I feel, perhaps wrongly, that this is a non-sequitur.
You can't state that morality isn't absolute, but then use an argument to justify why a moral absolute (The Right Thing) defends the proceeding statement.
I agree with 1, sometimes agree with 2, but 3 just doesn't follow for me.
> The fact that you, me, and the parent poster all disagree about points 1-3 seem to hint that morality isn't absolute, no?
I would clarify that our view of morality is relative, but I think all of us believe in some sort of baseline sense of morality that we feel is wrong (or right) in any context, and for any person.
We may disagree on the details and priority, but I believe most people share a common sense of morality.
And I didn't mean to imply that my comment was a criticism of your personal beliefs, but that the syllogism didn't follow for me.
But I do see your point as far as the contrasting of the opening statement and the moral framework don't need to share a logical consistency.
I see, I think we haven't yet defined what we mean by "Morality". I'm taking it to include the details, and you I think are referring to something deeper?
I suspect most people (non sociopaths) base their morality on emotion, and some things are really hardwired, like disliking injustice (3rd party punishment is a really interesting topic on that).
But the "details and priorities" vary so much in the real world... I've met people who believe strongly in affirmative action type policies, and those who believe strongly against them. I think both think the other side is being unfair, so if what I guessed above is true, then the underlying "morality" you defined would be the desire for "fairness"?
As for how someone could come up with those "details and priorities", perhaps they would rather fund NASA than fight homelessness: they would rather invest in the high-end because the technology breakthroughs could have orders of magnitude more impact on poverty than simply redistributing money. I've witnessed many an argument over whether or not it was more "moral" to put money into "wasteful" endeavors like science funding when people are still struggling to get by even in America, not to mention the world at large.
I'm so sorry for the delay in the response, I'm just now seeing yours.
I want to say thank you for engaging me in this, as to be honest, many hate these conversations or it devolves quickly, but I'm hoping this doesn't :)
I tend to think that the morality we discuss is fairly common even if it's a mix of what we intrinsically feel and what we observe.
One case I can point to is C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man, in his description and the the Tao.
You can see that for the most part, throughout recorded history there's a common sense of right and wrong.
So I guess all of that to say, I try not to base my morality on emotion, especially in cases where my emotions line up with my morality (those tend to be the blind spots).
I think that morality is a wide spectrum rainbow that we all truly desire to hit, and that most "sin" comes from focusing on the wrong parts or the right parts at the wrong time.
But regarding some of your points, I guess some things in my view, like affirmative action policies don't count directly to morality (though maybe indirectly), at least in my opinion.
I guess I focus morality towards those things we all see over the millennia, and ethics tend to be more temporal, though still critical.
Anyways, this one is always tough to get deep into without establishing first principles :)
> The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK)
And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water. Simply flouting the law for private profit is hard to tie back to a sense of morality
> You disagree with what the government spends tax money on
Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal
>And if they were working on changing the law, or explicitly appealing to justice, that might carry some water.
Google/corporations as whole regularly do spend their money on lobbying/political pursuits. This is rather often criticized however.
>Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal
Are you conflating Google avoiding taxes as theft? If so, why is there a governmental right to corporate earnings, especially considering tax shelters are using legal loopholes?
Further, how is it morally correct for me to donate money to a government that I fundamentally disagree with, as by giving them money I am atleast financially supporting their acts?
By "run over", you surely mean getting to serve in the best interest of citizens, who elect those politicians. Instead of doing what's democratically decided, they'd rather legally bribe politicians to get the laws written to benefit their narrow interests. This is the very definition of private interest overriding and buying their way over public good.
Did you mean "instead of doing what's decided by competing lobbyists"? I completely agree that lobbying should not exist, but in a system where it does, trying to get by without doing it yourself might be disastrous if you're going up against those who have no such qualms.
> Your moral remedy for this is to vote, not to steal
The fact that people can disagree with that might hint that morality is a bit more complex than absolute.. unless we talk to philosophy departments which like to push absolute morality, which seems to me like a scheme to create never ending debate ;)
I could see an argument that robin hood was a moral figure in his time. I could see the morality in a contentious objector who goes to the front line to shoot at the sky, or in Schindler purposefully minting defective rounds, or in the sit-ins and civil disobedience of the 60s. And I can also see morality in protesting an abortion clinic, even though I don't personally agree with those protestors.
But this is of course difficult to grapple with at least on a larger level because it can create a lot of chaos when we're all off forcing our own moral choices on others.
1. The letter of the law and the Right Thing aren't always the same thing (jury nullification, MLK)
2. You disagree with what the government spends tax money on
3. You think AI progress is a form of "doing good"