Moral absolutes, and there can be no justice so long as the law is absolute, and Judges purpose(s).

[Neogaia777]

Moral absolutes, and "there can be no justice so long as the law is absolute, and Judges purpose(s).

There are moral absolutes, only, their not exactly absolute... Their are cases where something is most of the time, in the majority of cases, wrong, in most cases...

But, their are exceptions built upon situations and circumstances, which is why we have judges, and a prosecuting and defense attorney's and judges and jury's and juror's to try and discern and judge the truth between the two extreme points of view and make a judgement call, the Judges establish, or should establish exceptions to the rules, and some should re-examine some of their past decisions under these rules, and find out if there are some people that needed to be cleared of their crimes...

God Bless!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Moral absolutes, and "there can be no justice so long as the law is absolute, and Judges purpose(s).

There are moral absolutes, only, their not exactly absolute... Their are cases where something is most of the time, in the majority of cases, wrong, in most cases...

Then they aren't moral absolutes. You can't have a group of shapes and call them all squares if some of them are rhombuses.

But, their are exceptions built upon situations and circumstances, which is why we have judges, and a prosecuting and defense attorney's and judges and jury's and juror's to try and discern and judge the truth between the two extreme points of view and make a judgement call, the Judges establish, or should establish exceptions to the rules, and some should re-examine some of their past decisions under these rules, and find out if there are some people that needed to be cleared of their crimes...

God Bless!

If moral absolutes existed, people would be punished for the same crime the same way every time, no matter the judge. Humanity can't even agree on what actions even are crimes, let alone manage that.

 

[-V-]

Are there moral absolutes?

Consider the statement: "there are no moral absolutes."

Isn't that statement itself, however, a moral absolute? If so, then it is self-defeating and must necessarily be false. And if "there are no moral absolutes" must be false, what does that leave us with?

 

[quatona]

Are there moral absolutes?

Consider the statement: "there are no moral absolutes."

Isn't that statement itself, however, a moral absolute?

No, it´s not a moral statement. (Hint: It´s a meta-moral assertion.)

 

[Earatha]

Our courts and judges and juries are not there to talk about morality or justice. A jury is not there to discern the truth. They are there to enforce the law, and that is the difference. Law and morality are not always connected.

 

[Neogaia777]

Our courts and judges and juries are not there to talk about morality or justice. A jury is not there to discern the truth. They are there to enforce the law, and that is the difference. Law and morality are not always connected.

To enforce the Law no matter the situation or circumstances...? Your right, in this world, law and morality are not connected, if that's the way it is...

To enforce the law, is not to seek out and find justice within the framework or lens of the Law... Considering the "Spirit" of the law, and not just the "letter" of it...

A Law can be morally wrong if the law is absolute, in a minority of cases, and that would be justice if the minority of cases were considered to be exceptions to the rules, and a Judge or jury responded accordingly...

God Bless!

 

[Dave-W]

Are there moral absolutes?
Consider the statement: "there are no moral absolutes."
Isn't that statement itself, however, a moral absolute? If so, then it is self-defeating and must necessarily be false. And if "there are no moral absolutes" must be false, what does that leave us with?

It is an absolute to be sure. A logical absolute.

Not sure you could call it a "moral" absolute.

 

[jayem]

I suppose there are some precepts that could be called moral absolutes. But they're so vague and generalized as to be almost meaningless as a practical matter. Examples: Never be cruel. Always act with wisdom. Be courageous.

As regards normative ethics, in the end, all moral decisions must be made on a case by case basis. The term for this is casuisty. Life is convoluted. There may always be exceptional circumstances that will flummox strict ethical rules. I like the concept of a prima facie moral wrong. This is a action that, on its face, is always wrong. (Hence the term prima facie.) But, in some cases, not acting as such may result in a greater wrong. This recognizes the reality that most every moral calculus must take into account a hierarchy. However, there is one principle of casuist ethics that comes close to being an absolute. Which is that whatever decision is made in any one particular circumstance should be made again if the same circumstances are present.

 

[Rebecca12]

I do not overly concern myself with absolutes. The world is a very gray place. But some things are close to moral absolutes. For example, I would say, no matter what your culture dictates, that it is wrong to torture a child. Or to commit genocide. Human nature does seem to reveal certain things as wrong as we evolved to care about others. None of these sorts of moral precepts depend on God. God not existing doesn't suddenly make it right to torture a child. God not existing doesn't make me love my family less. I don't love them because of some kind of obligation to do so. Fear of punishment and desire of a reward are not as big a motivator as some might think.

I lean somewhat towards endorsing effective altruism (making the world a better place through the most effective way you possibly can) but with reservations especially as to what it means to be effective and the value of your own happiness. I often prefer friends and family over others who have greater needs and I now do charitable things that give me pleasure rather than earning money that could be given away to greater effect. (I retired early rather than continuing to work and giving away the excess money). I decided my happiness (and for that matter, other people's happiness) has value even if the end result is that we don't act in the most effective way possible. But I did understand in my working years that earning $400 an hour as a lawyer made it more effective for me to work extra hours and give those earnings away than to go stand in a soup line serving food to homeless people or even doing volunteer lawyer work as I earned far more per hour than a legal aid lawyer ever would. So, I worked extra and gave money away instead of doing volunteer work. But when I retired the reverse happened. And I am happier, if possibly less morally pure.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Are there moral absolutes?

Consider the statement: "there are no moral absolutes."

Isn't that statement itself, however, a moral absolute? If so, then it is self-defeating and must necessarily be false. And if "there are no moral absolutes" must be false, what does that leave us with?

No, that statement is not a moral absolute. A statement about moral absolutes isn't necessarily a moral absolute. It's not a self-defeating statement.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[OldWiseGuy]

To enforce the Law no matter the situation or circumstances...? Your right, in this world, law and morality are not connected, if that's the way it is...

To enforce the law, is not to seek out and find justice within the framework or lens of the Law... Considering the "Spirit" of the law, and not just the "letter" of it...

A Law can be morally wrong if the law is absolute, in a minority of cases, and that would be justice if the minority of cases were considered to be exceptions to the rules, and a Judge or jury responded accordingly...

God Bless!

People aren't convicted based on immorality, but inconvenience.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Of course there are moral absolutes, but law and judgment aren't concerned with that. That is left to public opinion, not a court of law. The court decides if an act is illegal, but the public decides if it was immoral. Also, people aren't punished based on the immorality of an act, but the illegality of that act.