Are there moral absolutes?

[davidcasey2]

Is there any such thing as moral absolutes, or is everything relative to the times?

[Chiasmus]

I imagine premeditated murder and rape are rather morally wrong despite any circumstances.

[davidcasey2]

Certainly, because that violates societal norm. How about other issues, such as homosexuality? Is there an absolute authority governing the rightness/wrongness of actions which are not so detrimental to society?

[cpwill]

soooo....... in 1864 slavery was okay as long as it was only in the south?

in 1700 it was okay to burn people of other religions, but only if you were in massachussets?

etc. etc....

[davidcasey2]

I'm not arguing with you. I happen to believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of absolute principles - without this sort of moral compass, then morality is relative, as you suggested, to the area or times you're from.

[Duo_Maxwell]

there are a few absolutes.

A few.

[davidcasey2]

Well, if there are indeed only "a few absolutes", then who is to decide? Unless there is a being higher than ourselves to establish absolutes, then everything is relative.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
I'm not arguing with you. I happen to believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of absolute principles - without this sort of moral compass, then morality is relative, as you suggested, to the area or times you're from. And what are you going to do with people like me who believe that the Bible is a good novel?

Christainity doesn't have exclusive rights to morality.

A child of three can explain in their way, why killing is wrong, and there knowledge of the Bible is sketchy as best.

[up2date]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
I'm not arguing with you. I happen to believe that the Bible is the ultimate source of absolute principles - without this sort of moral compass, then morality is relative, as you suggested, to the area or times you're from. Originally posted by davidcasey2
Well, if there are indeed only "a few absolutes", then who is to decide? Unless there is a being higher than ourselves to establish absolutes, then everything is relative.Your second statement is a nice commentary on the first. The Bible may indeed be a moral compass for a great many people, but it is of course relative.

[davidcasey2]

But, logically, if there is a God who is above humanity, then his standards are by extension higher than man's standards. That's where absolute truth comes from.

[up2date]

It's difficult to argue logic in matters of God. Belief in God requires faith, and faith often defies logic.

Since belief in God is not universal, and of those that do believe in God there are many variations, it is indeed relative.

[davidcasey2]

If it is relative, then what standard do you use as basis for right and wrong? (Certainly, some things are blatantly obvious; don't kill, don't steal, etc.) But what about more difficult issues?

[up2date]

The roots of my value system are far too complicated for me to relay in a post on a message board. It is probably too complicated for me to understand completely myself. There were many sources, and religion was not a major one. I'm sure religion was a factor in helping shape the values of some of the people I learned from, and so it was indirectly a factor, but again not a major one.

[Blueangel]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
If it is relative, then what standard do you use as basis for right and wrong? (Certainly, some things are blatantly obvious; don't kill, don't steal, etc.) But what about more difficult issues? Don't kill - because it's painful, people get upset and you get into lots of trouble over it.

Don't steal - because it's not fair and people get upset/angry at you.

Don't worship false idols - because people get mad at you for it and they usually turn out to be gold statues of something daft like a cow, or coked up to the eyeballs. :D

Don't covet your neighbours wife - because your own wife will get mad at you, probably slander you all over town and tell other women how ill equiped you are for the job. This is just before she takes half your home, tries to stop you seeing your kids and files for a divorce that means you have to financialy support her and your kids for donkeys years to come. You'll end up working ridiculously long hours and only be able to afford a bedsit for yourself, by which point, no woman with half a brain cell would look twice at you.
And I haven't even started on what her husband will do to you when he finds out! :D

Honour your father and mother - because if you don't they'll kick you out, not let you borrow the car for that hot date of saturday night or cut you out of their will. And don't ever forget that they paid for all your food and clothes for most of your young life, etc, etc, etc,...

I could carry on for ages...but you get my drift?

Most morality is down to basic common sense.
If you treat others as you would like to be treated, it all works out eventually.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Well, if there are indeed only "a few absolutes", then who is to decide? Unless there is a being higher than ourselves to establish absolutes, then everything is relative.

I have a book for you to read.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201368/qid=1070855309//ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i0_xgl14/104-2960913-7523105?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I'll let socractes speak for me.

[Vic]

moral is absolutly relative.

take the aztecs as an example, they treated Death as something totally normal, they made human sacrifices with the consent of the population, noone did anything if a father killed his own son, there weren´t many rules about murdering in the population

they were kind of obsessed with Death.

now tell me that morals are not relative to you this might sound really scary but the aztecs grew up with it and thought this was totally normal.

a few centuries ago many people thought slavery is something acceptable and normal, only very few people jugded slavery. They thought they were doing the right thing, they thought the blacks were less worth then the white man. even the church.

now somone tell me again moral isn´t relative.

no person is born with a specific moral, there isn´t a absolute truth either, there is no absolute "good" either.

In a society, the moral depends on what the majority in a society thinks.

if most Americans believe, that killing is bad, as do most people in the world, then it will be viewed as something bad, to make an example.

I was really surprised that with me only 2 people voted for moral relativism....

many israelis see the muslims as the bad people while many muslims see the jews as bad people. Who´s right?

[davidcasey2]

You used this Aztecs human sacrifice as an example. Just because they practiced it, does not necessarily make it right, correct? If I remember right, the Spanish came in and made Catholicism widespread in S. America, and human sacrifices stopped.

[Vic]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
You used this Aztecs human sacrifice as an example. Just because they practiced it, does not necessarily make it right, correct? If I remember right, the Spanish came in and made Catholicism widespread in S. America, and human sacrifices stopped.

It was right in THEIR society, and that´s what really counts, don´t you think? The spanish thought, they were a barbaric culture. Thats because they had a totally different Sense of morality.

Just try once to get into another peoples point of view.

please try to imagine, somone that grows up in such a society, this person actulally is convinced, that what his culture is doing, is absolutly right and ok !!
They believe in those gods and also belive, that they have to do sacrifices in order to not piss off their gods.

in Asia they eat cats and dogs, most western people think this is gross. But the asian people think it´s ok, it´s not wrong for them.

[davidcasey2]

Well, first of all, eating cats and dogs is hardly a moral issue...

Second, we'll probably never get anywhere on this debate. I believe in a higher power, because I don't think the universe could have possibly come from nothing: even Aristotle argued for a "prime mover." You don't believe, I assume, in any being higher than humanity, am I correct? Being of your persuasion, of course there are no absolute principles to guide us. We are essentially animals, evolved into a higher order than most. I would argue, however, that it was just as wrong for the Aztecs to commit human sacrifice as it is for Americans to kill.

[Vic]

I don´t have to prove the existence or unexistence of a god, because I don´t really care if there´s a higher power.

But you see: You think the sacrifices made by aztecian people are not right, well that´s what YOU think. But the aztec people, as a SOCIETY, think it´s not wrong, it´s right, in order to please their gods.

They don´t care if you think it´s not right.

As a SOCIETY they just don´t care, well they didn´t care, cause they don´t exist anymore.

[davidcasey2]

I'm sure the people being sacrificed would disagree with you.

[up2date]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
I'm sure the people being sacrificed would disagree with you. Not necessarily. I'm no expert in this area, but I do believe there were cultures where it was considered a high honor to be selected for sacrifice.

[cpwill]

and in other cultures it was merely the price you paid for losing a war or being the youngest daughter....

[davidcasey2]

Originally posted by up2date
Not necessarily. I'm no expert in this area, but I do believe there were cultures where it was considered a high honor to be selected for sacrifice.
You are correct; but that still does not make it right. Just because someone wants to die, does not mean that it is appropriate for someone else to kill them. We are about to face this same issue in our country with euthenasia; some will argue that murder, like everything, is relative, so if elderly people or defected babies are no use to the society, kill them. Others, though, with an absolute basis for their worldview, will certainly recognize that just because a group of people advocate something like euthenasia, that does not mean that it is morally or even ethically acceptable.

[Vic]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
You are correct; but that still does not make it right. Just because someone wants to die, does not mean that it is appropriate for someone else to kill them. We are about to face this same issue in our country with euthenasia; some will argue that murder, like everything, is relative, so if elderly people or defected babies are no use to the society, kill them. Others, though, with an absolute basis for their worldview, will certainly recognize that just because a group of people advocate something like euthenasia, that does not mean that it is morally or even ethically acceptable.

let me put is this way:

before the spanish went to colonize America, there was only the aztec society:

it was their society that decided what was right and what was wrong, not some people in Europe.

from, now get this into your head, from YOUR point of view, it´s wrong to make sacrifices, of course, i also consider it to be wrong. but that is because of the culture in which we both grew up, we grew with some basic moral laws in which our culture believes in (with some variations).
the aztecs did the same, with the difference that they didn´t consider sacrificing humans as a bad thing. The majority considered it to be normal: now this is the point, if a majority thinks sacrifices are right, then they are right, in that society. They think just like you, that they are doing the right thing with sacrifices when you think you are doing the right thing by opposing sacrifices.

Ýou can´t say the aztecs have been acting bad and wrong for their whole existence, it´s all relative.

This thing with sacrifice is an extreme example, i know that, but i thought this would be the best way to make it clear, that moral issues are relative.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Moral Absolutes exist independently of mankind.

They are good in themselves, not because people believe them to be.

Now how we find those is another question.

[davidcasey2]

Well said.

[bama47]

Popular opinion will take u down that wide road to destruction.

[Chiasmus]

I have to agree with Duo.

On the topic of sacrifices, well, I suppose that is wrong, on all grounds, regardless of culture, but I really don't know enough to say either way.

Euthanizing the 'defects' of society, a la Hitler, is a better example. This is inarguably wrong. Of course, to the Nazis, it was perfectly acceptable; that does not make it right. Whatever they thought, they were completely wrong.

It's kind of like the quote "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Morality has to be ground in some basic beliefs, transcendent of culture.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I now understand why Plato's Republic is the 2nd most studied text in the West.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Chiasmus
I have to agree with Duo.

On the topic of sacrifices, well, I suppose that is wrong, on all grounds, regardless of culture, but I really don't know enough to say either way.

Euthanizing the 'defects' of society, a la Hitler, is a better example. This is inarguably wrong. Of course, to the Nazis, it was perfectly acceptable; that does not make it right. Whatever they thought, they were completely wrong.

It's kind of like the quote "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Morality has to be ground in some basic beliefs, transcendent of culture.

You see, you are "convinced" to represent the right moral values.

So were the nazis, the aztecs, the communists, and everybody else that has different moral values than you.

Why do you think, that somone that is equally convinced as you are, is wrong when the other ones think exactly the same way about you as you think about them?

imagine you were born in another culture, you certainly wouldn´t believe in christian values, but in the values that the other society believes in.

[Duo_Maxwell]

find the few morals all cultures and societies share. Remember, there are very, very, few.

[Vic]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
find the few morals all cultures and societies share. Remember, there are very, very, few.

Tell me one moral that all cultures and society share and also have shared in the past. Please, i´m all ears (eyes actually)

Now with globalisation it´s kind of logical that today there exist so many common moral values worldwide.

But this wasn´t the case till a few centuries ago.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Right now I don't know. I'm not a sociologist or antropologist.

But If i had to venture a guess, each do what comes best to them. Think about it. It sound odd, simple, and weird, but it has far reaching affects into each society...

[ScummyD]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
How about other issues, such as homosexuality? Is there an absolute authority governing the rightness/wrongness of actions which are not so detrimental to society?
I would say that in certain aspects homosexuality is detrimental to society. Homosexuals can not reproduce under their lifestyle and therefore can not continue society.

[Captain America]

I would say that in certain aspects homosexuality is detrimental to society. Homosexuals can not reproduce under their lifestyle and therefore can not continue society.

And you consider this to be detrimental to society? What about all the hetro men that can't reproduce? Are they a detriment as well?

The only way I could validate your arguement is if all men were homosexual and refused to reproduce. That is not now, or never has, or never will be the case. So in my opinion, that argument is not a valid one.

Why do people fear homo's so bad? For the most part, they are harmless people just trying to survive. Why make it harder on them than it already is?

[davidcasey2]

Originally posted by Vic
You are "convinced" to represent the right moral values.

So were the nazis, the aztecs, the communists, and everybody else that has different moral values than you.


Even if you don't accept the Judeo-Christian worldview, which I believe serves as, at least, a great set of guidelines for how to live one's life, philosophers beginning in the enlightenment have argued that EVERY individual is entitled to a "pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines." That line, of course, is from the declaration of independence, but it is simply an elaborate way to say that men are endowed with a right to have their property protected. This is NOT a religious argument, it is a philosophical argument which has stood for almost 300 years since the days of the great enlightened thinkers like Voltaire and Locke. Even a secular philosopher recognizes that people have certain rights, which should not be abused. The colonists recognized this universal truth, and the United States exists today because of it. The Jews, slaves, and the sacrificed Aztec warriors all had these rights - their right to protection of property did not somehow cease to exist just because a large group of people were BRAINWASHED (esp. in the case of the Nazis in Germany) into a moral worldview that justifies slavery and genocide.

[Duo_Maxwell]

I would say that in certain aspects homosexuality is detrimental to society. Homosexuals can not reproduce under their lifestyle and therefore can not continue society.

This argument is about to go through the window. Current fertility methods allow a donor egg to be purged of its genetic material, a combined code from both homosexual partners added, and place in a surrogate mother. Thus we have two gay partners producing a child and contiuning society.

Gotcha there.

[ScummyD]

Give me a break with that crap. Current fertility methods... This is getting ridiculous.

[ScummyD]

Originally posted by Captain America
And you consider this to be detrimental to society? What about all the hetro men that can't reproduce? Are they a detriment as well?

The only way I could validate your arguement is if all men were homosexual and refused to reproduce. That is not now, or never has, or never will be the case. So in my opinion, that argument is not a valid one.

Why do people fear homo's so bad? For the most part, they are harmless people just trying to survive. Why make it harder on them than it already is?
I don't fear homosexuals in any sense of the word.
As far as reproduction is concerned homosexuality is a loss to society. Hetro men that can't reproduce also represent a loss. In terms of proliferation of society both are detrimental.

[Duo_Maxwell]

it is going to happen in a few years.

http://www.antipas.org/news/world/men_babies.html

The treatment, overturning millions of years of evolution, would allow homosexual couples to have children and help heterosexuals if the woman could not become pregnant.

http://www.netlondon.com/news/2000-39/83B1C7304FBD063C802.html

http://www.lightforthelastdays.co.uk/docs/science_evolution/biotech_revolution.html

[Vic]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
their right to protection of property did not somehow cease to exist just because a large group of people were BRAINWASHED

How can you know, that YOU havn´t been brainwashed by the bible or your goverment?

I mean, as a brainwashed you are convinced that you actually aren´t brainwashed, but that you represent right and fight wrong. right?

[Chiasmus]

In times like these, when we are harping on the exceptions, we have to look at them as outliers.

What are the trancendent moral values of all cultures? Not including those that buck the trend and go seriously away, but those that resemble one another? There are moral values that can be linked between the great societies of the world. The vast majority adhere to a certain set of principles.

Not to mention, though I wonder whether it hasn't already been stated and I missed it, that the major religions of the world share similar beliefs at their core.

[davidcasey2]

Here's my problem with the moral relativist argument. By extension of the principle, everything is admissable. According to relativists, the terrorists who killed thousands at the World Trade Center were not in the wrong, because they were doing exactly what they believed to be right. Killing innocent people is wrong, period.

[Vic]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
Here's my problem with the moral relativist argument. By extension of the principle, everything is admissable. According to relativists, the terrorists who killed thousands at the World Trade Center were not in the wrong, because they were doing exactly what they believed to be right. Killing innocent people is wrong, period.

mabye, but remember, the US goverment has also killed a lot of innocent people. So don´t throw that argument only on the terrorists.

Both accept those civilian losses for their purpose.

so the killing of civilians is according to both not wrong.

eitherway, sure the terrorists think they are doing the right thing, after all they think USA is the devil.

[davidcasey2]

Originally posted by Vic
mabye, but remember, the US goverment has also killed a lot of innocent people. So don´t throw that argument only on the terrorists.

There is a profound difference between terrorists who intentionally target innocent civilians, and a coalition that sometimes, and very unfortunately, takes innocent lives while fighting against the evils of terrorism. It is similar to the difference between first degree murder and an unintentional manslaughter. Both are unfortunate, but motive is everything.

[Vic]

Originally posted by davidcasey2
There is a profound difference between terrorists who intentionally target innocent civilians, and a coalition that sometimes, and very unfortunately, takes innocent lives while fighting against the evils of terrorism. It is similar to the difference between first degree murder and an unintentional manslaughter. Both are unfortunate, but motive is everything.

where´s the difference??? there is no difference in my opinion. on both motivatons people die.

The result is the same, people die.

The excuse is the same: it´s for our cause.

The people that suffer because of that, it´s the same, it´s the families.

You are not fighting the terrorists to fight a world threat, you are fighting the terrorist because they are a threat to western societies.

[Duo_Maxwell]

There is only one true terrorist in this world:

The scum who uses terror for their own sole, personnal gain.

Here's a little thing i wrote a while ago.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."

Those two terms are essentially the same. They are labels that people attach according to their own beliefs. The US and many of its people label Osama Bin Laden as a terrorists, however, many people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other parts of the Middle East consider him a defender of Arabs against the "great Satan," a guardian of Islam, a shield between them and the horrors of western civilization.

Many people think that when they label a person or a group, the rest of the world concurs with that title. Just because Donald Rumsfeld thinks Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, doesn't mean he's a terrorist to the rest of the human race. Many Middle Eastern people, and many in Europe consider George W. Bush to be a terrorist and one the most dangerous men on the planet. That attitude applies to John Ashcroft as well, while the typical American likes to think of those two as defenders of the American way of life and the ideals of freedom and liberty.

This doesn’t solely apply to high profile characters. Many Iraqis think of coalition troops as terrorists against their homeland, and consider the Iraqi resistance fighters to be freedom fighters trying to evict the invaders. They see coalition troops as terrorists by bringing war to their country, killing women and children in cold blood, and essentially making them second rate citizens in their own country.

Another perfect example of the terrorist verse freedom fighter labeling is the bloody, endless conflict involving the people of the Jewish state of Israel and Palestinians.

Some think of Palestinians fighting for their freedom from Israel as freedom fighters. Israeli troops and civilians consider Palestine fighters and suicide bombers as terrorists, and one cannot fail to see how they have reached this conclusion. The Palestine group named Hamas has one ultimate goal: complete and utter destruction of Israel at any cost. To many Palestinians, Hamas is an organization devoted to the return of their land taken away by the creation of the Jewish state, a return of their freedoms, a return of the life without the oppression of the Israeli military. To the Israelis, Hamas is a threat of their very way of life. Hamas is both a terrorist organization and a group of freedom fighters dedicated to the pursuit of an independent, free Palestinian state.

Americans have a tendency to label and not think about how the rest of the world thinks. They label groups and people “terrorists,” and demand everyone follows their lead. However, Americans skip over the very beginning of the start of their thinking. During the war for independence, Tories and the British considered colonial fighters and their supporters terrorists against the crown for their shooting of officers, destruction of property, and theft of munitions and food.

The distinction is in the eye of the beholder

[Vic]

Originally posted by Duo_Maxwell
There is only one true terrorist in this world:

The scum who uses terror for their own sole, personnal gain.

Here's a little thing i wrote a while ago.

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter."

Those two terms are essentially the same. They are labels that people attach according to their own beliefs. The US and many of its people label Osama Bin Laden as a terrorists, however, many people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and other parts of the Middle East consider him a defender of Arabs against the "great Satan," a guardian of Islam, a shield between them and the horrors of western civilization.

Many people think that when they label a person or a group, the rest of the world concurs with that title. Just because Donald Rumsfeld thinks Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist, doesn't mean he's a terrorist to the rest of the human race. Many Middle Eastern people, and many in Europe consider George W. Bush to be a terrorist and one the most dangerous men on the planet. That attitude applies to John Ashcroft as well, while the typical American likes to think of those two as defenders of the American way of life and the ideals of freedom and liberty.

This doesn’t solely apply to high profile characters. Many Iraqis think of coalition troops as terrorists against their homeland, and consider the Iraqi resistance fighters to be freedom fighters trying to evict the invaders. They see coalition troops as terrorists by bringing war to their country, killing women and children in cold blood, and essentially making them second rate citizens in their own country.

Another perfect example of the terrorist verse freedom fighter labeling is the bloody, endless conflict involving the people of the Jewish state of Israel and Palestinians.

Some think of Palestinians fighting for their freedom from Israel as freedom fighters. Israeli troops and civilians consider Palestine fighters and suicide bombers as terrorists, and one cannot fail to see how they have reached this conclusion. The Palestine group named Hamas has one ultimate goal: complete and utter destruction of Israel at any cost. To many Palestinians, Hamas is an organization devoted to the return of their land taken away by the creation of the Jewish state, a return of their freedoms, a return of the life without the oppression of the Israeli military. To the Israelis, Hamas is a threat of their very way of life. Hamas is both a terrorist organization and a group of freedom fighters dedicated to the pursuit of an independent, free Palestinian state.

Americans have a tendency to label and not think about how the rest of the world thinks. They label groups and people “terrorists,” and demand everyone follows their lead. However, Americans skip over the very beginning of the start of their thinking. During the war for independence, Tories and the British considered colonial fighters and their supporters terrorists against the crown for their shooting of officers, destruction of property, and theft of munitions and food.

The distinction is in the eye of the beholder


Want to add something:

WAR is the TERROR of the rich, TERROR the WAR of the poor.

it applies to many cases.

But in the end, both, (War and Terror) have only one objective: Destruction.

[Duo_Maxwell]

Vic: While you are correct, that belongs more to a macro-view of it. A global view. Not necessarily a small, country by country, person by person view of it.

[EvilTwinFelicia]

I've read most of the posts in this thread, a few I have skipped over. I say this, so no one thinks I have read each and every post.

Now-- no man is born knowing about God. No man is born with morals. How to act, how to behave-- all this is taught.

Each person can rationalize their actions. A hungry person will steal, and rationalize the action in many different ways. Another person could kill twenty people, and rationalize those actions as well.

There is no moral absolute. Each person can think of at least ten examples of rational "immorality" and "irrational" morality.