Materialism of the Gaps sub-discussion: the morality debate

[Laird]

I feel that morality is, in humans, somewhat subjective and contingent upon circumstances. There might, or might not, be absolutes - I'm not sure - but generally people use different criteria by which they justify their opinions and actions. For example, some will claim that the death penalty is just and morally correct while others, myself included, will say that it is wrong to take a life in retribution - that this only compounds the immorality. Using the deterrent argument doesn't work for me either because we (society) are then punishing someone, at least in part, for what someone else might do in the future. So my view clearly disagrees with others yet we might both claim a moral basis for those views.

I wonder, Kam, whether you'd be open to the idea that there is an underlying absolute basis upon which both proponents of the death penalty as well as opponents, such as you and myself, form our more contingent moral views?

I'd propose that the (more) absolute principle upon which all of us base our more contingent principles is a principle something along the lines of: "Life is precious and should be respected, and should not be taken without a very good cause". Then, the varied contingent perspectives would revolve around what to do when life is taken without very good cause, with the advocates of capital punishment saying that such a crime is good cause for taking the life of the murderer (both as retribution and deterrent), and opponents like us arguing that this only compounds the moral error.

I sense that, after all, Sci and I see things similarly in this respect: that there are basic, fundamental moral principles which are absolute or at least "most" absolute, from which more contingent, relative moral principles are derived by moral agents via their judgement, in part based upon other potentially (and legitimately) more personal/subjective values.

Dunno if that makes any sense or not?

I struggled to follow the post largely because of...

Trying to give you a clearer example of what I mean...

Was followed by a pretty technical description of fundamental protein structures (I assume as I'm not trained in such).  Went over my head; for what its worth.

Dunno if that helped?

Yes, but you'll love this.  The light bulb went on for me when I read the closing paragraph:

Think lego... you can use identical smaller things (that individuals share), to build bigger things that are unique (not shared). I'm suggesting the smaller things might be related to things we share without too much disagreement (logic)... and the larger structures which they can form are more unique, and so may not be in agreement (Morality).

(Tells me I'm more of a lego level guy vs an advanced biology guy.  Not something I didn't already know actually.)

I wonder, Kam, whether you'd be open to the idea that there is an underlying absolute basis upon which both proponents of the death penalty as well as opponents, such as you and myself, form our more contingent moral views?

I'd propose that the (more) absolute principle upon which all of us base our more contingent principles is a principle something along the lines of: "Life is precious and should be respected, and should not be taken without a very good cause". Then, the varied contingent perspectives would revolve around what to do when life is taken without very good cause, with the advocates of capital punishment saying that such a crime is good cause for taking the life of the murderer (both as retribution and deterrent), and opponents like us arguing that this only compounds the moral error.

I sense that, after all, Sci and I see things similarly in this respect: that there are basic, fundamental moral principles which are absolute or at least "most" absolute, from which more contingent, relative moral principles are derived by moral agents via their judgement, in part based upon other potentially (and legitimately) more personal/subjective values.

Maybe I'm stuck on the meaning of absolutes but it seems to me to be a contradiction of the word "absolute" to precede it with a quantifier such as "more" or "most". So I have always struggled with absolutes when it comes to taking lives: is it absolutely forbidden to take a life is what I ask myself. I can imagine situations in which I would be hard-pressed to take any other action - the classic example being the opportunity to save a life, perhaps the life of a loved one - by killing a murderous individual before he/she can kill that loved one. To some, this would not be a dilemma as the answer would be obvious - kill the bastard. To me it is a moral morass because it introduces degrees of justifiability and therefore obliterates absolutes. To be honest, faced with that choice, I can see no option but to save my child (or any child) but it makes my life complicated when it comes to understanding morality.

However, that is an extreme example which perhaps shows that there cannot be absolutes but suggests that, as you say, there might be principles that can be formulated. As such, however, I doubt that you can use words like basic and fundamental which, to my mind, fit in the same category as absolutes: not being subject to degrees. The absolute morality: "never take a life" could only be certain to a god-like figure who has unlimited perspective of consequences and ramifications and who might be aware, for example, of some karmic thread being played out between the immortal souls of child and murderer. The temporary fears and impulses of myself - being, perhaps, the parent of that child - might be insignificant to the larger drama yet it is impossible for me to know that and, besides, I'm not sure that knowing that would change my impulse to rescue my child (indeed, I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't).

So, back to the death penalty: society attempts to act as that god-like figure and to look at crimes with a larger perspective and consider society as whole. To my mind, punishment is an act of vengeance, not of justice. The vengeance of the Old Testament god-like figure, if you will. To me, a more morally enlightened society would concentrate on reform rather than retribution. On fixing the causes for violent behaviour rather than punishment after the fact. Sure, dangerous people need to be removed from society in order to protect the innocent but it is not justifiable to commit a barbarous act in response to a barbarous act - we (society) should be setting the example of acting with humanity.

[Laird]

Maybe I'm stuck on the meaning of absolutes but it seems to me to be a contradiction of the word "absolute" to precede it with a quantifier such as "more" or "most".

Totally fair call: yes, "absolute versus relative" was a poor framing; I think I'd resolved in the past when discussing morality to go instead with the "objective versus subjective" distinction. "Absolute" could imply "without exception", whereas the meaning I was intending to convey was instead "[true] independent of anybody's opinion", in the same sense that logical truths are true: objectively, independently of anybody's (subjective) opinion.

Could you more easily accept a spectrum of moral principles from "(more or most) objective" to "(more or most) subjective" than one that allows for a moral principle to be "(more or most) absolute"?

P.S. Agreed on what a more morally enlightened society would do.

Pretty much anything goes as far as I can see at this level, not that there ain't eventually consequences, if you deviate.

By deviate do you mean deviate from some moral standard?