The Contradiction Inherent In Moral Absolutes

Unconscious as it presumably is to many, cherished absolutes frequently conflict with one another making it problematic to emphatically uphold them all. Doublethink, as George Orwell termed this. The notion that one should avoid “picking and choosing” morality in accordance with his personal preferences is ultimately unavoidable because of this.

Do you believe in the absolute ideal of mercy and forgiveness or do you believe in the absolute ideal of perfect judgment? Where must forgiveness end and judgment begin? One can not uphold both absolutely. Most commonly, people uphold varying degrees of each rendering them morally relative.

For instance, should a man reap what he sows? If this view is held absolutely, then crippled retards should be left to reap what they sow. Perhaps we should help them? Well then, at what point should we stop helping another and simply leave him to reap what he has sown? How crippled and retarded must one be to afford our help?

Similarly, how capitalistic or socialistic should our society be? You don't advocate one OR the other, do you? More than likely you advocate a combination or balance of the 2. What does this mean? It means a thousand things to a thousand people! Once again, this is the fundamental conflict of all societies!

Are you starting to see the purpose of attempting to recruit people to ONE ideology or religion, all of which are likely nothing but arbitrary conventions? What purpose am I speaking of? To provide society with a cohesive moral framework in which to make the most difficult decisions!

The problem is, morality becomes relative even if pondered in the slightest! This is why people within the same religion and/or political ideology so frequently disagree.....because the solutions to our most difficult problems are ultimately relegated to nothing but (oftentimes opposing) personal preferences!


See link below for further corollary on the contradiction inherent in moral absolutes:

Firmly Planted In Mid-Air
http://kurtsthoughtemporium.blogspot.com/2009/07/firmly-planted-in-mid-air.html

Pondering The Variability Of Morality

I have always been much more reserved than most. Also, I have always been what most people, especially religious, would classify as the more obedient type. Why? Did mom and dad instill this tendency in me? If so, why does this instillation so often fail in others?

On the other hand, why do many with every known setback somehow shake themselves from adversity's grip? Something far beyond anything imaginable is going on behind the scenes. Might God explain this? Possibly, but not very well in my opinion. Why is there such variation in peoples' ways if only one way or a few is considered morally acceptable?

With this then, a person with an “acceptable” nature seems to be the lucky recipient of a transcendent, unconscious compulsion granted by God. Conversely, a person with an “unacceptable” nature seems to be nothing but a slave to a transcendent, unconscious compulsion apart from Him. How does this reflect on God? Seemingly not very well. If He is the ultimate explanation for this disparity, then it seems we can not avoid implicating God for “unacceptable” natures.

I think one of the many reasons I “found” God was that it was convenient to who I already was. Not to say I think or thought myself to be perfect by any means, just that I was naturally more the “obedient” type. So in effect, this “obedience” gave me an easy segue into the moral framework that is inherent in most religions. Hence the likely reason I chose Christianity.

Now many will adopt Christianity (or something similar) only because they are so disobedient! In this sense, it encourages and prods them to become better people only upon their having chosen to become better people! What about those that have no compulsion to become better people? Are they likely to turn to a religion or ideology predicated on a high moral standard? Probably not. For if they do, they will likely be ostracized if they do not get their acts together sooner as opposed to later.

So in Christianity (or something similar) there is ultimately a moral standard to embrace at some point. Upon accepting Christianity (or something similar), most will either 1) be moral already, 2) be actively working toward this higher moral standard or 3) be immoral and make no attempt to address their moral bankruptcy. 

These people 3) that are immoral and make no attempt to address their immorality will either stay or leave. If they stay and are “accepted”, this immoral bunch will likely be “accepted” just enough so the congregation appears to accept them. But will many, or perhaps SHOULD MANY, in the congregation make much of an effort to “fraternize” with these “non-conformists”? I don't think so whatsoever. Many of them will and SHOULD justifiably feel concerned they might be implicated in the behaviors of this immoral bunch. Furthermore, birds of the same feather tend to flock together. So it seems bad people forever destined to be bad are excluded from anything built on a high moral standard. As it should be, in my opinion.

However, I don't see God in this. I see 1) “already” good people, 2) bad people earnestly seeking goodness and last, 3) those that have no compulsion and feel no obligation to better their character. Where might God be in this? Why are the “wretches” seemingly left in the deep end without any “guidance” from God? Free-will? Why do the “other” bad people seek goodness? In the same way, why were the “already” good people “already” good? Free-will might sound pretty tempting if you are one of the bad earnestly seeking goodness or one of the “already” good, but what if you are left in the deep end without any “guidance” from God?

An interesting corollary to point out is how arbitrary explanations become when assessing an individual's behavior. As a very obedient and respectful person, I believe my character stems from myself. I say this with neither pride nor shame, rather just to say that it is what it is. Now it's interesting where many believers in God go with this. "Kurt, you're being arrogant and taking credit for something GOD gave you!" Hmmm..... So apparently God failed to "give" this gift to others? If this is so, what gives anybody the audacity to judge "bad" people ONLY BECAUSE GOD FAILED TO PROVIDE THEM WITH THE GIFT OF "GOOD" CHARACTER?

Furthermore, if God is in any way responsible for one's character, WHAT BECOMES OF HIS FREE-WILL?

Technology: Good Or Bad?

Many will likely be critical with my contention that technology is neither good nor bad. For how can it not be good that the lifespan of humans in industrialized societies at least has dramatically increased in just the last century, for example?

It is tempting to judge this as good but ultimately our judgment on any given matter is only ever based on something already known or experienced. For example, if the longest any human lived was known to be only 30 years, we would base our judgment on living approximately 30 years. If one attained this age or beyond, this would of course be deemed good. On the other hand, if the longest any human lived was known to be 200 years, a 30 year lifespan would seem tragically short and deemed bad.

It is enticing for the marginalized to see something “better” and label it good or for the fortunate to see something “worse” and label it bad, but this is only due to disparity. This disparity can be analogous to having something good taken away. Once it is seen what can be, this then becomes the de facto standard and of course there is a desire to attain or maintain this good thing.

But it must be pointed out that this thing is not really good. It is only relatively good. In other words, the thing just is.

I want to further express what I am talking about with what will no doubt be a very emotional topic. Let's suppose that due to medical technology, the infant death rate goes from 1 in 5 to only 1 in 5,000. This is good, is it not? But what if we subsequently came across a civilization that experienced an infant death rate of only 1 in a billion? Is 1 in 5,000 still good? What if your child was one of the 1 in 5,000 that perished?

In this case, statistically it is almost certain your child would have survived if the death rate was only 1 in a billion. As such, might you, or anybody else for that matter, now see this death rate as bad?

One might claim that only 1 in 5,000 is good because it is better than 1 in 5. However, when compared to a death rate of only 1 in a billion, it seems bad. Furthermore, it is tragic when any infant dies but is especially so when it is yours! So whether the death rate is 1 in 5 or only 1 in 5,000 or still more impressive only 1 in a billion, if your child dies, none of these is good. Conversely, if your child survives, none of these is really bad either.

Perhaps we could legitimately declare it good when no babies die. Then again, could infant death simply be nature's equilibrium so as to preserve the lives of the greatest number of babies and more generally, and perhaps more importantly, to preserve Life in general? Of course this principle will no doubt be hard to accept especially if your baby dies.

In any case, might it be suggested that nature seems to obey the principle of utilitarianism even with an incredibly delicate issue such as this?

One could similarly draw an analogy to the idea of promoting longevity as an intrinsic moral good. Should we adopt this imperative?* What if this places such a strain on society that it undermines the health and well-being of everybody?

Would it be better for people to live 1)marginally well for 150 years, 2)moderately well for 100 years or 3)phenomenally well for only 50 years? Once again, are the ravages of old age nature's equilibrium so as to best serve Life in general (the proverbial One)?

In summary, it seems wise to avoid imparting judgments and to just accept what is.


*Would those predisposed to boredom deem a longer lifespan good?

The Correlation Between Disbelief And Dislike

Do you agree with much or even any of my writings? If yes, so be it. If no, why? Do you (want to) disbelieve them because you dislike them* or do you (want to) dislike them because you disbelieve them**?

On the other hand, might disbelief and dislike be interchangeable? Perhaps disbelieving something is but a proxy for disliking it? In this sense, much of our argument and conflict could be over mere preferences, not over right and wrong.

It is very reasonable to ask the inverse as well.....do you (want to) believe "x" because you like "x" or do you (want to) like "x" because you believe "x"?

In this case, from what do we derive our moral justification for fighting and arguing over mere preferences?

Notice this makes no attempt to discern what is actually true. Rather, it is merely an attempt to explain why one might choose to believe or disbelieve something.

*If you disbelieve them because you dislike them, this categorically denies what might be true simply because it is disliked. This is a decidedly subjective verdict, devoid of objectivity. Which brings us to a very critical crossroads.....do you seek to believe what your intellectual honesty can afford or what you want?

**If your disbelief in them inclines you to dislike them, this will inevitably lead to argument and conflict because disliking "x" has a way of making "x" wrong or bad. At which point the purported right/wrong dichotomy is fabricated to provide the moral justification for argument and conflict.

How About Illegalizing Indoctrination?

Where does much of society's conflict and strife seem to originate? Perhaps indoctrination explains much of it, most notably among its naive "little ones". For children will pretty much believe anything they are told to believe (sadly, many of us will too). If they are told in the crib that certain races or cultures are inherently evil or inferior or that others with divergent beliefs or cultural practices are wrong or weird, they will have little gumption not to believe it.

Much of this indoctrination will sow ill feelings in the years to come, creating conflict which would otherwise be absent. Should "we"* forcefully prevent the kind of indoctrination that leads to terrorism, this being perhaps the worst of its many ill faces? Certainly it can then be argued that this would be an affront to the basic freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants to believe". However, the ill consequence of "protecting" this freedom is that it seems to create or at least magnify wars and other such conflicts thus providing the ultimate trigger to kill and maim.

What is the imperative? To provide the freedom of allowing a person to "believe whatever he wants" knowing full well its negative consequences or simply banning the kind of indoctrination that creates such violent division in the first place?

*"We" is highlighted to differentiate its many faces. Ask "we" in Iran or North Korea or Afghanistan or Iraq or Papua New Guinea or Scandinavia or France or wherever else and "we" will have many divergent goals and ideals. So the relevant question might be, "whose indoctrination should be censored?" It seems wars and violence are predicated not necessarily on clear right/wrong dichotomies but on the simple principle that peoples' opposing views and preferences create contradictions and hence conflict when "forced" to live side by side. At this point, "creating" enemies out of "others" (herein enters the purported right/wrong dichotomy into the conflict, thus giving the "good" guy moral justification for it) is obligatory when it becomes apparent that any attempt to "intertwine" these contradictions is destined to fail.** And so ensues tension which manifests itself as at best simple conflict and disagreement, at worst war. Much like the AIDS virus being viewed as "bad" from our perspective, it is only "bad" because the both of us cannot peacefully coexist. But ask yourself this: in the grand scheme of things, do you really think there is anything particularly "bad" about the AIDS virus in itself? Decidedly not! It is just trying to make its way about the world like the rest of us! But it causes US harm so we think it fair to label IT "bad" and believe this to be an objective judgment. But of course it is anything but objective! Once again, as per my hypothetical idea of censoring certain types of indoctrination, which types then? Perhaps those with uncontested control of the world should make this decision for everybody else, as has always been the case. But these days, I don't know? Who might this be?

**This is a rather silly argument to illustrate my point. I ask you to think more deeply than seeing this only as an argument between 2 young boys fighting over a most trivial matter. As such, project the following parable onto almost any argument and I believe there is relevance: I have never met anybody that believes colors to be intrinsically "good" or "bad". Imagine 2 brothers are going to share a Nintendo DS for Christmas. Peter likes blue but Sam likes red. Each is so compelled to get the device in his chosen color that it becomes an obsession. As a result, they become so identified with their chosen colors that they actually convince themselves their favorite colors are "good" in turn making other colors antithetical to "good" and hence "bad". If you're not with me you're against me! It's that vexatious war mindset so commonly used to justify conflict in the first place***. Since the other brother wants a "bad" color, he is "bad" and thus an enemy. Once again, the purported right/wrong dichotomy creeps into the conflict because it provides moral justification. With this then, the "good" guy is justified to fight because he is "right". And which one IS the "good" guy? Why that's simply a matter of perspective.

***This "if you're not with me you're against me" dichotomy preys on human instinct with reckless abandon. Since we are social animals, we have a need (or perhaps just an irresistible instinct) to be part of clearly defined groups to give us a sense of social identity. What does this compel us to do? Choose sides. In which case people "join" either the "with" or "against" group and conflict is thus born! Note that without this "choosing of sides", there would exist no with/against dichotomy and hence conflict would be avoided altogether! It is also important to note that most of us are compelled to choose one or the other because it "seems" as if those are the only two options. Politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, notably, love to delude us (and themselves of course) into believing there is only "with" and "against" because they are always looking to recruit people for their "sacred" cause(s). Of course if you choose "against" them, they are morally justified in criticizing you! However, this with/against dichotomy is usually untenable. Almost always "with" and "against" are simply opposite ends of a spectrum. In which case there exist many subtle combinations of "with" and "against" along this spectrum. Upon recognizing this "truth" in a given conflict, I myself choose the "middle", in effect doing my part to "strip" the conflict of its "identity". This is what politicians, talk show hosts and war mongers, among others, live for: to recruit people for their cause(s) in order to give the conflict(s) "identity".