-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Moral Absolutes
- Thread starter And-U-Say
- Start date
Philosoft
Orthogonal, Tangential, Tenuously Related
Actually, you'll find moral philosophy easier going when you realize that, no matter how you phrase it, there's nothing you can say that will magically make Biblical morality objective. It will always be the case that objectivity is assumed simply because you say so.Carico said:
Upvote
0
MoonlessNight
Fides et Ratio
- Sep 16, 2003
- 10,217
- 3,523
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
I believe in absolute morality, since I view the universe in a very purpose orientated sort of way. Moral things lead you to your purpose, immoral things lead you away (and possibly others as well). So I believe in relative morality as well. The morality of a situation depends on the person and on the situation. Heavy eating might be immoral for the average person, but it is fine for an athlete in training. Drinking might be immoral for an alcholic, but fine for the rest of us. etc.
This makes things tricky. Certainly if we had an omniscient and perfectly rational observer I believe that that observer could say whether each action a person does is moral, immoral or neither. But that doesn't do us a whole lot of good since none of us are omniscient or perfectly rational. So while each person has to be aware that morality for them may be different than morals of others, if we want to make any sort of meaningful society we have to set up a group of laws that apply to everyone. So we say "killing is immoral." Perhaps there is someone for who killing is a good thing (though I'm having trouble seeing how that could happen, I'm willing to allow the possibility). This does not mean that we should allow everyone to kill freely or condone murder, because for the vast majority of people it is immoral, and more importantly, it harms others and in a sense "is immoral to them."
Then there's the whole issue of our flawed reason. This is why it was far more important to condemning murder that it be harmful to others than it actually being an immoral act. Since we cannot even be sure of what is moral for us, we certainly cannot string up the morals of another person. So for things that don't harm anyone other than the actual person, there's no good reason to punish them, since we don't know whether this is actually good or not for them. But the second they start harming others we take action against them since our society is trying to promote the most good for all its members, and having those members be harmed is certainly not good for them. This does not mean that immoral acts are acts that cause others harm. It just means that practically and legally we should act like this is what immoral acts are.
As for my remark above that murder should be condemned because "for the vast majority of people it is immoral", if murder did not cause harm to others, I would not support legal or forcible action against it. I still would condemn it, and encourage others to condemn it, but this is to help those who may be considering it. In all likelihood it is an immoral act for them, so they should avoid it, this is what condemnation of certain acts is for.
So yes absolute morals relative to person and situation, but practically we should act like immoral actions are "actions that harm another."
This makes things tricky. Certainly if we had an omniscient and perfectly rational observer I believe that that observer could say whether each action a person does is moral, immoral or neither. But that doesn't do us a whole lot of good since none of us are omniscient or perfectly rational. So while each person has to be aware that morality for them may be different than morals of others, if we want to make any sort of meaningful society we have to set up a group of laws that apply to everyone. So we say "killing is immoral." Perhaps there is someone for who killing is a good thing (though I'm having trouble seeing how that could happen, I'm willing to allow the possibility). This does not mean that we should allow everyone to kill freely or condone murder, because for the vast majority of people it is immoral, and more importantly, it harms others and in a sense "is immoral to them."
Then there's the whole issue of our flawed reason. This is why it was far more important to condemning murder that it be harmful to others than it actually being an immoral act. Since we cannot even be sure of what is moral for us, we certainly cannot string up the morals of another person. So for things that don't harm anyone other than the actual person, there's no good reason to punish them, since we don't know whether this is actually good or not for them. But the second they start harming others we take action against them since our society is trying to promote the most good for all its members, and having those members be harmed is certainly not good for them. This does not mean that immoral acts are acts that cause others harm. It just means that practically and legally we should act like this is what immoral acts are.
As for my remark above that murder should be condemned because "for the vast majority of people it is immoral", if murder did not cause harm to others, I would not support legal or forcible action against it. I still would condemn it, and encourage others to condemn it, but this is to help those who may be considering it. In all likelihood it is an immoral act for them, so they should avoid it, this is what condemnation of certain acts is for.
So yes absolute morals relative to person and situation, but practically we should act like immoral actions are "actions that harm another."
Upvote
0
Boy, it sure seems obvious by this thread that most people have no clue what is right and what is wrong. God spells it out but people think they know better than He does...yet, they have as many different ideas as there are people in the world. It is clear that most people think that each person defines right and wrong by himself. This belief that we're all gods unto ourselves is very dangerous indeed. This is a very sad era in the world. I feel terribly sorry for our children!
Upvote
0
I don't think "it is clear" means what you think it does Carico. It seems to me that you are using it to mean "what I prefer to believer about others." That doesn't have much to do with clarity.
Upvote
0
seebs
God Made Me A Skeptic
- Apr 9, 2002
- 31,917
- 1,530
- 20
- Faith
- Seeker
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Carico said:
So.
You say God spells it out. And yet, you, and other people who claim this, all disagree.
When you, and Billy Graham, and the Pope, and any dozen or so posters on this board, can't agree on what God "clearly" spells out, doesn't that hurt your credibility a bit?
Upvote
0
T
The Bellman
Guest
No, it sure seems obvious by this thread that EVERYONE has their own idea of what is right and what is wrong. That includes christians, who supposedly get their idea of what is right and what is wrong from god. This does not equate to a belief that we're all "gods unto ourselves" - it merely equates to an acceptance of the fact that if there is a universal morality, we have no way of discovering what it is. Even those who claim there is such a thing, and that god is the source of it, disagree as to what it is. Carico, your morality is as relative as everyone's; you have no surety that what you think is right and wrong is so in any objective sense.Carico said:
Upvote
0
Nope.
Or rather, those terms are so cluttered with so much emotional nonsense, undertones and overtones and various definitions which are all ultimately circular that it seems pointless to attemp to use them in my thinking or communication.
So, I don't. And I seem to be getting along just fine, without being thrown in jail, arrested, getting in fights, falling to drug abuse or failing to attend lectures.
I don't really think you need to use those ideas.
Dragar
Upvote
0
Similar threads
