Do you believe in absolute morality?

[pollo]

 

[Skellybones]

Explain, please.

 

[Suzannah]

Hi there. I have truly come to believe that true, 100 percent morality, involves 100 percent selflessness. This excludes the majority of what we call "life" ..... to me, an absolute morality does exist in those person's who have given thier lives, both numerically, and literally in death, to others.

Total selflessness one of the many things that Jesus preached.

 

[Philosoft]

When I think about "absolute morality," I think of statements of the form, "It is always right to do X." Such a statment, to be both absolute and moral, would have to be self-evidently true, brutely factual, a priori, however we refer to truths that don't depend on prior truths. Thus, a moral action is something that is right for right's sake. To attempt to argumentatively justify an absolute moral statement would diminish its absoluteness.

If I said, "It is always wrong to kill children because children are needed to continue our species," I would have made a moral statement, but not an absolutely moral statement. The above is something like moral utility.

It seems that an absolute moral would have to be embedded in the very framework of space-time. Unfortunately, I have yet to make sense of such a concept.

[Off-topic attempt at lame humor]

What's the matter pollo, chicken?

[/lame humor]

Sorry. Please continue.

 

[MuAndNu]

I'm not sure I want to vote without clarification. I think humans are enough alike that we will inevitably share aversions to certain things and naturally consider other things good. If you want to call that absolute, then yes I believe in absolute morality. On the other hand, if you're going to take it as Absolute = God, I'll vote a different way.

 

[Havoc]

Morality is more or less relative.

Killing humans is wrong... unless you are killing enemy soldiers.
Stealing is wrong... unless you are taking someone elses land by force of arms.
Lieing is wrong... unless you are lieing about harboring Gods spies in the promised land.
Worshipping other Gods is wrong... unless those other Gods are the true ones.
Pre-marital sex is wrong... even though the Bible doesn't forbid it.
Eating pork is wrong... unless you're a Christian, then you can discard whatever portions of the Law you choose.

Some morality is less relative, but none is absolute.

 

[MuAndNu]

Morality is more or less relative.

Killing humans is wrong... unless you are killing enemy soldiers.
Stealing is wrong... unless you are taking someone elses land by force of arms.
Lieing is wrong... unless you are lieing about harboring Gods spies in the promised land.
Worshipping other Gods is wrong... unless those other Gods are the true ones.
Pre-marital sex is wrong... even though the Bible doesn't forbid it.
Eating pork is wrong... unless you're a Christian, then you can discard whatever portions of the Law you choose.

Some morality is less relative, but none is absolute.

Does all that really argue for relativity though. To say killing is wrong unless you're killing an enemy soldier, for instance, isn't a relative statement. It's just saying that it's wrong to kill someone who's not an enemy soldier, right?

 

[Western Deity]

It seems that an absolute moral would have to be embedded in the very framework of space-time.

Whoah, too star-trekky . Everything else you said was pretty convincing to me... An absolute moral will be incredibly self evident, but I think it will still be somewhat philosophical in nature.

 

[Havoc]

Does all that really argue for relativity though. To say killing is wrong unless you're killing an enemy soldier, for instance, isn't a relative statement. It's just saying that it's wrong to kill someone who's not an enemy soldier, right?

What I was referring to is that for every moral absolute, one can find resonable exceptions. If there are exceptions then it cannot be, by definition, absolute.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe in a contextually absolute morality, which is a set of moral principles used to rank available options on their objective desirability based on one's specific circumstances. Such a morality is not absolute in the sense of admitting to no exceptions, but is absolute within the boundaries it proscribes.

For example: I think it is morally wrong to mislead people, except when evil people would take advantage of the truth for evil ends. For example, if you were living in German occupied Poland, and you were hiding Jews in your basement, it would be perfectly moral to say to the Nazi officers that you weren't hiding anyone. The principle specifies a boundary which ought not to be crossed. When you are inside the boundary, it is always moral to tell the truth, and when you step outside the boundary, it is always moral to mislead. One could possibly develop the principle to define an area in which the truth is optional.

You'll note that a contextually absolute morality is not a whimsical thing that could be completely different for different people, which is what gives moral relativism such a bad rap.

 

[Mr. Fields]

I believe in a contextually absolute morality, which is a set of moral principles used to rank available options on their objective desirability based on one's specific circumstances. Such a morality is not absolute in the sense of admitting to no exceptions, but is absolute within the boundaries it proscribes.

For example: I think it is morally wrong to mislead people, except when evil people would take advantage of the truth for evil ends. For example, if you were living in German occupied Poland, and you were hiding Jews in your basement, it would be perfectly moral to say to the Nazi officers that you weren't hiding anyone. The principle specifies a boundary which ought not to be crossed. When you are inside the boundary, it is always moral to tell the truth, and when you step outside the boundary, it is always moral to mislead. One could possibly develop the principle to define an area in which the truth is optional.

You'll note that a contextually absolute morality is not a whimsical thing that could be completely different for different people, which is what gives moral relativism such a bad rap.

Good insight, which is why all actions should be judged in their context, which cannot be done unless you know what the persons motivation was for their action. Sometimes humans can know and understand ones' motivation, sometimes they cannot.

 

[stevo]

I believe in a contextually absolute morality, which is a set of moral principles used to rank available options on their objective desirability based on one's specific circumstances. Such a morality is not absolute in the sense of admitting to no exceptions, but is absolute within the boundaries it proscribes.

For example: I think it is morally wrong to mislead people, except when evil people would take advantage of the truth for evil ends. For example, if you were living in German occupied Poland, and you were hiding Jews in your basement, it would be perfectly moral to say to the Nazi officers that you weren't hiding anyone. The principle specifies a boundary which ought not to be crossed. When you are inside the boundary, it is always moral to tell the truth, and when you step outside the boundary, it is always moral to mislead. One could possibly develop the principle to define an area in which the truth is optional.

You'll note that a contextually absolute morality is not a whimsical thing that could be completely different for different people, which is what gives moral relativism such a bad rap.

"Contextual absoluteness" still is not absolute at all. In fact as you describe it, contextually absolute = relative. All that is happening is that you are creating a moral heirarchy. You say that it is not different for different people, but it is. One may think it moral to give up the Jew and one may not.

 

[MATRILEB]

All moral values are absolute. The question is whether or not there are moral values that are applied consistently and without deviation, the criteria necessary to deem them absolute in application. I am not aware of any moral value, Christian or otherwise, that isn't applied relativistically...

 

[stevo]

All moral values are absolute. The question is whether or not there are moral values that are applied consistently and without deviation, the criteria necessary to deem them absolute in application. I am not aware of any moral value, Christian or otherwise, that isn't applied relativistically...

Moral may be absolute in the sense that definitions are absolute; people create them and thus resemble an absolute idea. However, even definitions change from person to person, and if what is absolute changes from person to person then it fails to be absolute.

 

[MATRILEB]

Moral may be absolute in the sense that definitions are absolute; people create them and thus resemble an absolute idea. However, even definitions change from person to person, and if what is absolute changes from person to person then it fails to be absolute.

No, in this scenario a new moral value has been created, and the existing one that influenced the new one remains unchanged.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"Contextual absoluteness" still is not absolute at all. In fact as you describe it, contextually absolute = relative. All that is happening is that you are creating a moral heirarchy. You say that it is not different for different people, but it is. One may think it moral to give up the Jew and one may not.

And so one person may have arrived at a correct moral conclusion, and the other to an incorrect moral conclusion.

While there may be some "fuzzy boundaries" to moral principles, and while several possible actions may fall within their bounds, it is possible for an action to fall completely outside their bounds.