Is there an absolute morality?

honestal · Oct 23, 2021

Larnievc said:
God murdered children when he order a few genocides and dashed skulks and great floods etc.

This probably isn't a perfect answer, but I'll try: If somehow you were able to know the future would it have been right to kill Hitler when he was a child--to save the lives of millions of innocent people?

I believe someday it will be made clear to all: There is a God, and He always does what is right and best.

jacknife · Oct 23, 2021

Bradskii said:
Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

Depends on the context in most situations. I only take an absolute position on a few things.

SkyWriting · Oct 23, 2021

Bradskii said:
Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

It depends on the context because each person will make different conclusions.
And who can determine which of the two conclusions was correct?

SkyWriting · Oct 23, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
Murder is always wrong.

Unless you are found not guilty.

Mark Quayle · Oct 23, 2021

SkyWriting said:
Unless you are found not guilty.

If it wasn't murder it wasn't murder. If it was it was wrong.

Tinker Grey · Oct 23, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
If it wasn't murder it wasn't murder. If it was it was wrong.

I agree with this.

Using the terms murder and rape presupposes a rendered judgement. Asking is murder ever OK is like asking is A ever not-A. To call something murder, you've already said "that's a killing that we don't allow or shouldn't be allowed".

So when I read the @Bradskii's OP "Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?" The answers are, to me, obvious: No and Yes, respectively. A rape is a particular kind of sex act; it's one where one participant did not consent to participate. The act in question is the copulation. The act is in some contexts right and sometimes wrong. The act is not "absolutely" wrong. In the case of rape, we deem it wrong because of the context: lack of consent of all parties.

Murder is killing with a particular context. The act is killing which in terms of war is expected and deemed right (by the side you're on, anyway). The act of killing a stranger on the street without provocation is likely to be deemed, by the subjective judgement of the jury, to rise to the level of murder. Thus, they've deemed the act of killing, in this context, to be wrong.

So I'd say no act is wrong in an of itself, that is to say, absolutely, but rather wrong because of the context of the act.

Mark Quayle · Oct 23, 2021

Tinker Grey said:
I agree with this.

Using the terms murder and rape presupposes a rendered judgement. Asking is murder ever OK is like asking is A ever not-A. To call something murder, you've already said "that's a killing that we don't allow or shouldn't be allowed".

So when I read the @Bradskii's OP "Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?" The answers are, to me, obvious: No and Yes, respectively. A rape is a particular kind of sex act; it's one where one participant did not consent to participate. The act in question is the copulation. The act is in some contexts right and sometimes wrong. The act is not "absolutely" wrong. In the case of rape, we deem it wrong because of the context: lack of consent of all parties.

Murder is killing with a particular context. The act is killing which in terms of war is expected and deemed right (by the side you're on, anyway). The act of killing a stranger on the street without provocation is likely to be deemed, by the subjective judgement of the jury, to rise to the level of murder. Thus, they've deemed the act of killing, in this context, to be wrong.

So I'd say no act is wrong in and of itself, that is to say, absolutely, but rather wrong because of the context of the act.

But if the act is murder (not mere killing) it is wrong. My point is that there is no act that is in and of itself the mere act, though we may deal with it as such. (Even the so-called 'autonomous' acts, such as breathing, are not of themselves acts in this use of the word. They are not wrong-able, (analogous to 'falsifiable'). They are (in Christian context, at least, made and done by God, therefore good.) As far as I know, at first consideration, all true acts of humans are reducible to a more basic act down to, eventually, an 'autonomous' act. Ha! now I can't remember why I went on this tangent. Something to do with the Freewill vs Predestination debate, maybe? Oh well.

To put this in a Christian context then, adultery is wrong, sex is not (in and of itself). To complicate the matter more, it is not only in religious sense that a wrong act, such as murder, is considered in and of itself an act, but that the reason it is wrong is not only the result of that act, but the motive behind it.

honestal · Oct 23, 2021

Larnievc,

Something just hit me (I imagine it's not new to you): since an atheist doesn't believe in the existence of God, don't you believe that all of that stuff in the Bible, including God supposedly killing little children, isn't at all real or true, but instead is just the product of someone's imagination?

Abaxvahl · Oct 23, 2021

Bradskii said:
Are acts wrong in themselves? Or does it depend on the context?

In my opinion if an act has an evil moral object it is always wrong in itself no matter the context. They include but are not limited to: lying, murder, stealing, adultery, blasphemy, and so on. Always evil to choose and can never be justified no matter the circumstances.

Tinker Grey · Oct 23, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
But if the act is murder (not mere killing) it is wrong.

Yes, but my point is that this statement is the same as "if the act is wrong it is wrong". True, but not helpful. Murder is wrong killing. To call a killing murder, one has already decided (rendered judgement) that the act was wrong.

My point is that there is no act that is in and of itself the mere act, though we may deal with it as such.

My point is that there is an act and that there is a context for the act. Killing is an act. It is a mere act. The act is the same in war or gunning someone down in the street. It is "the war" that makes it right. It is the "gunning of someone down in the street" that makes it wrong.

What the OP is doing, IMO, is distinguishing this very thing: there is an act that we discuss with context (killing) and an act with context that we discuss (killing in war).

That is the very point of the OP. Sex as an act cannot be absolutely right or wrong. Sex in marriage (we'll assume consent for convenience) is right. Sex outside marriage, arguendo, is wrong. Sex with consent is right. Sex without consent is wrong.

Sex is the act. The rightness or wrongness is contextual.

(Even the so-called 'autonomous' acts, such as breathing, are not of themselves acts in this use of the word. They are not wrong-able, (analogous to 'falsifiable'). They are (in Christian context, at least, made and done by God, therefore good.) As far as I know, at first consideration, all true acts of humans are reducible to a more basic act down to, eventually, an 'autonomous' act. Ha! now I can't remember why I went on this tangent. Something to do with the Freewill vs Predestination debate, maybe? Oh well.

I won't debate this point except to say that for purposes of discussion of morality the useful definition of an act is action taken volitionally.

To put this in a Christian context then, adultery is wrong, sex is not (in and of itself). To complicate the matter more, it is not only in religious sense that a wrong act, such as murder, is considered in and of itself an act, but that the reason it is wrong is not only the result of that act, but the motive behind it.

We agree that sex is not wrong (in and of itself). Adultery is wrong, arguendo, because it is sex in a particular context. Again though, for these discussions, it's like saying "wrong is wrong."

Thanks for a pleasant exchange.

TheWhat? · Oct 23, 2021

False dichotomy. Moral absolutism is a form of moral rationalism. It's not directly antithetical to moral relativism, if we suppose that relativism asserts that no act is objectively right or wrong. Its antithesis, in my opinion, is objective morality, of which moral absolutism is probably better considered to be a subset.

I for one hold that biological imperatives are hugely important, that is to say, your physical constitution defines morality in a manner that nobody can disagree with, to a degree. It defines all acts that will kill you, and it, along with the physical constitution of a murderer, defines all acts that would be murder against you, completely apart from your consent, since no wrong that can be done to you by an external agent can be according to your consent -- all must necessarily violate your consent in some way.

honestal · Oct 23, 2021

Abaxvahl said:
In my opinion if an act has an evil moral object it is always wrong in itself no matter the context. They include but are not limited to: lying, murder, stealing, adultery, blasphemy, and so on. Always evil to choose and can never be justified no matter the circumstances.

Hi Abaxvahl (nice to meet you),

I agree with you--except on the lying one. I think there are some exceptions to that one. (Although I admit, that could easily become a very slippery slope.)

I'll just cite one example:

"The king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives... And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives." {Exodus 1:15-20}

You may disagree with me, but those midwives lied to Pharaoh. But in this case it wasn't wrong.

Abaxvahl · Oct 23, 2021

honestal said:
Hi Abaxvahl (nice to meet you),

I agree with you--except on the lying one. I think there are some exceptions to that one. (Although I admit, that could easily become a very slippery slope.)

I'll just cite one example:

"The king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives... And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives." {Exodus 1:15-20}

You may disagree with me, but those midwives lied to Pharaoh. But in this case it wasn't wrong.

Heyo, nice to meet you also.

They did lie but I think they were rewarded for fearing God and not the lie. Their refusal to do evil was one good act, then later they lied.

SkyWriting · Oct 23, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
If it wasn't murder it wasn't murder. If it was it was wrong.

There is not guilty due to mental condition.
Not guilty due to duress.
Not guilty due to mental disease.
Not guilty due to age.
Not guilty due to being in the Army.
Etc.

Yet the murder still happened.

So it all depends on the situation.

SkyWriting · Oct 23, 2021

disciple Clint said:
Who provided those people with life?

Parents don't get to kill their children, in many cases.

TheWhat? · Oct 23, 2021

honestal said:
Hi Abaxvahl (nice to meet you),

I agree with you--except on the lying one. I think there are some exceptions to that one. (Although I admit, that could easily become a very slippery slope.)

I'll just cite one example:

"The king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives... And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live. But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive. And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive? And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. Therefore God dealt well with the midwives." {Exodus 1:15-20}

You may disagree with me, but those midwives lied to Pharaoh. But in this case it wasn't wrong.

Interesting dilemma.

First thing that is obvious, Pharaoh is bent toward coercing people to do wrong, first with the command to kill the children, then by questioning them, he coerces them into a situation where they must lie to spare themselves of the consequences of avoiding evil.

If the lie is absolutely wrong in an idealistic sense, apart from context, it's not a stretch to assume some people would denigrate the midwives (or really people in similar situations) for not opting to martyr themselves, and tell the truth. We could of course assume that God is justly measuring back to them mercy, for mercy.

I'm not certain that's the case, though. Pharaoh is not in the right to martyr, and thus to murder the midwives. If we consider that lying is wrong, because of the wrong it does to others, Pharaoh has created this situation for others in violation of their consent, and misdirecting Pharaoh in this instance is not so unlike shooting an assailant in self defense, which isn't murder. Their act may be a violation of the law of the land, but in this case I don't think it would be objectively wrong, especially considering that the law of the land appears to be the wrongful party.

NxNW · Oct 23, 2021

Mclachlan said:
Is it wrong to rape and murder a child?
It is a universally accepted truth that doing such an act is wrong.

Here's a worst-case thought problem:

Suppose you have a terrorist who has planted atomic bombs in 100 cities around the world. He's holding the remote control trigger. He says, "If you rape and murder a child in front of me, I'll disarm the bombs and kill myself. If you don't, I detonate all of them and kill millions."

What's the right choice here?

o_mlly · Oct 23, 2021

honestal said:
You may disagree with me, but those midwives lied to Pharaoh.

“The Hebrew women are not like the Egyptian women."
True.
"They are robust and give birth before the midwife arrives.”
True. Or at least, not necessarily false.

Mark Quayle · Oct 23, 2021

SkyWriting said:
There is not guilty due to mental condition.
Not guilty due to duress.
Not guilty due to mental disease.
Not guilty due to age.
Not guilty due to being in the Army.
Etc.

Yet the murder still happened.

So it all depends on the situation.

So it was not murder, according to the court, because of lack of proper motive to assess the act as murder.

Nevertheless, the court is not the final authority in the matter.

SkyWriting · Oct 23, 2021

Mark Quayle said:
So it was not murder, according to the court, because of lack of proper motive to assess the act as murder.

Nevertheless, the court is not the final authority in the matter.

I'd say so.

Romans 13:1
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.

Hebrews 13:17
Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with groaning, for that would be of no advantage to you.

1 Peter 2:18-20
Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God.

Is there an absolute morality?

Active Member

Theophobic troll

The Librarian

The Librarian

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Wanderer

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Ate all the treats

Active Member

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

The Librarian

Ate all the treats

Well-Known Member

“Behold, I make all things new.”

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist

The Librarian

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency