Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Moral Absolutism asserts that there are certain moral laws which are absolute, objective, and transcendent: Moral Relativism asserts that all moral rules are subjective, temporal and personal (either individual or social or cultural in their origin).
When you do so, are you making a claim that something is absolutely morally wrong, or that it is simply something that you desire to oppose?
This is just poor argumentation.
......
Perhaps what you need to realize is that authority without enforcement is no authority at all...and to that end, even your god's morality carries no authority.
I'm simply stating my opinion about a particular action.
Well, to paraphrase a much earlier conversation:
In some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of their opinions. Do you have any preference?
I presume by your statement that if one's opinion is that something is moral, then it is? So when Slavery was in full swing in the US, those men were of the opinion that Slavery was not immoral: your position is that they were right? The opinion of the Japanese during WWII was that non-Japanese were not human, and therefore killing them and subjugating them was morally right. So your position is that they were correct?
What weight can that ever carry? The rapist could say the same, and like a twisted evangelist point to all the pleasure he gets out of it as an enticement for others to take that path. By your argument, neither has any real greater weight - its just two opinions.
For something to be meaningfully considered moral you must at least believe and act as if it is absolute, otherwise it carries no more weight than any other opinion.
Lol it has weight with me! Just like any other opinion...it only carries the same regard for it that you give the person who owns it.
Oh I can understand that, yes. The problem is that "in my own opinion" is not a particularly impressive (and thus esteem-worthy) argument.If, for example, I held you in very high esteem and you told me that abortion is morally wrong...I might have to reconsider my opinion that it's morally right. Since I don't (and don't take this personally...it's only because we don't really know each other) your moral opinions don't carry any weight with me at all. Surely you realize this is how the world works?
If I hold something to be absolutely wrong, that intrinsically carries more weight in a conversation than if I am just of the opinion that it is wrong. Wishy-washy isn't impressive.Did you think that since you believe something to be absolutely morally wrong...for some reason others give that opinion weight?
What should we expect then?
No, my position is not that they were correct.Well, to paraphrase a much earlier conversation:
In some cultures they love their neighbors; in others they eat them, both on the basis of their opinions. Do you have any preference?
I presume by your statement that if one's opinion is that something is moral, then it is? So when Slavery was in full swing in the US, those men were of the opinion that Slavery was not immoral: your position is that they were right? The opinion of the Japanese during WWII was that non-Japanese were not human, and therefore killing them and subjugating them was morally right. So your position is that they were correct?
"I get that"
Apparently not, from the following statement.
"IMO, one does not require absolute morality to be a moral person."
But if there is no Standard, then how would one know they were "a moral person'? "Moral" according to whom? Compared to what standard?
My opinion would be that they think they were "right". Morals are opinions... not facts. You (nor anyone else I know) has ever been able to demonstrate that a moral is factually correct or false the way that say...2+2=4. If you could you would have a pretty strong basis for absolute morality... but I'm fairly certain that you can't.
Ah, there is the problem; you have misdefined "morals". Morality is conformance with a standard (either relative or absolute). It is necessary that an absolute standard exists, or there is no way to objectively determine "Good" and "Evil". Try it.
My opinion would be that they think they were "right". Morals are opinions... not facts. You (nor anyone else I know) has ever been able to demonstrate that a moral is factually correct or false the way that say...2+2=4. If you could you would have a pretty strong basis for absolute morality... but I'm fairly certain that you can't.
When God is described as "omnibenevolent" - is that supposed to be a meaningful statement (and if so, what exactly does it mean? And who or what set the absolute standard for "omnibenevolence"?), or is it just supposed to be noise?"I get that"
Apparently not, from the following statement.
"IMO, one does not require absolute morality to be a moral person."
But if there is no Standard, then how would one know they were "a moral person'? "Moral" according to whom? Compared to what standard?
What is the process you follow to "objectively" determine good from evil?
When God is described as "omnibenevolent" - is that supposed to be a meaningful statement (and if so, what exactly does it mean? And who or what set the absolute standard for "omnibenevolence"?), or is it just supposed to be noise?
Well my position is that there is an absolute standard which we use to measure actions and thoughts. Yours seems to be that there is not any absolute standard.
That leaves us with relativism, and relativists are divided into one of three groups: Individual Relativists, Cultural Relativists, or Societal Relativists, depending on where they believe the relative moral values are grounded. Actually, in my experience, relativists have not thought that through well enough to clearly state and defend their view: they usually merely want to reject Absolutism.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?