- Oct 28, 2006
- 25,100
- 11,805
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
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.
The problem with claims of absolute morality is that we have to trust those who claim to have a source of absolute morality. I do not find any of them trustworthy.
In that case I think that you're going to have to give me a couple of examples of what you mean by 'natural law' and 'first principles of morality'.I said the capacity to reason.
If you require clarification: everyone with reason shares in the natural law, which is an expression of absolute morality.
Further clarification: first principles of morality are absolute and universal, binding on all people, so, in principle, everyone with reason has access to objective morality.
If you require clarification: everyone with reason shares in the natural law, which is an expression of absolute morality.
Further clarification: first principles of morality are absolute and universal, binding on all people, so, in principle, everyone with reason has access to objective morality.
Yes, I am trying to understand what you are saying. And I disagree with you that I have delivered a "cheap blow." Obviously, our respective criteria for fidelity are different.Of course. I provided you with three examples of moral laws, specifically those that address killing, stealing, and false witness. However, the fact that I offered just three examples in no way implies that there is nothing more to morality than following these three examples. I was not intending in the least to claim that "the formation of domestic peace and well-being" requires "merely these alone."
That was a cheap blow. Are you even trying to understand what I say?
Does your absolute morality condemn cheap blows that falsely report what another person is saying?
Yes, when I'm using a definition of 'absolute' other than the one most people think of, I do have a reason for holding it. Otherwise, we can simply refer instead to the term, 'objective' so we don't confuse other people by what we mean in our use and connotations about the nature of a moral rule.Well, on what basis can you declare a claimed absolute morality to be absolute? If you want to propose that a specific moral code represents moral absolutes, I would like to know your reasoning. Do you have a reason for declaring it is absolute?
Obviously, this premise of yours is patently false. I'm surprised you think it's true. Now it's my turn to ask: are you even reading what I write and have written in my previous posts?All that we need to know about morality can be determined using reason similar to that which I described in the opening post.
Love your enemies ................................... ?Can you think of a single moral principle that you believe is absolute that cannot be derived from reason?
If your "absolute morality" cannot contribute one thing to our moral knowledge that we could not already derive from reason, what good is it?
That's ok. The feeling is mutual.
Who is claiming a absolute morality here?
A fact is an undeniable statement of reality. It is, by definition, absolute. In any case, even if that were not true then stating a fact and making a personal decision on a moral matter are not the same.Bull. Different kinds of facts are subject to varying degrees of interpretation. So no, facts are not absolute in all cases.
No. His point, as you pointed out, is that dumb retort to anyone who states that morality is relative. Being 'Oh, so you are absolutely sure about that (snigger, snigger). Which I actually saw a couple of days ago when Charlie Kirk thought he could raise a laugh at some student's expense when the student questioned him about relative morality. And he did. Guffaws from all his supporters in the crowd (maybe they had the same professor as you). And the student very politely pointed out the fallacy in asking the question. That morality and facts about morality are two things that are not the same. Kirk deflected.Our perspectives on what we each may think morality should be is subject to relative contexts, and my philosophy professor knew that. But that wasn't his point.
You have to be careful about using extreme examples where all reasonable people would agree that something was wrong and then conclude that it must therefore be absolutely wrong. Again, this occurred in the Kirk video. He asked the student if he thought that some atrocity was absolutely wrong. He said that he didn't think it was. Gasps from the crowd. But he went on to explain that he thought it was very wrong indeed, but as he didn't believe in absolute morality, the question 'Is it absolutely wrong' made no sense.I think you're conflating the decision making process and its motive with epistemic relativity. If it's wrong to kill innocent children within conditions A, B, C, & D, then it's at least objective to say so regardless of whether or not someone else's moral decisions are retarded by their own individual limited comprehension. In such a case that we do have an individual who intentionally and carelessly flouts those objective conditions, then it is an absolute moral truth that he is a sociopath and not merely a subject of moral relativism.
Yes, there is. Not all sociopaths and even psychopaths are axe murdering maniacs. There is most definitely a continuum. Here's a list of 15 signs that you may have sociopathic tendencies.In other words, there is no room on a humanly devised moral continuum for sociopaths and psychopaths.
I agree with it completely. And as regards the kid being sent to her room for X amount of time, I'll note that it says this:Moreover, there seem to be competing definitions for "moral relativism." The one I hold is the following:
Moral Relativism - Ethics Unwrapped
Moral Relativism asserts that moral standards are culturally-defined and therefore it may be impossible to determine what is truly right or wrong.ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu
He would be one that I don't trust nor recognize the moral authority of.I'm not. But Jesus is.
LOL! This is in response to my question, "On what basis can you declare a claimed absolute morality to be absolute?"Yes, when I'm using a definition of 'absolute' other than the one most people think of, I do have a reason for holding it.
This is in response to my question, " Can you think of a single moral principle that you believe is absolute that cannot be derived from reason?"Love your enemies ................................... ?
In that case I think that you're going to have to give me a couple of examples of what you mean by 'natural law' and 'first principles of morality'.
How do you know that natural law is an expression of absolute morality? Could it not be that "natural law" is simply a name for that which humans have discovered is necessary for society to function?
Can you provide an example of a first principle of morality that is absolute and binding on all people?
I'll skip these two as murder is a legal term which by definition renders it wrong. And I'm not going to argue for any examples of when adultery could be considered acceptable.Do not murder (innocent life must be preserved).
Do not commit adultery (marriage and family must be protected).
I just overheard my neighbour saying that he was going to shoot his family. So I jumped the fence, searched his bedroom and stole his gun. Phew...tragedy averted!Do not steal (justice and social living require respecting property).
A young girl is beaten and raped on a regular basis by her father. Are you saying that she should still exhibit respect and pride for him?Honor parents (family is natural and foundational).
Should I worship a god in which I don't believe? I think I'd be contradicting your next moral position.Worship God (humans are naturally inclined to recognize and honor the divine).
Oh, c'mon. Too easy. 'Tell me, is the Jewish family hiding in your house?'Tell the truth (speech is for communication and community).
It seems nonsensical to suggest that if the circumstances change then you ignore that fact. Decisions that we make are literally based on context. How could they not be? How is it possible to exclude context?That was Hume's view - that morality was pragmatic, not absolute, and consists of rules that emerge through circumstances. That is, if the circumstances change, then so do the rules.
No, no and NO again. Relative morality DOES NOT mean that you have to accept moral actions by others. This is another oft touted fallacy. I think it's wrong. You think it's wrong. But we're not having a vote on this.IMHO the principle disadvantages of such a view are that it becomes inevitably relativistic, that is, morality becomes relative to context and therefore, female circumcision is not necessarily bad in an objective sense since well, that's just your, like, opinion, man.
See above. You don't have to accept it as being right. That, believe it or not, is what makes it relative. You make the decision.There is also a danger of functionalism in morality from degenerating into a power-based morality. Might makes right. The norm simply becomes what the strong man says it is. Under this view the "moral system" of Nazi Germany worked perfectly adequately for that society at that point in time.
Many would agree. A lot would not. Think Dresden, the Blitz, Hiroshima, Vietnam...I'd think that realising that many would sacrifice the few to save the many would at least cast some doubt in your mind as to whether that dictum is absolute.It is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Yes. Because it depends on context.Let's take my weakest example first, which may be the last one.
I am not a strict deontologist. Therefore, unlike Kant, I would indeed lie when asked by the Nazis if Anne Frank was hiding in my attic.
But does that necessarily tell us that "tell the truth" is no longer an absolute principle of morality?
Which makes it relative to the circumstances. That's my argument. Not yours.No, it merely means that the rule is not absolutely "binding" in every instance...
Which shows that both believe it's an absolute moral position. Anyone who disagrees with them and says that in some circumstances it's morally correct to lie, as we both did, is arguing against them. Is arguing for a relative morality.Now, in fact Aquinas is stricter on this than you might expect. He is more like Kant in this regard and argues that lying is always wrong, even in cases like hiding someone from murderers.
It's not an absolute moral principle. It's a guide. A decision on which is, as you said, relative to the circumstances.But I don't believe we have to follow him in that.
So in cases where there is a hierarchy of moral principles, the higher beats out the lower. “Tell the truth” is still an absolute principle, but a prima facie principle, one that can be overridden by a more binding principle, like protecting innocent life.
... I'd think that realising that many would sacrifice the few to save the many would at least cast some doubt in your mind as to whether that dictum is absolute.
... It's a guide.
Yes. There is no 'correct' position. Just ones that are relative to your own viewpoint.The real points of difference are where to draw that line in particular cases.
The guide is just that: a guide. You should use it to make decisions dependent on the circumstances. The facts of the matter. You shouldn't use it as a rule book.If you prefer.
But then why should we trust one guide from another unless there is some appeal to an objective rationale?
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?