Morality without Absolute Morality

Hans Blaster said:

o_mlly said:

Moral truths are outside the mutable thinking of human minds.

Click to expand...

This is precisely the thing I deny. Can you prove this claim or is this just an assertion?

Click to expand...

Self-evident claims do not require proof.

All truths are beyond the thinking mind, as is the reality of all things. Those who believe in scientism, the dogmatic beleif that science is the only source of knowledge, are handicapped in the search for truth. They admit that any pretension on their part in grasping truth is impossible for them as all of their claims are merely provisional.

However, "morality" is an idea, an object of thought, and not in the realm of phenomena perceived by the fallible senses. Debating objective ideas with those who are incurably addicted to the subjective sense of "ideas" cannot be profitable (as this thread demonstrates).

Ideas—the objects of thought—that we reflect upon when we start to philosophize, lie beyond the reach of sense perception. In debating morality we examine the grounds upon which moral claims may be judged either true or false. An appeal to a transcendent source for objective truth will always be beyond the handicapped mind of the materialist.

Justice Jackson appealed to the "transcendent" idea of justice at Nuremberg. Even though the Nazis had operated within their own (subjective) laws, their actions were still criminal because they violated fundamental (objective) principles of morality and justice that bind all people. Christians, like Jackson, make the same appeal to the Transcendent One.

com7fy8 said:

We have God, and Jesus is our way to God and to His benefits of His morality.

Click to expand...

Hans Blaster said:

If that works for you, great. It doesn't for the rest of us who are, let's say, less impressed by his claims and morality.

Click to expand...

Everyone is benefiting, somehow, whether we know it or not.

"God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5).

This is why I in my self-righteous ways of "Christian" morality do not succeed in getting all that I might dictate is right, as I claim only what everyone else is supposed to do. And you can read Romans 1:18-32, to see how others have gotten into an emotional trap because they have supposed they are too good and too smart for God > in their seeking for pleasure, instead of first seeking God for Himself.

Hans Blaster said:

If that works for you, great. It doesn't for the rest of us who are, let's say, less impressed by his claims and morality.

Click to expand...

Jesus is not conceited, even though there are humans who think He is not good enough for Him > so He has suffered and died on the cross and is now humble to love and forgive us, though we have refused Him. This is included in God's morality . . . for Himself, to be so humble with us.

Larniavc said:

I think it’s about as close to a moral absolute as I can imagine but in my country there was no crime of rape between a husband and wife for quite some time. It only changed in 1991.

So it’s still relative and not absolute.

Click to expand...

So, there are husbands, then, who are not humble about being refused by their wives?? The Bible says,

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So, I must not lord myself over my wife, by forcing her. Also, we have >

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

So, to me this means we need ***m-u-t-u-a-l*** submission in our close relating; with this, we have >

"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Corinthians 7:4)

So, there can be immoral ways of living in heterosexual marriage, meaning the couple themselves can be immoral . . . with each other . . . if there is forcing and whatever you call it when one is holding back in order to get his or her own way.

Another thing > I see how this does not mean so each one can get all the pleasure he or she desires, just using the other; but it means so I have power to love the other, and not be limited by her "independence" when I could do her good. And it means she can help me, though my pride might dictate that I don't need her.

So, it means for loving, not for using. People whose real preference is for pleasure have gotten into quite a trap, as I see through Romans 1:18-32.

So - -

zippy2006 said:

But if there is a crime of rape between husband and wife then it would be absolute? Isn't that what you are saying?

Click to expand...

My offering is > even if no law is in the books against rape in marriage > it still is rape . . . absolutely

Now, I think of this > you could have God's absolute rules about something like this, but how can you enforce this? What if she is the only witness who will testify, and he won't???? God's word also says we must have "two or three witnesses" to any crime >

"'One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.'" (Deuteronomy 19:15)

That is in the earlier scriptures, yes, but our Apostle Paul says, for church moral judgments >

"By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." (in 2 Corinthians 13:1)

He says, "every word", while the earlier Bible says "the matter". So, he goes farther, I would say. And I see how some number of morality activists leave this out, and only go after certain wrong people, not dealing with problems which can help cause people to become morally wrong. Ones can argue that it is not legally practical to enforce certain things. But I would say it can be good to make a good law, so the wrong thing is an issue and at least gets attention.

For example, God's moral rules include >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

Therefore, according to this, what God means by *arguing* is not moral . . . and, yes, arguing can be quite abusive so children have a bad example so they do not grow up knowing how to love, and so they can get into the stuff they are into, today, in their desperation for something to make them feel good > going after pleasure because they are not deeply satisfied by God's love in their relating: they have intimacy with their pleasure feelings, but not deep and perfect sustainable satisfaction in God's gentle and quiet love.

But, "give me a break!!" > how are you going to enforce a law not to argue?? You can make the law and teach in schools how to relate in love. Then the issue has been made, at least. But, yes, activists have a way of not dealing with things, including arguing abusively, which have helped bring the problems we now see.

So, if you come up with some "absolute" morality which does not deal with certain causes, including things practiced in a "number" of church culture households . . . this is why it won't work and God might not favor your effort. Because His morality includes how I must be a good example, not only pointing at certain other people who are wrong. And so I can be "the one" He is resisting because of how now already God is practicing His absolute morality.

com7fy8 said:

Everyone is benefiting, somehow, whether we know it or not.

Click to expand...

The question wasn't about if it somehow benefits us, but if it is good morality. I find the teachings of Jesus to be a rather mixed bag morally.

com7fy8 said:

"God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5).

Click to expand...

Idea *so* important, some early Christian pretended to be a companion of Jesus to write them down. Why should I care?

com7fy8 said:

This is why I in my self-righteous ways of "Christian" morality do not succeed in getting all that I might dictate is right, as I claim only what everyone else is supposed to do. And you can read Romans 1:18-32, to see how others have gotten into an emotional trap because they have supposed they are too good and too smart for God > in their seeking for pleasure, instead of first seeking God for Himself.

Click to expand...

All this passage tells me is that Paul is a nasty person who doesn't understand those who don't follow his religious beliefs. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.

com7fy8 said:

Jesus is not conceited, even though there are humans who think He is not good enough for Him > so He has suffered and died on the cross and is now humble to love and forgive us, though we have refused Him. This is included in God's morality . . . for Himself, to be so humble with us.

Click to expand...

Even if I thought this were true, I would not find it that impressive. It is also irrelevant to the question of the morality of his *teachings*.

com7fy8 said:

So, there are husbands, then, who are not humble about being refused by their wives?? The Bible says,

Click to expand...

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

partinobodycular said:

Keeping in mind that I'm an uneducated moron when it comes to philosophical questions, it's my understanding that in absolute morality it's not the morality of the act itself that's context dependent, it's the culpability.

In some sense I hold to this perspective, but it should be noted, that for me, the one true absolute is that every living being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm guilty insomuch as I rob someone of these rights, but I'm culpable only insomuch as the lesser evil meant that I had no choice.

Click to expand...

I feel I am not understanding the destinction between moral absolutes and context either. I agree culpability is the key.

I think its begging the question to make an absolute wrong contextual in the first place. It seems to me that murder is murder. Its already qualified. You can't contextualise it into not being murder.

If you do then its no longer murder at all and becomes a completely different act. Like comparing apples and oranges. Such as self defense. Self defense is not a context in which murder is ok. Its not murder in the first place.

Therefore murder already being qualified as intent and culpability to murder will always be absolutely wrong. There is no context for qualified murder that can make it not murder.

doubtingmerle said:

People worldwide share a sense of morality. Morality can be based on the simple formula, "If you want X, then you must do Y". For instance, if you want peaceful coexistence, then you must not allow unjustified killing. If you want property rights, then you must not allow unjustified taking of things from others. If you want justice, then you must not allow false witness. And if you want a happy life, then you will want peaceful coexistence, property rights, and justice. Based on such reasoning, people around the world have developed moralities that make this world a better place.

However, many people argue that we need an absolute morality, as though it somehow offers something better than what we can achieve through reason. See, for instance, Charlie Kirk's argument for this point:

&t=230s

But what would an absolute morality offer that fundamental reason alone cannot already determine?

Click to expand...

Would you find it agreeable that the term 'Morality' infers 'Caring' about how my or your actions or inactions affect others? And would you find it agreeable that immorality would infer the opposite, 'NOT Caring"..?

To be clear, I'm talking about qualities of virtue such as goodness or kindness that genuinely would cause people to CARE about OTHERS, and their counterparts such as unkindness or wickedness. I am NOT referring to "caring" after this manner--> "Yes I CARE about going to jail if I do wrong to others".

stevevw said:

I feel I am not understanding the destinction between moral absolutes and context either.

Click to expand...

Killing someone to protect your own life is self defence. In that context (relative to that context) it's morally acceptable.
Killing someone innocent, predetermined and illegally is murder. In those contexts (relative to those contexts) it's morally unacceptable.

Do those two satements make sense to you?

Bradskii said:

Killing someone to protect your own life is self defence. In that context (relative to that context) it's morally acceptable.
Killing someone innocent, predetermined and illegally is murder. In those contexts (relative to those contexts) it's morally unacceptable.

Do those two satements make sense to you?

Click to expand...

Yes I have always understood this rationalisation.

We can say if we are talking about murder that it is qualified already as an immoral act then it is absolutely immoral fullstop. Theres no contextualising. Murder is not self defense by its very nature to be even compared to murder.

In fact in some ways its a completely different moral. The moral of 'life preservation and protection' comes in as the greater moral that takes over. So its more a completely new moral issue rather than the same moral issue being contextualised. I don't think morality is so binary in that sense.

Its like lying. The example of lying about the Jews hiding in your attic. This is not about lying but saving human life which is the greater moral. This takes over as the moral truth. Its no longer about lying as a moral issue to have to contextualise that lying is ok. I think thats the wrong way to look at this and sort of implies lying is ok and can be rationalised away.

Its about protecting innocent life. In fact the person has already committed to that moral before the Germans come to their door. Denying the Jews are in the attic is part of protecting the life of the Jews.

Its comparing apples with oranges as they are not the same moral issues or moral truth any more. But completely different morals clashing. Maybe thats another way of contextualising lol.

But I think theres an important difference as by using greater morals its always grounding the context in a moral objective. Rather than rationalising immoral acts away based on arbitrary context. Or subjective determinations of what is justified contextually.

stevevw said:

Yes I have always understood this rationalisation.

We can say if we are talking about murder that it is qualified already as an immoral act then it is absolutely immoral fullstop. Theres no contextualising.

Click to expand...

How can you say that murder is an act qualified by the context and then say there's no contextualising?

Here's a question: I killed someone yesterday. Was it morally acceptable or unacceptable?

We'll save some time and I'll tell you what you're going to invariably say. Which will be that you can't tell because there's no context. It might be me killing someone just for fun or me acting to protect myself. Please pay close attention to this next statement:

Absolute morality means that acts are wrong regardless of context.

But to tell me if I was being immoral or not you need the context. It therefore cannot be defined as absolute morality by the very definition of the term. So when it's me killing to protect myself, 'killing' is the act and 'to protect myself' is the context. Obviously a case of relative morality. Because the morality would change if the context changes. If we change that context to 'just for fun' then it becomes immoral.

The fact that we have a term for both of those acts, being 'murder' and 'self defence' doesn't change anything.

Is lying morally acceptable? Well most people would say it would be ok if it was to save the family in the basement. That is a classic case of relative morality. Now if we had a word for 'lying to save a family in the basement from the Gestapo' - let's say it's 'zeitblinter', then to then say that zeitblinter is always wrong, therefore is an example of absolute morality, is absolute nonsense. If explaining the situation in a few words is an example of relative morality then how in heaven's name does explaining the situation with one word change it to an example of absolute morality?

That's crazy town.

Bradskii said:

How can you say that murder is an act qualified by the context and then say there's no contextualising?

Click to expand...

Because its already qualified as murder. The context is always going to be that its murder. There is no context that can change murder into not murder.

Bradskii said:

Here's a question: I killed someone yesterday. Was it morally acceptable or unacceptable?

Click to expand...

You have the context lol. We are no longer talking about murder.

Bradskii said:

We'll save some time and I'll tell you what you're going to invariably say. Which will be that you can't tell because there's no context. It might be me killing someone just for fun or me acting to protect myself. Please pay close attention to this next statement:

Click to expand...

Yes but thats a different thing altogether. Murder is murder. Your not comparing apples with apples. One is murder and the other is killing or killing in self defense. They are different situations.

Murder will always be murder and there is no context that can ever make it not murder. For the very reason the context is specific. But then thats the only time it can every be murder and immoral.

Bradskii said:

Absolute morality means that acts are wrong regardless of context.

Click to expand...

Yes so murder is always wrong because it is called murder and not killing. There will be no context that can undo the context that murder is murder. In that sense its absolute.

But its not immoral because there is a conext where people can kill in self defense. That is a seperate moral issue which is another moral that is the basis for why it is what it is. A moral of preserving life. Not a contextualised murder that can somehow be justified.

Bradskii said:

But to tell me if I was being immoral or not you need the context. It therefore cannot be defined as absolute morality by the very definition of the term. So when it's me killing to protect myself, 'killing' is the act and 'to protect myself' is the context. Obviously a case of relative morality. Because the morality would change if the context changes. If we change that context to 'just for fun' then it becomes immoral.

Click to expand...

Yes in the overall scheme of morality because it never works in isolation from other morals that its the context in which it happens. But I think its not as simple as each moral is either absolute or contextual. I think the moral itself is the context that has already been established and its either always wrong or not.

So in the case of murder its context is always its immoral. You don't need to envoke other contextes because its already intrinsically wrong. Theres no way around it.

But if you do envoke other context your really envoking a completely different moral rather than the same moral being contextualised. That being self defense is a different moral situation about preserving innocent life. If you don't then you are culperable of wrong by ommission.

I cannot relate killing in self defense as a context for which murder is ok or related that somehow makes the same act not murder. Its a category destinction. Its like compromising murder into ok killing. Rather than grounding non murder in a completely different moral basis that gives weight to why each are completely different morals rationals. But both can be absolute because they have their own basis for why they hold such moral status.

Bradskii said:

The fact that we have a term for both of those acts, being 'murder' and 'self defence' doesn't change anything.

Click to expand...

I think it does. Its all in the label we have given it. We call it murder for a reason. Its already qualified. Otherwise we call it self defense to destinguish its not murder but something else.

Bradskii said:

Is lying morally acceptable? Well most people would say it would be ok if it was to save the family in the basement. That is a classic case of relative morality.

Click to expand...

Why. How is it relative. What are the options. Lie and save the family or don't lie and allow the Nazi to take the family. For which I might add would breach the whole point of hiding the family in the first place. So its not relative. Either saving or condeming the family to death.

The whole idea of whether its ok to lie is a red herring. The moral situation was already determined as the moral that we must save life as we would want to be saved. Basic humanity and the Golden Rule. Its one of the most basic morals humans know.

The moral was already set and the issue of lying had been negated and irrelevant. It was a greater moral that was grounding the actions. Not that its ok to lie depending on some relative opinion or belief about the context.

Bradskii said:

Now if we had a word for 'lying to save a family in the basement from the Gestapo' - let's say it's 'zeitblinter',

Click to expand...

Does it have to be German lol. my German is not good. What about Sauerkraut. I like Sauerkraut.

Bradskii said:

then to then say that zeitblinter is always wrong, therefore is an example of absolute morality, is absolute nonsense.
If explaining the situation in a few words is an example of relative morality then how in heaven's name does explaining the situation with one word change it to an example of absolute morality?

That's crazy town.

Click to expand...

My point is not that there is no contextualisation because obviously lying to the Germans to save the life of humans is different to lying for selfish gain that harms others.

I am saying that within each context there is an objective and even absolute moral truth that can never be contextualised out of being morally ok to do.

The idea of realtive morality often fuels the idea that morality is itself relative and subjective. The reason being is because the fact that morals can be contextual but also absolute and objective within each situation. There will always be a moral truth to be found that can never be contextualised or rationalised away.

stevevw said:

Because...

Click to expand...

I knew I was wasting my time. I really knew it. When will I ever learn...

Don't do it, Bradskii. Stay away.
But just one more post. I'll get him to understand.
No, you'll regret it. But on your head be it...

OK...

Do you think that killing someone (for fun) is morally acceptable?

Do you think that killing someone (to protect your own life) is morally acceptable?

Just give a yay or a nay to each of those questions. Please don't add anything. They are simple enough to answer without any back-and-forth. Just a simple thumbs up or down. I'll ignore anything else.

Bradskii said:

Don't do it, Bradskii. Stay away.
But just one more post. I'll get him to understand.
No, you'll regret it. But on your head be it...

OK...

Click to expand...

You could not resist could you lol. Go on you love it.

Bradskii said:

Do you think that killing someone (for fun) is morally acceptable?

Click to expand...

Yes, don't ask. There was a context but its too complicated to explain.

Bradskii said:

Do you think that killing someone (to protect your own life) is morally acceptable?

Click to expand...

No, no way killing is never acceptable.

Bradskii said:

Just give a yay or a nay to each of those questions. Please don't add anything. They are simple enough to answer without any back-and-forth. Just a simple thumbs up or down. I'll ignore anything else.

Click to expand...

There you go. Show me how this is an objectively and/or absolutely wrong moral position if there are no objective or absolute morals and all is contextual. .

stevevw said:

No, no way killing is never acceptable.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that justifiable self defence where you have to kill your attacker or die yourself is immoral? Or that lying to save the family in the basement is likewise immoral?

o_mlly said:

Self-evident claims do not require proof.

Click to expand...

Self-evident claims also don't have large groups of people rejecting them.

o_mlly said:

All truths are beyond the thinking mind, as is the reality of all things. Those who believe in scientism, the dogmatic beleif that science is the only source of knowledge, are handicapped in the search for truth. They admit that any pretension on their part in grasping truth is impossible for them as all of their claims are merely provisional.

Click to expand...

No one is arguing "because scientism (sic)". This is about the nature of morality.

o_mlly said:

However, "morality" is an idea, an object of thought, and not in the realm of phenomena perceived by the fallible senses. Debating objective ideas with those who are incurably addicted to the subjective sense of "ideas" cannot be profitable (as this thread demonstrates).

Ideas—the objects of thought—that we reflect upon when we start to philosophize, lie beyond the reach of sense perception. In debating morality we examine the grounds upon which moral claims may be judged either true or false. An appeal to a transcendent source for objective truth will always be beyond the handicapped mind of the materialist.

Justice Jackson appealed to the "transcendent" idea of justice at Nuremberg. Even though the Nazis had operated within their own (subjective) laws, their actions were still criminal because they violated fundamental (objective) principles of morality and justice that bind all people. Christians, like Jackson, make the same appeal to the Transcendent One.

Click to expand...

The problem from my entry to this thread onward is and has been that I see no reason to trust any of the claimants to possessing absolute morality.