Nietzsche's theory of eternal recurrence

[Zarathustra]

I'm in total agreement with Malik.

Morality is a set of rules for behavior. An objective morality would be one that was universal in that it applied to all people at all times in all situations. It would also have to be internally consistent in that there could be no circumstance under which the set of rules generated a conflicting prescription for action. I don't think that it's impossible for one to exist, just that no one has discovered such an objective morality to date.

By that last sentence, you're not in total agreement with me, because I think it is impossible for one to exist. My argument isn't a logical one (not to say that it's illogical). Rather, it's an empirical one. It's a description of reality: each conscious being values different things about the world. Morality springs from what we find valuable about life. Thus, by pure observation, a universal morality is impossible, by the very nature of individual conscious beings. We couldn't have a universal morality unless we had a universal consciousness--all beings united as one. The plurality of moral systems stems from the plurality of life itself. Morality is a feature of conscious beings, not of existence itself. Since conscious beings do not partake of a universal consciousness--a consciusness which has only one set of values--they cannot have a universal morality.

Even if everyone eventually agreed upon that which they find valuable, universal morality would be impossible, because this consensus would be merely contingent, not necessary. There would be nothing about reality to keep a single being from chosing different values. And no one could tell him he is wrong, because values are inherently subjective--even when we agree.

Thus Fist is wrong here:

For morality (or anything) to be universal, it must be agreed on by everyone. How can it be called universal otherwise?

Just because people agree doesn't make it universal. Everyone used to agree upon a geocentric model of the solar system. Everyone was wrong. Consensus doesn't change the nature of subjectivity. It only multiplies it, spreads it around.

[Fist and Faith]

I was getting at the fact that such things cannot be universal, as opposed to, say, measurements of mass.

However, although it will never happen, it is conceivable for everyone to agree on what is important. Nerdanel's idea about the greatest total happiness for everyone, for example. If everyone agreed on that, then we could have the basis for a universal morality. At least as it pertains to certain areas of morality. No, it will never happen, but it is within the realm of possibility. And that kind of concensus is significant. We are not talking about physical aspects of the universe - facts that can be learned, revealing whether what we assumed was correct or not. I say my morality is right; you say yours is right; Nerdanel says hers is right - and there is no way to say one actually is. But if everyone agreed, then all would be right. Unlike physical facts, we get to decide right and wrong where morality is concerned.

Further, we could someday learn that we are all hardwired to value something or other. No, I don't suspect so, since we would have noticed by now. But still, there may be something very obscure. Or even something very broad. Very broad. Something that makes the nearly universal value for our own individual continued existence seem specific by comparison.

[Zarathustra]

I was getting at the fact that such things cannot be universal, as opposed to, say, measurements of mass.

Man, I hate to be nit-picky, but this goes to the heart of the problem. Measurements of mass are not universal, either, becuase mass itself is not universal or absolute. Mass changes according to velocity; thus, measurements of mass are relative to one's reference frame. This is one of the insights of relativity--a term chosen by Einstein precisely for its distinction from "absolute." Time, space, and mass were previously thought to be absolute according to Newtonian physics. Einstein showed that this ain't so.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather to drive home the point that when trying to come up with an example of an "absolute," we keep running into relative entities. That's probably because nothing in the universe is absolute.

Nerdanel's idea about the greatest total happiness for everyone, for example. If everyone agreed on that, then we could have the basis for a universal morality. At least as it pertains to certain areas of morality. No, it will never happen, but it is within the realm of possibility. And that kind of concensus is significant. We are not talking about physical aspects of the universe - facts that can be learned, revealing whether what we assumed was correct or not. I say my morality is right; you say yours is right; Nerdanel says hers is right - and there is no way to say one actually is. But if everyone agreed, then all would be right. Unlike physical facts, we get to decide right and wrong where morality is concerned.

That's actually a very good point. I was going to chop it up and show where this or that sentence was wrong. But your overall point about us being correct about our own moralities is a good one, and I like how you combined this with universal consensus. True, if this happened, then this morality would be "right" by definition--because we get to do the defining.

However, the issue of a morality being right or correct is separate from the issue of morality being absolute. In discussions about absolute morality, "rightness" or "correctness" of morality is brought up to illustrate the relativity of morality. Just becuase it can be used to illustrate moral relativity doesn't mean it is the same thing as moral relativity; rather, it's an outcome of the relative nature of morality. Even with universal consensus, morality is still not Absolute because it is still relative. The very fact that allows you to say it's universally correct--the fact that we get to choose our morality--is the reason why it's still relative. In your own words, it's not a physical fact.

Further, we could someday learn that we are all hardwired to value something or other. No, I don't suspect so, since we would have noticed by now. But still, there may be something very obscure. Or even something very broad. Very broad. Something that makes the nearly universal value for our own individual continued existence seem specific by comparison.

Even if we found this, it wouldn't imply a universal morality. We are "hardwired" to need oxygen. But there is nothing absolute about this necessity; it is contingent. Many lifeforms (plants) don't share this. And even if there were no examples of lifeforms contradicting this hardwired necessity, the possibility is impossible to eliminate presicely because there is nothing about existence which requires it. Which is another way of saying, "it's not absolute."

[Fist and Faith]

I was getting at the fact that such things cannot be universal, as opposed to, say, measurements of mass.

Man, I hate to be nit-picky, but this goes to the heart of the problem. Measurements of mass are not universal, either, becuase mass itself is not universal or absolute. Mass changes according to velocity; thus, measurements of mass are relative to one's reference frame. This is one of the insights of relativity--a term chosen by Einstein precisely for its distinction from "absolute." Time, space, and mass were previously thought to be absolute according to Newtonian physics. Einstein showed that this ain't so.

Well, if you're going to nip-pick... We can define things in order to make my point. The mass of an object that has velocity X at point A on the planet will be a certain vaule, regardless of who does the measuring. It is objective. Morality is not.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but rather to drive home the point that when trying to come up with an example of an "absolute," we keep running into relative entities. That's probably because nothing in the universe is absolute.

No problems with being argumentative. But just because something is not absolute, doesn't mean it's not objective. Mass may change under different circumstances, but it can be objectively measured under any of those circumstances.

That's actually a very good point. I was going to chop it up and show where this or that sentence was wrong. But your overall point about us being correct about our own moralities is a good one, and I like how you combined this with universal consensus. True, if this happened, then this morality would be "right" by definition--because we get to do the defining.

Everybody see that?? Malik agrees with me on something! In the words of Steve Urkel, I'm wearin' you doooooooown!!

However, the issue of a morality being right or correct is separate from the issue of morality being absolute. In discussions about absolute morality, "rightness" or "correctness" of morality is brought up to illustrate the relativity of morality. Just becuase it can be used to illustrate moral relativity doesn't mean it is the same thing as moral relativity; rather, it's an outcome of the relative nature of morality. Even with universal consensus, morality is still not Absolute because it is still relative. The very fact that allows you to say it's universally correct--the fact that we get to choose our morality--is the reason why it's still relative. In your own words, it's not a physical fact.

OK, I think I'm following you. So here's a question... What if vauling the greatest total good was hardwired into all of us? Would the resulting behaviors be a moral issue? If shoplifters learned how serious shoplifting truly is - how it drives up prices; how people lose jobs because of loss of profits; how companies are even driven out of business; etc. - they would be incapable of shoplifting. Nearly every ruler in history would not have been able to behave the ways they did. Is morality in there somewhere?

Further, we could someday learn that we are all hardwired to value something or other. No, I don't suspect so, since we would have noticed by now. But still, there may be something very obscure. Or even something very broad. Very broad. Something that makes the nearly universal value for our own individual continued existence seem specific by comparison.

Even if we found this, it wouldn't imply a universal morality. We are "hardwired" to need oxygen. But there is nothing absolute about this necessity; it is contingent. Many lifeforms (plants) don't share this. And even if there were no examples of lifeforms contradicting this hardwired necessity, the possibility is impossible to eliminate presicely because there is nothing about existence which requires it. Which is another way of saying, "it's not absolute."

All true. However, I'm not talking about what is needed for anything. I'm talking about what is valued. I need oxygen to live. But if I don't care whether or not I live, oxygen is not a thing of value.

[Cole]

I was getting at the fact that such things cannot be universal, as opposed to, say, measurements of mass.

Man, I hate to be nit-picky, but this goes to the heart of the problem. Measurements of mass are not universal, either, becuase mass itself is not universal or absolute. Mass changes according to velocity; thus, measurements of mass are relative to one's reference frame. This is one of the insights of relativity--a term chosen by Einstein precisely for its distinction from "absolute." Time, space, and mass were previously thought to be absolute according to Newtonian physics. Einstein showed that this ain't so.

I think there is a thread on epistemological relativism somewhere on this board. Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me.

AND I am as close to being in total agreement with you as it's possible for me to be. I just don't dismiss the idea that someone might, possibly, perchance make a cogent argument for the existence of an absolute morality, however unlikely.

[Avatar]

Great posts folks. Am too lazy, and my connection is being too annoying, to contribute more at this point, but I'm really enjoying reading along.

--A