Absolute Morality Defined

Perhaps I should have started with the definition of absolute morality. Then again - perhaps not. The definition of absolute morality is straight forward. These definitions are taken from M-W. They are the most appropriate for this blog:

Absolute - "having no restriction, exception, or qualification"
Morality - "a doctrine or system of moral conduct"

Merging these definitions in a very literal fashion (and reversing their order) we get:

"a doctrine or system of moral conduct having no restriction, exception, or qualification"

The first part "a doctrine or system or moral conduct" in its simplest form is a set of rules that define boundaries of acceptable and unacceptable behavior. The second part "having no restriction, exception, or qualification" infer that it (the morality) applies in all circumstances. Buried in this discourse is a rather subtle but important assumption.

That assumption is that absolute morality applies only to humans capable of understanding the concepts. In other words, if you cannot communicate the concept of morality it's doubtful if you can understand it. If you can't understand the concepts then they can't be applied. So we're assuming humans that can communicate. In all likelihood, these humans come from societies.

We must make these assumptions since we have used words to communicate the concepts and we must assume the reader (or listener) must be able to understand what we're saying. I assume that these communication skills are a product of societies. More to the point, I don't believe communication skills can exist without societies.

Without this assumption this discussion (or any discussion for that matter) makes little sense and I'm reasonably certain is not possible. So, it's very difficult to assume communication without assuming humans and society. So now we can write a more precise and lengthy definition of absolute morality:

Absolute morality is a set of rules defining acceptable, or unacceptable behavior applying to all humans in all societies for all time.

There are a few important things to note here. Nothing implies that all rules are absolute. To be precise, nothing in this definition excludes additional "non-absolute" rules. The only restriction is that, if absolute morality exists, supplemental rules cannot contradict or override the rules of the absolute type. This contradiction would, by definition, create and exception to the absolute rule. And then the absolute rule then fails the definition of absolute morality and is therefore not absolute.

Of course this thinking yields a systematic approach to testing any notion of absolute morality. If all rules thought to be part of absolute morality can be found to have exceptions then we can conclude one of three things:

1. Absolute morality does not exist
2. The rule(s) must be modified to eliminate the exceptions
3. We have the wrong set of rules (an extreme case of #2)

But we have at least one other condition to satisfy. We must be able to communicate the rule or rules to all societies. If the rule cannot be successfully communicated then we have one or more issues to contend with:

1. The people communicating lack the requisite skill
2. The language(s) employed lack an ability to express the ideas
3. The group with whom we are attempting to communicate are not humans or do not constitute a society

Of the previous assumptions I'll consider the second assumption first. That assumption is:

• We (humans) require societies

First we need to define a few terms. The "We" in the sentence includes all of mankind and needs no other discussion. Next we should define humans. When I use the term human I mean the modern homo sapien. To define society or societies we'll refer to Merriam-Webster. They have several definitions for society. I am assuming the following notion (definition 3b) from their on-line dictionary:

"a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests"

Next we have to question the "require societies" portion of the statement. To that end consider the following:

• The whole of recorded human existence (history) is organized around societies.
• I am not aware of any recorded or unrecorded human existence that does not include some notion (as defined above) of society.
• More to the point, I am not aware of any human existence without society.
• Prehistorical man appears (by all accounts) to be organized by societies.
• Most anthropologists, that I'm aware of, believe man's existence is tied to societies.

Continuing on, most people would consider a human without a societal affiliation to be at a minimum uncivilized and perhaps an animal. This reaction is largely instinctive. However, that doesn't mean this notion is not without merit. I'm not aware of any "animal-humans." By "animal-human" I mean humans that have no societal affiliation. Having said this we still must consider claims of a person who states that they have no societal affiliation. Since language (insofar as I know) a societal artifact, any use of language calls such a claim into serious doubt.

However, the fact that humans do not now, nor have they ever existed without society does not mean that society is a human requirement. It does show a strong linkage, an perhaps an extreme pehchant. And it certainly hints stronly at "requirement." But requirement is a stronger word. It usually implies a need. But, any study of humans in nature indicates extreme physical vulnerability. That's not to say that he is entirely helpless. But it is undeniable that humans are more vulnerable than other animals. This applies especially to animals that hunt.

Yet it is clear that a sustained, robust human population growth has occurred. And is tied to many factors. This growth has occurred largely because humans have been able to minimize or offset their physical limitations. It's generally agreed that the single most important human characteristic that offsets these deficiencies is intelligence. This includes sophisticated communication, making of tools, use of fire and numerous other traits. All of these key traits are directly or indirectly tied to coexisting in a society. Some would argue that the most important of these is language. Certainly, if the development of sophistiacated tools and weapons is dependent on language (and I'm certain it is) then the existence of humans equally dependent on language. And if man is dependent on language for survival then he is dependent on society for survival.

This blog was created to test the notion that absolute morality exists. Specifically I hope that we can:

1. Develop a set of assumptions
2. Test the assumptions
3. Derive or deduce a set of moral absolutes based on these assumptions
4. Test these moral absolutes
5. Repeat 1..4 as required

Note that this is intended to be an exercise in logic rather than faith. I don't disagree with the notion of faith or religion. And I do believe that faith has its place. That's just not the purpose of this blog. I suggest that we begin with the fewest number of assumptions possible.

I will offer the following as candidate starting assumptions or postulates:

1. We exist
2. We require societies

Unfortunately some will try to argue with the first assumption. Fortunately one can easily argue that any, and all arguments against our existance are inherently self-contradictory. How can one make the argument if you don't exist? The bigger question goes to the importance and base nature of this assumption. I believe it among the most important and most basic assumptions.

Concerning the second postulate: We (or humans) require societies. At first this may not seem so basic. But I argue that, after the basics of survival such as food, or perhaps in concert with satisfying these needs, humans join with other humans. They seem to do this instinctively in order to form lasting, cooperative relationships. These are the beginnings of societies and are an imperative for survival. Consider the following:

Historically man is in one of three states with respect to a society. Man is either:

• Living in a society
• Trying to destroy a current society (in order to create a new one - we call this a rebellion)
• Trying to create a new society from the remains of an existing society

I am not aware of man not existing in one of these three states.

It could be argued a more base assumption is that humans are biological creatures. And as such, humans cannot divorce themselves from the requirements their own biology. This may then lead to the notion that humans form societies out of biological necessity.