Ok, understood. Therefore, what do you think is the construct behind these morals? I propose that it is love. Love is the "absolute moral."
Upvote
0
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.
No. Moral absolutism would mean that stealing is wrong. Period. Under all circumstances. But it's not. One can find exceptions to every "moral rule" - that is why they are neither universal, nor absolute.
I have, and found no answer to my original question. I found numerous responses, but so far, no answer.
I've already given the beginnings of that earlier on in the thread, but I've no intention of going into further detail on here with it
Ok, understood. Therefore, what do you think is the construct behind these morals? I propose that it is love. Love is the "absolute moral."
I think it's you who has misdefined morals.
If morality "conforms" to a "relative standard"...then I don't need to "objectively determine" good and evil...I can determine them relativistically.
If there is an "objective standard" then you need to be able to answer a few questions or the claim that this "objective standard" is entirely empty.
What is this objective standard?
How come nobody knows this objective standard? Or...
Why does everyone disagree on this objective standard?
The fact that you won't be able to tell me right and wrong in every situation, the fact that no one agrees on right and wrong in every situation...both point to the same conclusion. This "objective standard" doesn't exist and morality is a matter of relative opinion.
There has to be a underlying construct to help humans determine what is moral and what is not moral. As someone stated previously, if a moral test was given to a random group of individuals, most would agree that stealing and murdering is wrong and that helping out someone in need is moral.
The question now is "why do most people believe that stealing and murdering is wrong and that helping someone in need is moral regardless of cultural and religious/non-religious background?" I don't think Christians talked to Buddhists and had a convention with Atheists discussing that murdering and stealing is wrong. These actions hurt people and are considered immoral.
Don't you think that foundation for "human morals" is love, with love being the absolute moral that should determine right from wrong?
No. Moral absolutism would mean that stealing is wrong. Period. Under all circumstances. But it's not. One can find exceptions to every "moral rule" - that is why they are neither universal, nor absolute.
Further, the underlying construct to not murder, for example, is simply: humans are a social species. It's how we survive. In groups. Helping and relying on one another. If we went around murdering, stealing, raping, and pillaging, well... we would not have made it thus far.
Then you obviously have not read the thread.
That, or he requires a certain answer and he isn't getting it.
I'd actually argue that most people agree murder is wrong in most situations... right in others.
Ah, but does that not take us back to the original question? If in fact all moral views are merely individual opinions, then on what basis does one assert that the existence of 'evil' is argument against the existence of God? You see, if your position is true (and incidentally, we can demonstrate it is not), then that argument fails completely. There is no objective evil for which God would be (potentially) accountable, if there is no objective morality.
I agree with you also. There are exceptions. But if those exceptions and decisions are based on love, then the act is moral.
Yes, I agree that stealing can be wrong in most cases. But if one absolutely needs to take food to provide for one's own family or help someone desperately in need and has no money, then one may be able to see the action as moral. Love gives the ability to handle those exceptions.
How is what he said a "no true Scotsman" fallacy?
Indeed. I require one that adequately addresses the question, and you're correct: I'm not getting it.
Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy. At least it is new...
Why would we need an objective evil? Why wouldn't the existence of a relative evil be sufficient for arguing against a benevolent/loving god?
I'm sure I can make the argument.
You stated that helping and relying on one another is what helps us to survive. Isn't helping and relying on one another an aspect of love, the foundation of morals?
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?