A life without absolutes

[JVAC]

This is a discussion intended to carry over from a subject discussed on the "Homosexuality and the Church" posts.

The main purpose of this thread is to talk about the role of absolutes in the lives of the christian/atheist/agnostic/whosoever. For this thread we will take the assumption of there being 'absolutely no absolutes' . (to those christians that think this assumption would be heresy here is a word of solace 'Our God doesn't cease to be no matter what we assume in our dialoges') So, some general questions to ponder...

1. If there are no absolutes, aren't morals arbitrary?
2. How can we judge others on arbitrary morals?
3. Are we better off without absolutes?
4. Other questions...

Feel free to discuss tangential subjects but do not try to prove or disprove God for that discussion is futile herein. With respect to what we are discussing, quotations from any source can be used, but you don't have to accept what it says.

Shall we begin....

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I personally believe that the intent of a person is of more concearn than the action. A woman kills a man. Okay... on the surface this is 'wrong' but looking at the situation let's eleborate: A woman kills a man because he is about to smash in her head with a brick. Not wrong anymore is it?

 

[Blissman]

This is a discussion intended to carry over from a subject discussed on the "Homosexuality and the Church" posts.

The main purpose of this thread is to talk about the role of absolutes in the lives of the christian/atheist/agnostic/whosoever. For this thread we will take the assumption of there being 'absolutely no absolutes' . (to those christians that think this assumption would be heresy here is a word of solace 'Our God doesn't cease to be no matter what we assume in our dialoges') So, some general questions to ponder...

1. If there are no absolutes, aren't morals arbitrary?
2. How can we judge others on arbitrary morals?
3. Are we better off without absolutes?
4. Other questions...

Feel free to discuss tangential subjects but do not try to prove or disprove God for that discussion is futile herein. With respect to what we are discussing, quotations from any source can be used, but you don't have to accept what it says.

Shall we begin....

I forsee a problem with this. I do not assume that because there is (or should there be) an absolute (s) that therefor there are morals (or morality).

Aside from the obvious, that being that you could have absolutes that are absolutely immoral, you can also have absolutes and people ignore them
(be the absolutes be moral or immoral).

As to judgement, I suspect that we would judge people with or without a set of formal proscribed acts or thoughts.

Are we better off without absolutes? That would depend on the absolute(s).
If you were a member of a cult faith, in which one of the tennents was to commit murder, then obviously, you would be better w/out that absolute.

 

[Zoot]

1. If there are no absolutes, aren't morals arbitrary?

Not really, but I get the feeling that by "arbitrary" you might mean "not absolute", which poses a problem.

2. How can we judge others on arbitrary morals?

You're right! And that's one of my favourite pastimes. Darn.

3. Are we better off without absolutes?

Better off in what sense?

 

[revolutio]

I view morals as systems imposed the ensure happiness to yourself and your fellow man. If you look at most of the basic principals in law (i.e. freedom) and ask "Why?" The answer is always ultimately "because it makes people happy". So happiness certainly does exist however what instigates it varies widely from person to person. The same goes for its converse, sadness.

To excessively simplify:
1. Things that make people happy are good.
2. Things that make people sad are bad.
3. Things that do neither don't matter.

However that is just in regards to net happiness. Happiness not being a quantitative value it is excessively tough to determine what actions do net a positive amount of happiness and what don't.

Though the absolute does exist in my opinion we can't really know it since emotions are such complex things that we can barely understand our own much less compare and contrast effectively with those of others. The best we can do is try and figure out what works and what doesn't.

 

[Blissman]

I believe that morals serve a survival function. (Although we really need to define 'morals' v 'morality')

Since we have free will, we make choices about our conduct. If our conduct harms ourselves, and/or others, it could potentially end our survival (of one, a few, or everyone). Perhaps we need rules of conduct that define what is harmful from that which is not. Rules, like laws, are defined limits - both what you must, and must not do. Morality, IMHO, is our wisdom to be able to judge our potential actions (to test in reality that which we would do), where there are clear laws and rules, and too where there are none.

 

[ps139]

For this thread we will take the assumption of there being 'absolutely no absolutes'

This statement is logically impossible. If there are absolutely no absolutes, then I can never be absolutely sure that that statement is true. It is logical fallacy. I don;t know if anyone here ever watches "The Family Guy," but there is one hilarious scene where he says: "Everything I say is a lie. Except That. And that. And that. 'N that. n that n that n that n that........" It goes onto infinity. Therefore there must be absolutes. But even so I'll go along with this for discussion purposes.

1. If there are no absolutes, aren't morals arbitrary?
2. How can we judge others on arbitrary morals?
3. Are we better off without absolutes?
4. Other questions...

If there are no absolutes, then morals would be arbitrary. Therefore we cannot judge by them, because no standards exist.
We are worse off without absolutes because there is nothing to base anything on. In that world opinion could only be based on opinion, you could never with 100% certainty say "This is." There would be no right or wrong, no reason for a standard of any kind, and the world (natural world also, not just people) would be very chaotic and anarchic.

To excessively simplify:
1. Things that make people happy are good.
2. Things that make people sad are bad.
3. Things that do neither don't matter.

When you discuss bad and good, happy and sad, you do not define whether it is in the short term or the long term. For instance, death. Nobody is happy when someone dies. So going by that logic, death is bad. Would it then be good to all be immortal, so that everyone is happy? No, because in the long run, there wouldnt be space to move, resources would run out.

Also think of what can make you happy - if you indulge in it too much it becomes unhealthy. A person might drink and feel happier. But he might drink to much and feel sad or sick. And he might become an alcoholic and incur physical and mental problems.

What is "good" and what is "evil" must be judged on both short term and long term merits.

 

[Pooty]

1. If there are no absolutes, aren't morals arbitrary?
2. How can we judge others on arbitrary morals?
3. Are we better off without absolutes?
4. Other questions...

1.Morals are created by what one sees as beneficial/un-beneficial to them. Morals differ from person to person exactly because they are not absolute.

2. Judgement is usually made by a group of people... in, say, a trial. The defendant is judged based usually on the morals of the people who wrote the laws in the first place. When we judge someone in a less structured way, say based on someone's character, we are only making it apparent of our perception of them. Like when I say "Mike is a horrible person." It's because that's how I feel about Mike.

3. We would be better off WITH absolutes because then everyone would agree on what is right and wrong and there'd be a lot less (if any) bickering and fighting about it.

The important thing to realize is that it requires out perception to make something good or bad. Killing, for example, in unbiased reality is just an action, devoid of the stamp of 'good' or 'bad'.


Hmm... I reread the OP, and I am thinking not all of the questions were about morals? But actually, about absolutes themselves? I will just reanswer some of the questions accordingly.

3. Absolutes outside of bias and un-apparent things DO exist. And we are better with them. Blue is blue. No matter what it's called, it is what it is. Best way to put it: "Things are what they are."

Just one I guess.

 

[revolutio]

What is "good" and what is "evil" must be judged on both short term and long term merits.

Actually only the long term is relevant. And by long term I mean forever. I didn't really mention it since the majority of actions have only immediate rammifications. To judge anything on its short term merits alone is childish.

That I is why I talked of net happiness. Because everything can have potential good and bad results at a variety of times.

 

[JVAC]

[/size][/font]



This statement is logically impossible. If there are absolutely no absolutes, then I can never be absolutely sure that that statement is true. It is logical fallacy. I don;t know if anyone here ever watches "The Family Guy," but there is one hilarious scene where he says: "Everything I say is a lie. Except That. And that. And that. 'N that. n that n that n that n that........" It goes onto infinity. Therefore there must be absolutes. But even so I'll go along with this for discussion purposes.

Just for the record I know it is a paradox, and the reason I posted it that way, was for comical relief.

 

[klaus]

Just for the record I know it is a paradox, and the reason I posted it that way, was for comical relief.

also just for the record: it is but seemingly a paradox. and the poster himself was victim of a logic fallacy.
there can be contradicting statements on different levels, that are not neccessarily paradox. "everything i say is a lie" is a statement about lower level statements (i.e. what i usually say), it is a "meta-statement". "exept that" is again a meta-statement and so on.
a genuine paradox requires that the two contradicting statements, that are both true, are on the same level of communication.

to show, why the given example is just linguistic trickery (though very fascinating):

when i write down here:
"everything i write, is a lie", it is - according to the poster - a paradox.
if i speak the same phrase "everything i write, is a lie", there is no more paradox, although it is exactly the same statement, meaning the same.
the only difference in the second case is: it is perfectly clear, that it is a meta-statement, whereas this can´t be expressed when using the same medium that i make a statement about.

 

[klaus]

1. If there are no absolutes, aren't morals arbitrary?
2. How can we judge others on arbitrary morals?
3. Are we better off without absolutes?

firstly thanks to JVAC for giving this topic a new home. JVAC and i had started to discuss it hard, but friendly.
i´m sure he did his best to describe the open questions here.
that said, my questions and statements were in fact a bit different.
JVAC, i hope you don´t mind me quoting from my last, unanswered post in "homosexuality and christianity" (interested readers please go there to follow the previous development of the discussion):

my main statements are:
1. "absolutes" are man-made, hence they are no absolutes.
2. "absolutes" are per se dangerous.

ad 1. i assume that even you and i can agree on this: the most general attribute of god is, that he is absolute. if he isn´t, he isn´t god. right?
let´s now think of a young person, who is offered all the multiple gods, that are available in this world. seriously studying all the teachings and all. finally she will be the one to decide, which is the "absolute", that she is willing to adopt and accept. this is what everybody has done (regardless, whether they have just naturally adopted the religion that came with the culture they are born into, or chosen a different one). this is what you have done, lead by reason or faith or whatever: you have chosen the absolutes that you are willing to accept. butabsolutes that can be chosen, are not absolutes. you just have made your opinion an absolute.
ad 2. you have described, why religious absolutes must not be subject to fashions and societary changes. i agree, they wouldn´t be absolutes anymore, and hence such tendencies question the whole religion.
this is perfectly describing the problem and the danger of absolutes: they are beyond control and reason.
since we have to face the fact, that there are different gods and absolutes in this world, a whole lot of tolerance is required to prevent religions from holy wars. unfortunately, absolutes cannot, by definition, be tolerant. an absolute, that tolerates other or even contrary absolutes, isn´t an absolute anymore, since it allows doubts about its absoluteness. where that leads, is frequently illustrated in these gay threads. "gay equals wrong, simply because it doesn´t match my absolutes".
(fortunately, the opposite position is based on tolerance, not on absolutes.)
as soon as two absolutes/gods/religions are confrontated with each other, there neccessarily must be a holy war.
only thanks to the majority of religious people, who are willing to relativate their absolutes and re-introduce reason (an attitude that is criticized as "weak" by fundamentalists), those holy wars can be limited.

this is what i´d like to see discussed (besides JVAC´s questions, of course).

to answer those:
1. yes they are, always have been, and always will be.
2. why do we need to judge others?
3. absolutely ! for a start: because it would stop us judging others.
and because there are no absolute absolutes (see the quote above).

greetings
klaus

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : ps139

If there are no absolutes, then morals would be arbitrary. Therefore we cannot judge by them, because no standards exist.
We are worse off without absolutes because there is nothing to base anything on. In that world opinion could only be based on opinion, you could never with 100% certainty say "This is." There would be no right or wrong, no reason for a standard of any kind, and the world (natural world also, not just people) would be very chaotic and anarchic.

Unfortunately your argument can be turned on itself all too easily.



Suppose that there does exist an absolute moral standard. What is it? How can you or anyone know what that absolute standard is? How do we as a society and as individuals translate that unknown and unknowable absolute moral standard into practical application?



I realize that you believe your religion offers you the answer to the above questions but your religion does no better at answering these questions than any other religion. If all religions had identical moral standards of what is good and what is not good this would not be a problem but the various religions of the world are not uniform in this matter at all.



We can never say with 100% certainty that religion A is the one true religion and religions B, C, D, and E are all false religions. The most we can say is ‘I believe religion A to be true’, however this ultimately is just a personal opinion. The fact that it is ultimately a personal opinion makes it arbitrary in the same way that morals without a moral absolute would be arbitrary.



In the end there is no difference in morals that are arbitrary and morals based on arbitrary belief in an absolute basis for morality.

 

[ps139]

there can be contradicting statements on different levels, that are not neccessarily paradox. "everything i say is a lie" is a statement about lower level statements (i.e. what i usually say), it is a "meta-statement". "exept that" is again a meta-statement and so on.
a genuine paradox requires that the two contradicting statements, that are both true, are on the same level of communication.

Ok, so are you saying that the statement "everything I say is a lie" does not include what was just said? That "everything" does not refer to past,present and future statements?
Also why do you say "i.e. what I usually say" I do not think this is applicable because "usually" and "always" are totally different. If I say "I always lie" are you saying that I cannot be referring to the sentence I am speaking?

to show, why the given example is just linguistic trickery (though very fascinating):

when i write down here:
"everything i write, is a lie", it is - according to the poster - a paradox.
if i speak the same phrase "everything i write, is a lie", there is no more paradox, although it is exactly the same statement, meaning the same.

Not quite. Writing and speaking are totally different. What if the statement were "I only communicate falsehood." or something to that effect?

the only difference in the second case is: it is perfectly clear, that it is a meta-statement, whereas this can´t be expressed when using the same medium that i make a statement about.

Why can it only be a meta-statement? Why can't my current sentence refer to my current sentence?

Suppose that there does exist an absolute moral standard. What is it? How can you or anyone know what that absolute standard is? How do we as a society and as individuals translate that unknown and unknowable absolute moral standard into practical application?

You say it is unknowable. I disagree. What would the purpose of it be if it were unknowable?

I realize that you believe your religion offers you the answer to the above questions but your religion does no better at answering these questions than any other religion.

That is a matter of opinion. Just because other religions disagree does not make mine "no better." I truly believe there is one 100% correct religion. Not to say others are 100% wrong - I believe many are 50, 60, 70, 80, 90% right etc.

If all religions had identical moral standards of what is good and what is not good this would not be a problem but the various religions of the world are not uniform in this matter at all.

Yes but diversity of opinions does not mean that all are false. It means all but one are false (assuming, of course, that someone has the right answer)

We can never say with 100% certainty that religion A is the one true religion and religions B, C, D, and E are all false religions. The most we can say is ‘I believe religion A to be true’, however this ultimately is just a personal opinion.

Yes, whatever you believe truly comes down to faith.
But be careful of the word never. If God Himself appeared to you, and you are 100% certain that this is God, not some sham, and personally told you that A is true, then you could say with 100% certainty that A is true.

The fact that it is ultimately a personal opinion makes it arbitrary in the same way that morals without a moral absolute would be arbitrary.

That is where you err - whichever is absolutely true, is more than a personal opinion, it is the truth.

I believe in my religion's doctrines because I cannot rationally see it being any other way. I have gone through the logic many times, especially when my religious beliefs are not convenient for a present time - believe me you think of every which way to deny it. Ive been through that and I cannot deny it.

In the end there is no difference in morals that are arbitrary and morals based on arbitrary belief in an absolute basis for morality.

I reject that statement because I believe that there is absolute truth, that it is God's truth, and that God being a Loving being, would want us to know that truth.

 

[klaus]

Ok, so are you saying that the statement "everything I say is a lie" does not include what was just said? That "everything" does not refer to past,present and future statements? Also why do you say "i.e. what I usually say" I do not think this is applicable because "usually" and "always" are totally different. If I say "I always lie" are you saying that I cannot be referring to the sentence I am speaking?

reread your story!

that guy did say: "everything except this is a lie". just that he put the "except this" in the end (in order to make the trick work; if he was a good actor, i´m sure he made quite a long rest before addding these words).

"everything i say, exept this, is a lie", that´s what he meant to say. he left out the "except this", because he wasn´t aware, that this would totally screw his message. he notices, too late, tries to correct himself, again noticing, that his addition came to late as to convince people like you that he tried to communicate a meaningful statement. he tries again, and again,...



if we presuppose, that the person opposite does not want to communicate something meaningful, communication is useless.

Not quite. Writing and speaking are totally different.

now this is an interesting theory. (imagine what that means for the transcriptions of spoken words in the bible. and if someone quotes the bible in his speech!)

again, we have to assume, that a person wants to say something. this statement is the same in both, the written and the spoken, versions. (or please show me, where there´s a relevant difference). the fact, that one version is a formal paradox, which offers us the opportunity to characterize it as nonsense, doesn´t change anything about it.

What if the statement were "I only communicate falsehood." or something to that effect?

why this effort? i didn´t say: "there can´t be any paradoxa".

what if? you tell me what the communicator of this statement could possibly have meant to say. whence your idea, that someone would want to communicate non-sense?

Why can it only be a meta-statement?

because only then it makes sense.

what i´m trying to tell you is, that a formal paradox isn´t neccessarily a paradox as regards contents.

Why can't my current sentence refer to my current sentence?

why should you want this? do you want to communicate non-sense?

"Everything I say is a lie. Except That. And that. And that. 'N that. n that n that n that n that........" It goes onto infinity. Therefore there must be absolutes.

left aside the problem of this "paradoxon": i can´t follow your deduction here. are you saying: because there can be paradoxa, there must be absolutes? please explain.

I reject that statement because I believe that there is absolute truth, that it is God's truth, and that God being a Loving being, would want us to know that truth.

that´s what they all say.

 

[ps139]

reread your story!

that guy did say: "everything except this is a lie". just that he put the "except this" in the end (in order to make the trick work; if he was a good actor, i´m sure he made quite a long rest before addding these words).

"everything i say, exept this, is a lie", that´s what he meant to say. he left out the "except this", because he wasn´t aware, that this would totally screw his message. he notices, too late, tries to correct himself, again noticing, that his addition came to late as to convince people like you that he tried to communicate a meaningful statement. he tries again, and again,...

I plead guilty as charged.
OK, lets get back to what the OP was about - and why I tried to use this as an example.
How can the statement "there are no absolutes" be valid??

now this is an interesting theory. (imagine what that means for the transcriptions of spoken words in the bible. and if someone quotes the bible in his speech!)

Well, it gets even more interesting if you believe the Bible was inspired by God. (Note that I do not include translations in this category)

again, we have to assume, that a person wants to say something. this statement is the same in both, the written and the spoken, versions. (or please show me, where there´s a relevant difference).

What I was getting at was that if you speak "Everything I write is a lie" then you can still speak truth. Doesnt matter though.

the fact, that one version is a formal paradox, which offers us the opportunity to characterize it as nonsense, doesn´t change anything about it.

So formal paradox = nonsense....is what you are saying?

left aside the problem of this "paradoxon": i can´t follow your deduction here. are you saying: because there can be paradoxa, there must be absolutes? please explain.

The way I wrote it was misleading. I should have put the "therefore" before the Family Guy thing. You are right, read the way it was written, it makes no sense.

that´s what they all say.

Ditto

 

[JVAC]

firstly thanks to JVAC for giving this topic a new home. JVAC and i had started to discuss it hard, but friendly.
i´m sure he did his best to describe the open questions here.
that said, my questions and statements were in fact a bit different.
JVAC, i hope you don´t mind me quoting from my last, unanswered post in "homosexuality and christianity" (interested readers please go there to follow the previous development of the discussion):

my main statements are:
1. "absolutes" are man-made, hence they are no absolutes.
2. "absolutes" are per se dangerous.

ad 1. i assume that even you and i can agree on this: the most general attribute of god is, that he is absolute. if he isn´t, he isn´t god. right?
let´s now think of a young person, who is offered all the multiple gods, that are available in this world. seriously studying all the teachings and all. finally she will be the one to decide, which is the "absolute", that she is willing to adopt and accept. this is what everybody has done (regardless, whether they have just naturally adopted the religion that came with the culture they are born into, or chosen a different one). this is what you have done, lead by reason or faith or whatever: you have chosen the absolutes that you are willing to accept. butabsolutes that can be chosen, are not absolutes. you just have made your opinion an absolute.
ad 2. you have described, why religious absolutes must not be subject to fashions and societary changes. i agree, they wouldn´t be absolutes anymore, and hence such tendencies question the whole religion.
this is perfectly describing the problem and the danger of absolutes: they are beyond control and reason.
since we have to face the fact, that there are different gods and absolutes in this world, a whole lot of tolerance is required to prevent religions from holy wars. unfortunately, absolutes cannot, by definition, be tolerant. an absolute, that tolerates other or even contrary absolutes, isn´t an absolute anymore, since it allows doubts about its absoluteness. where that leads, is frequently illustrated in these gay threads. "gay equals wrong, simply because it doesn´t match my absolutes".
(fortunately, the opposite position is based on tolerance, not on absolutes.)
as soon as two absolutes/gods/religions are confrontated with each other, there neccessarily must be a holy war.
only thanks to the majority of religious people, who are willing to relativate their absolutes and re-introduce reason (an attitude that is criticized as "weak" by fundamentalists), those holy wars can be limited.

this is what i´d like to see discussed (besides JVAC´s questions, of course).

to answer those:
1. yes they are, always have been, and always will be.
2. why do we need to judge others?
3. absolutely ! for a start: because it would stop us judging others.
and because there are no absolute absolutes (see the quote above).

greetings
klaus

I contest on the grounds that "absolutes" are not man made, that they exist with or without man's conscieneness. We must, therefore, not take this statement to be valid. "Absolutes" neither can be dangerous, they either are or are not, there is nothing unpredictable about and absolute, unless it was absolutely unpredictable (which is falicy in itself so please don't argue this like the previous one; I try to be humurous). However, human oppinion on what absolutes are and aren't could be dangerous. Thus, it is not the absolute that is dangerous but the perception of the human.

Now, while some 'percieved absolutes' contradict, and it creates violence doesn't lead one to conclude that absolutes are bad. Yet, if there are no absolutes then everything cannot be absolutely determined, such as physics, chemistry, social conditions, economics, etc. The lack of absolutes makes mans search for knowledge vain.

Also, if morals are purely arbitrary, yet our legal system has no qualms when it sentences people to death or imprisonment. It gets very interesting from here on.

 

[klaus]

I contest on the grounds that "absolutes" are not man made, that they exist with or without man's conscieneness. We must, therefore, not take this statement to be valid. "Absolutes" neither can be dangerous, they either are or are not, there is nothing unpredictable about and absolute, unless it was absolutely unpredictable (which is falicy in itself so please don't argue this like the previous one; I try to be humurous). However, human oppinion on what absolutes are and aren't could be dangerous. Thus, it is not the absolute that is dangerous but the perception of the human.

Now, while some 'percieved absolutes' contradict, and it creates violence doesn't lead one to conclude that absolutes are bad. Yet, if there are no absolutes then everything cannot be absolutely determined, such as physics, chemistry, social conditions, economics, etc. The lack of absolutes makes mans search for knowledge vain.

Also, if morals are purely arbitrary, yet our legal system has no qualms when it sentences people to death or imprisonment. It gets very interesting from here on.

JVAC,
your argumentation seems to be a bit like: "i am hungry, hence there must be a frozen pizza in the fridge".
please believe me, that i fully understand your longings for absolute truths (have been there myself). and i honestly hate to question something, that is important to you.
but, as i have elaborated, i feel that "absolutes" are a threat to those, who don´t share them. therefore i feel obliged to object.

(on a side note, i don´t comprehend what you wrote about "predictability". i just don´t understand, what you are saying.)

again, i think, we have a communication or language problem here. both, you and i, use the term "absolute", alternating various meanings, without clearly distinguishing them. i suggest to use ABSOLUTE for the idea of a superior principle (which i actually think might exist), absolute for what persons perceive as ABSOLUTES, and "absolutes" as the moral consequences they deduce from "absolutes".

you wrote:
"Absolutes" neither can be dangerous, they either are or are not,

and i fully agree, presumed we are talking about ABSOLUTES.
given, that an ABSOLUTE exists/existed, it simply is, it doesn´t ask for something, it doesn´t command anything, it doesn´t want anything, it doesn´t need my or anyones support to be what it is, it is not good nor evil, it isn´t dangerous nor comforting, it doesn´t have any attributes apart from that it merely exists and works.
which clearly shows, that moral "absolutes" are based on absolutes (the human notion of ABSOLUTES), that neccessarily are a misinterpretation.

ABSOLUTES, that might exist beyond our consciousness, are simply irrelevant for us. it doesn´t make no difference for us, if only for the reason, that, if they exist, their non-existence isn´t even an option.
any time, a human talks about the character of ABSOLUTES, he is justs talking about his absolutes. and these absolutes are dangerous by nature.

you wrote:
"Yet, if there are no absolutes then everything cannot be absolutely determined, such as physics, chemistry, social conditions, economics, etc. The lack of absolutes makes mans search for knowledge vain."

you expect something from sciences, that they don´t even claim to offer. science never pretends to determine anything absolutely. it just claims: "from what we know, we can apply this and that rule to reality. until we find out more." does your knowledge, that you are unable to be perfect, prevent you from striving for it?

you wrote:
"Also, if morals are purely arbitrary, yet our legal system has no qualms when it sentences people to death or imprisonment. It gets very interesting from here on."
yes. welcome to the gray and coloured areas, which make life beautiful and interesting.

- e.g. there certainly is a grey area between "absolute" and arbitrary.
- most civilized countries don´t have the death penalty.
- our legal system does have qualms. our legal system has to be understood as a pragmatic result of the attempt to institutionalize broadly accepted and agreed rules. it is persistently changed. it is a matter of compromise and agreement, which has not the least to do with ABSOLUTES, absolutes or "absolutes".

off to a weekend trip. enjoy yourself.
greetings
klaus

 

[JVAC]

If we use that deffinition, then there is quite a difference in what I was originally thinking. A better word might be 'Percieved absolutes' rather than the 'absolute' itself. Percieved absolutes are not good things because human perception changes over the years. I guess one could argue the christian perseption changed from Jewish to christian then to protestant over thousands of years. However, I don't think that would be a valid assumption. With respect to christians and Jews, there is a certain unchangeability (i invented my own word, and the peasants rejoiced) in the absolute. Whereas other religons have gone away come back mutated yet, we still hold firm to our original scriptures (the Torah) which have been used for thousands of years. Through the unchanging nature of our catholic religon I deem it quite reasonable to assume that our absolute will hold. With respect to other religons, I am at a disadvantage for I only know about islamic, buddhism, and Taoism (unless you count Mormanism and Jehova's witness :-D ). Yet thier 'percieved absolutes' have not been around as long, which doesn't disprove them, but yet there isn't a long trackrecord as the the Judeo-Christian faith.

It is funny how absolutes can cause wars, even ones as peaceful as mine, anyway, i need to cut this short what with finals and all.

 

[jseek21]

A modern man in this position has no basis for morals because he has no absolutes to which to appeal. One can have a basis for something else — a social contract, a hedonism — but one can never have real morals without absolutes. We may call them morals, but it always ends up as “I like,” or social contract, neither of which are morals. The latter is a majority vote, or the arbitrary absolutes of an elite in society, by which one can decide anything. And having no absolutes, modern man has no categories. One cannot have real answers without categories, and these men can have no categories, beyond pragmatic, technological ones.