Gloominary wrote:Prismatic567 wrote:
You missed my point.
What I proposed is the moral absolutes are merely to be guides only not to be enforceable at all.
For example,
the moral absolute; "no stealing of whatever is permitted."
therefore the ideal expectation is ZERO crime of theft.
Note this is only a moral guide.
On the ethical side, the expectation is ZERO crime with provisions for various circumstances;
In practice, let say at the end of one year, 10,000 crimes of theft with a range of degrees of seriousness are recorded and the thieves are charged in accordance to the law and legislation of the land.
Thus, we have a moral gap of 10,000 crimes of theft, i.e.1. Moral absolute ideal = Zero theft
2. Ethical reality = 10,000 thefts
3. Therefore moral gap = 10,000
Note the critical utility of the moral absolute in enabling the computation of the moral gap.
In this instance, the root causes of the moral gap of 10,000 and all the variables contributing to the gap must be investigated. The causes may be impoverished/disenfranchised and there will be loads of other factors that contribute to the 10,000 thefts.
Once the majority of the causes are identified, attempts, research, analyzes, solutions and strategies will be implemented to strive to reduce the moral gap from 10,000 to 8000, 7000, and gradually to as close as possible to ideal, i.e. ZERO.
What is advantages in this approach is initial studies will enable research to go deeper and deeper in to the root causes, e.g. using advances of neuroscience, genomic, technology, IT, AI etc.. This will also involve increasing all the relevant average quotients I mentioned above.
In most cases, the ideal will not be achieved but at least the reasons for the variances are known and concerted efforts need to be made to reduce to it to as close as possible to the ideal.
If we do not adopt moral absolutes as guides, then we will be strategizing upon a moving subjective goal post without an efficient standard to improve upon.
I agree that under ideal circumstances there should be 0 thefts and murders.
However, practically theft and murder may be necessary to combat greater evils, like the evils of poverty, disenfranchisement or say a plague that threatens to spread from one village to the rest of the world and wipe out 99.8% of the population if we don't drop a bomb on it.
Of course it's better to reduce poverty, disenfranchisement, plague and so on as much as we can non-violently rather than resort to extreme measures.
You are still not getting my point.
Take the analogy of a thermostat in any system as in your heater, oven or any equipment that has a temperature control.
Generally you will have to fix a temperature to be achieved and maintained.
The thermostat will ensure the expected temperature is achieved and if it get lower the machine will be activated to increase it the desired temperature.
It is same with any system where a fixed target is set and the feedback control will trigger the system to take corrective actions to adjust to meet the targeted objective.
As I had mentioned, I have introduced a Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.
In such a system the fixed target to be achieved is the ideal moral absolutes.
Note the setting of the ideal does not meant we MUST achieve the ideal at all times or even one time because there are loads of varying circumstances.
But the ideal moral absolute is necessary as a guide and reference point for the system to adjust and improve towards the ideal and the striving for improvement for the current status.
Point is the ideal moral absolutes do not exists in reality but they need to be reasoned out and used as a theoretical standard to guide the practical for continuous improvement.
The use of the ideal moral absolutes will not necessary bring immediate contrasting results but the system will enable the drive for continuous improvements toward the future for the well being of the individual and the collective.