the part that makes morality subjective.

[Good_Egg]

It seems to me that morality is about choices.

And that we make choices by a process of "weighing up" aspects of the situation.

People have different answers as to how we should do that weighing up. There is no objectively-moral method for making choices. No right answer to the trolley problem.

But there is a high level of consensus, both within and across cultures, that certain acts are morally weighty in either the good or the bad direction.

Someone who doesn't agree that the trolley problem is a problem - that either choice involves a morally-bad aspect - has failed to understand it.

So yes there are eternal moral truths. Moral facts, if you will. But the existence of those facts is insufficient to determine the right moral choice in every situation. The process of weighing up moral facts is not itself a moral fact.

[PhilosophersStoned]

It seems to me that there aren't absolute and/or eternal moral truths, as it could be argued that everything taken into contest could be justified by reason, and right or wrong are individual beliefs. Therefore making each moral action always motivated by the wrong reasons, making it an action with no moral value anymore. If we take the trolley problem for example there is no choice that is, morally, as a whole accepted. if it is contextualised each answer might appear right.

You say 'it could be argued that everything taken into contest could be justified by reason, and right or wrong are individual beliefs,' but the fact that this can be argued doesn't make it true. It can be argued that the earth is flat, but in fact it's round.

As regards the trolley problem, people do disagree about whether one should throw the switch and divert the train, and the reason they disagree is that they have different beliefs about the foundations of morality; but the fact that they disagree doesn't prove that neither side is right.

Moral subjectivists sometimes seem to think like this:

1. People disagree about morality.
2. Therefore there are no absolute moral truths.

But that's not a valid argument.

I think there are absolute moral truths. I would suggest that 'it's wrong to deliberately cause pain without good reason' is such a truth. Of course we then have to ask what counts as a good reason, but the fact that we haven't yet established that doesn't prevent the statement being true.

But that is the whole point of my statement.
Let's take for example the proposition you used. "It's wrong to deliberately cause pain without good reason" i agree it is a morally acceptable statement but it is not, in my opinion, a statement that would define enough moral guidance. The idea of good and bad, of pain and of good reasons are all individual states of mind. That the sentence loses value if analysed. Unless we only consider the extremes.
Is it morally right to torture an alleged terrorist to find out if there is an attack planned?
And if it is right how much pain can we inflict him?
Is his pain threshold higher than our so should we torture him harder to make sure he does feel enough pain to break?
And what if he doesn't know of any plan and he told us so after the first 10 minutes of interrogation?
Good reason would suggest we can torture him until he breaks in order to save hundreds of lives if we can avoid an attack.
But does it make it morally right?

[PhilosophersStoned]

I actually think the statement loses value even considering the extremes

[CIN]

... more importantly you have to ask wrong according to whom? That's the part that makes morality subjective.

You've got it the wrong way round. It's because you think morality is subjective that you think you have to ask wrong according to whom.

[CIN]

I think there are absolute moral truths. I would suggest that 'it's wrong to deliberately cause pain without good reason' is such a truth. Of course we then have to ask what counts as a good reason, but the fact that we haven't yet established that doesn't prevent the statement being true.

But that is the whole point of my statement.
Let's take for example the proposition you used. "It's wrong to deliberately cause pain without good reason" i agree it is a morally acceptable statement but it is not, in my opinion, a statement that would define enough moral guidance. The idea of good and bad, of pain and of good reasons are all individual states of mind. That the sentence loses value if analysed. Unless we only consider the extremes.
Is it morally right to torture an alleged terrorist to find out if there is an attack planned?
And if it is right how much pain can we inflict him?
Is his pain threshold higher than our so should we torture him harder to make sure he does feel enough pain to break?
And what if he doesn't know of any plan and he told us so after the first 10 minutes of interrogation?
Good reason would suggest we can torture him until he breaks in order to save hundreds of lives if we can avoid an attack.
But does it make it morally right?

You say, "The idea of good and bad, of pain and of good reasons are all individual states of mind." That is merely your belief. You need to provide good arguments to support it.

If you had good reason to believe that the terrorist know about the attack, and you have no other way of finding out when it is planned, then yes, it is morally right to torture him. The reason is that the total pain of the attack is likely to be greater than the pain inflicted on the terrorist. Since pain is an evil, the attack is likely to be more evil than torturing the terorrist, so it's morally right to torture him.