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"

[Abraxas]

Who gets to decide what constitutes justifying or mitigating circumstances?

In what way is your definition of immoral absolute or objective under the definitions of each you provided? How do you know there is not a different definition or no definition of what is immoral?

The structure of the morality clause you created would certainly be internally objective, that is to day if correct it provides objective guidelines as to what is immoral. However, externally, you have provided no objective cause to accept your definition of immoral.

[alsarg72]

Who gets to decide what constitutes justifying or mitigating circumstances?

It is simply a stipulation in my definition.

In what way is your definition of immoral absolute or objective under the definitions of each you provided?

In the way that it is not relative or subjective.

How do you know there is not a different definition or no definition of what is immoral?

I'll know when people suggest alternatives rather than asking for them.

The structure of the morality clause you created would certainly be internally objective, that is to day if correct it provides objective guidelines as to what is immoral. However, externally, you have provided no objective cause to accept your definition of immoral.

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

BTW, are you against and are finding holes to support your opposition, or are you for but don't find my reasoning compelling, or some other combination?

[thatoneguy]

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 guy with the lighter really wanted to light something on fire. If he had not, then seeing the jacket would have caused him slight discomfort as he overcame the urge to burn it. Shouldn't we consider his feelings in this matter?

Naturally I disagree, but the point remains.

And morals most certainly are subjective. Certain things are so extreme that all people might universally agree, but they are still subjective. Murder is so extreme that almost everyone finds it wrong, but it's still only wrong because people agree it's wrong.

So to answer, in theory all things are subjective. In practice, there are certain things that aren't.

[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

[Grumpy]

Just like there is no objective morals, there can be no objective immorality. Everything moral is subjective to each individual. We may agree that we both think something is immoral but there are no absolutes.

Grumpy

[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 I think you are just argumentative for the sake of it, rather than providing good argument. Best regards.

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

I looked back at you final posts. That you are a moral relativist doesn't in any way argue in favor of moral relativism. I am looking for someone who can argue in favor of moral relativism not just state it.

[alsarg72]

Just like there is no objective morals, there can be no objective immorality. Everything moral is subjective to each individual. We may agree that we both think something is immoral but there are no absolutes.

Grumpy

Please explain why. I want someone to really argue against it so that I can understand the alternative point of view.

[alsarg72]

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 guy with the lighter really wanted to light something on fire. If he had not, then seeing the jacket would have caused him slight discomfort as he overcame the urge to burn it. Shouldn't we consider his feelings in this matter?

I think not. And the harm was done to the guy with the burned jacket no us.

Naturally I disagree, but the point remains.

So why make a point you disagree with? Am I right in thinking we both disgree (that the guys with lighter's feels should be considered) or have I missed your point?

And morals most certainly are subjective*. Certain things are so extreme that all people might universally agree, but they are still subjective*. Murder is so extreme that almost everyone finds it wrong, but it's still only wrong because people agree it's wrong*.

So to answer, in theory all things are subjective*. In practice, there are certain things that aren't*.

Why? Please explain. You have made 5 assertions without giving any argument, any examples, without relating it to my example. I am not saying you are wrong. I am saying that if you are right I want to understand why you think all morality is subjective.

The reason for this is that the consensus seems to be against me and if the consensus is correct I want to know why so that I can change my thinking.

[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.