There are Absolutely and Objectively Immoral Acts

[alsarg72]

Topic

This kind of statement is quite common in debates.

You(and your fellow theists)claim that there are absolute morals. Name one.

I have seen both atheists and theists argue in favor of and against there being only being relative and subjective morality.

I can agree that there is nothing that can be said to be "absolutely and objectively moral". This is probably consistent with other atheists.

But I believe that there are things that can be said to be "absolutely and objectively immoral". This is inconsistent with both atheists and theists in discussions here in the past.

This topic therefore is about the existence of "absolute and object immorality".

Definitions

Dictionary.com lists 15 definitions for absolute. This is the one that contrasts with relative morality.

Absolute: viewed independently; not comparative or relative; ultimate; intrinsic.

Dictionary.com lists 11 defintitions for objective. This is the one that contrasts with subjective morality.

Objective: not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

My Definition

This is roughly how I define something to be absolutely and objectively immoral (given the definitions above) - if I thought longer I could surely word it better, but here goes...

If an act is committed that causes suffering or harm, directly or indirectly, to a living thing, without any justifying or mitigating circumstances, it it can be considered immoral without considering it relative to anything else, and without taking into account the opinion of an observer.

It is therefore absolutely and objectively immoral.

Therefore if person A does something unjustified and unmitigated to harm person/animal/plant B...

...the level of harm relative to other acts that could be committed to harm B is not relevant in determining if the act is immoral or not, it is only relevant in determining how immoral it is, since B has nevertheless been harmed.

...the subjective opinion of person C is not relevant in determining if the act is immoral or not, it is only relevant in determining person C's opinion of the morality of the situation. Regardless of person C's opinion B has nevertheless been harmed. And if person C didn't have knowledge of the act the immorality of the act would remain unchanged.

An Example

I deliberately give an example here that is not about murder, rape, etc.

People are lined up to buy movie tickets. A person in line uses a lighter to burn the jacket of the person in front of him. The person with the burned jacket is upset. The person who burned the jacket in sane and can give no reason for committing the act.

The Debate

If you disagree that there are absolutely and objectively immoral acts argue against...

"There are Absolutely and Objectively Immoral Acts"

[alsarg72]

I'm principally trying to address the difference between object/subjective and absolute/relative and I'm hoping for discussion.

The following thread exemplifies how appreciative you get when you're discussed with... and I only bring this up, because it's the exact same topic.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

And we got nowhere with it last time, so I want to discuss it with people other than you because you are just argumentative for the sake of it. Best regards.

We definitely got somewhere. We got to the point where it was perfectly established that your PERCEPTIONS were the reason why you argued a behavior was "absolutely wrong". Because they were, for instance, "heinous", and as explained to you, "heinous" is a PERCEPTION, which makes the "moral" of the behavior "PERCEPTION BASED", which makes it SUBJECTIVE. I'm quite confident that anyone who disagrees with you turns out being "argumentative for the sake of it" sooner or later.

I failed in my argument last time. That is why I defined things carefully this time. You also failed in your argument.

Again, my position is simple. I'm a moral relativist.

[Crazy Ivan]

I'm principally trying to address the difference between object/subjective and absolute/relative and I'm hoping for discussion.

The following thread exemplifies how appreciative you get when you're discussed with... and I only bring this up, because it's the exact same topic.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

And we got nowhere with it last time, so I want to discuss it with people other than you because you are just argumentative for the sake of it. Best regards.

We definitely got somewhere. We got to the point where it was perfectly established that your PERCEPTIONS were the reason why you argued a behavior was "absolutely wrong". Because they were, for instance, "heinous", and as explained to you, "heinous" is a PERCEPTION, which makes the "moral" of the behavior "PERCEPTION BASED", which makes it SUBJECTIVE. I'm quite confident that anyone who disagrees with you turns out being "argumentative for the sake of it" sooner or later.

I failed in my argument last time. That is why I defined things carefully this time. You also failed in your argument.

Again, my position is simple. I'm a moral relativist.

As are you, by your own admission, except when you find a behavior is "heinous" enough to constitute "absolute wrong". That's as clear a double standard as I've come across.

[alsarg72]

Just like the last time you are not arguing in favor of your position.

READ THIS - I FAILED IN MY ARGUMENT LAST TIME. OK?

Now, instead of just attacking me and stating your point of view, support your point of view, somehow related to the content of the opening post in THIS THREAD.

As are you, by your own admission, except when you find a behavior is "heinous" enough to constitute "absolute wrong". That's as clear a double standard as I've come across.

If you say everything is black and I say there are shades of grey and that white things exist is not a double standard. I never said everything is absolute. Notice to: I have avoided any language like heinous this time and I have avoided extreme examples.

[alsarg72]

The person who burned the jacket iS sane

Please note the typo. "in sane" was meant to be "is sane", not "is insane".

[Crazy Ivan]

Just like the last time you are not arguing in favor of your position.

READ THIS - I FAILED IN MY ARGUMENT LAST TIME. OK?

Now, instead of just attacking me and stating your point of view, support your point of view, somehow related to the content of the opening post in THIS THREAD.

As you wish. Under a whimsical notion, completely detached from reality, that "if an act is committed that causes suffering or harm, directly or indirectly, to a living thing, without any justifying or mitigating circumstances, it it can be considered immoral without considering it relative to anything else, and without taking into account the opinion of an observer", you are probably right. The example you gave simply does not fit. Nor will any other, for the same reasons.

[alsarg72]

Just like the last time you are not arguing in favor of your position.

READ THIS - I FAILED IN MY ARGUMENT LAST TIME. OK?

Now, instead of just attacking me and stating your point of view, support your point of view, somehow related to the content of the opening post in THIS THREAD.

As you wish. Under a whimsical notion, completely detached from reality, that "if an act is committed that causes suffering or harm, directly or indirectly, to a living thing, without any justifying or mitigating circumstances, it it can be considered immoral without considering it relative to anything else, and without taking into account the opinion of an observer", you are probably right. The example you gave simply does not fit. Nor will any other, for the same reasons.

Again, zero argument in favor of your position, no explanation of why it's detached from reality, no explanation of why my example 'does not fit', 'for the same reasons' without giving any reasons.

[Crazy Ivan]

I'm not here to entertain your imagination. Bring up definitions to which people can even remotely relate, and you'll get adequately argued with. These stipulations you made here are clearly derived of your inability to argue in terms other people relate with, as perfectly demonstrated in the aforementioned thread.

[alsarg72]

I'm not here to entertain your imagination. Bring up definitions to which people can even remotely relate, and you'll get adequately argued with. These stipulations you made here are clearly derived of your inability to argue in terms other people relate with, as perfectly demonstrated in the aforementioned thread.

Again, no argument, like the previous thread where you didn't provide an argument. You demonstrated nothing in the previous thread. You stated your opinion. Every time I challenge you to argue in favor of what you've said you don't.

Why are you so thoroughly against something you can't relate to?

And do you have any idea what going off topic means?

[Crazy Ivan]

In case you missed it, I acknowledged you are probably right about your argument in this thread, a fact you conveniently leave out. But I also chose to show that you failed previously, in a thread where you were not entitled to stipulate such unreal premises, (-edit: on the same topic), or present them as "my definition". I fully concede that arguments in which you whimsically stipulate the premises, however unreal and detached from reality they may be, will probably logically lead to the conclusion you're setting out to prove, but have failed to do so without resorting to unrelatable premises. I feel this is my prerogative, given your behavior in the other thread.

[ChaosBorders]

In case you missed it, I acknowledged you are probably right about your argument in this thread, a fact you conveniently leave out. But I also chose to show that you failed previously, in a thread where you were not entitled to stipulate such unreal premises, (-edit: on the same topic), or present them as "my definition". I fully concede that arguments in which you whimsically stipulate the premises, however unreal and detached from reality they may be, will probably logically lead to the conclusion you're setting out to prove, but have failed to do so without resorting to unrelatable premises. I feel this is my prerogative, given your behavior in the other thread.

Crazy Ivan is correct. Because you defined the premises in the OP, you can make a logically valid conclusion that supports your position. However, that conclusion is not relate-able to real life because you are using a persuasive definition that has no bearing on what would actually constitute a real 'objectively immoral act'.

When it comes to real life, not only is it impossible to prove there is an objectively immoral act, it is impossible to prove there is an objective morality at all. Some things you may wish to read on the subject are Amoralism, Moral Nihilism and Moral Skepticism.