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 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.
I've no idea what another version of 'Do Not Lie' might be? I can see different versions having variables on the sub heading.If morality
Since you are allergic to "rules", no problem, we can stick with "guides".
But you didn't really answer my question - what is the rationale for preferring one guide over another? How to make that determination?
Morality based on utilitarian or practical principles or on opinion has no firm anchor; it can change with the wind. The issue of abortion comes to mind here. Morality anchored in the “ natural law”, as it’s sometimes called, a law written in our hearts by our Creator, isn’t a relative morality that changes with the times or popular opinion or changing needs.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?
But the real point is that the grownups know that outcomes versus principles are in tension, and have to be balanced somehow.
The real points of difference are where to draw that line in particular cases.
In other words, true morality does not rely on moral absolutes.
But the real point is that the grownups know that outcomes versus principles are in tension, and have to be balanced somehow.
The real points of difference are where to draw that line in particular cases.
I would say there are absolutes, about how to make choices about outcomes.In other words, true morality does not rely on moral absolutes.
You changed my words in the quote. You are not allowed to do it. If you quote somebody, you cannot insert a word and pretend the other person said that. Please go back and change the quote so that it says exactly what I said.Nor can it be purely contextual.
Objective principles are necessary, otherwise, morality becomes solely what societies say it is.
You changed my words in the quote. You are not allowed to do it. If you quote somebody, you cannot insert a word and pretend the other person said that. Please go back and change the quote so that it says exactly what I said.
You changed my words in the quote. You are not allowed to do it. If you quote somebody, you cannot insert a word and pretend the other person said that. Please go back and change the quote so that it says exactly what I said.
As they say, that's not a bug. It's a feature.Morality based on utilitarian or practical principles or on opinion has no firm anchor; it can change with the wind.
Except that society determines the 'objective' principles. Whether it's a Muslim society, a secular society, a Christian society...Nor can it be purely contextual.
Objective principles are necessary, otherwise, morality becomes solely what societies say it is.
So how do you know? Using the previous example, sending a child to her room is quite acceptable. But for how long? How do you know when it becomes morally unacceptable?And God knows, by the way, if a certain action will have a bad result; it may not be obvious, but God knows.
So it's not a case of absolute morality if you can decide it's ok at times.For example > God's word says not to do sexually wrong things which the Bible says are wrong. Now, getting a little sexual pleasure, in itself, is not what I would say is harmful.
Except that society determines the 'objective' principles. Whether it's a Muslim society, a secular society, a Christian society...
Morality is subjective, so it's entirely normal for some parts of a society to disagree with the moral positions of another. The ones with the best arguments generally win. Else might becomes right.If morality is entirely determined by society, then reformers (e.g., abolitionists, civil rights leaders) would always be “immoral,” since they opposed prevailing norms.
That's why I put 'objective' in quotes. It's actually, and obviously - as you pointed out, relative. Which position is valid is again your decision to make.Different societies hold radically different moral codes (e.g., one condemns slavery, another permits it). If both are “objectively right” because society says so, then contradictory moral systems are equally valid. But that undermines the idea of objective morality, which by definition should hold true universally.
Morality is subjective, so it's entirely normal for some parts of a society to disagree with the moral positions of another. The ones with the best arguments generally win. Else might becomes right.
That's why I put 'objective' in quotes. It's actually, and obviously - as you pointed out, relative. Which position is valid is again your decision to make.
Or best argument.If there is no objectivity in morality it is indeed a matter of might makes right.
Your background, your religion, your education, your level of understanding the matter at hand, your personal involvement, your openess to arguments, your politics...all these will inform your decision. But it's yours to make. How you make it is up to you.Otherwise, if it is my "decision to make", on what basis do I determine?
To that society.If society determines morality, then whatever society decides is automatically just.
It would justify it to the majorities in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.That would justify atrocities committed by majorities (e.g., Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa).
They don't think it's wrong. We do. That makes it relative. Obviously. But who has the better arguments for and against what they did?But we intuitively know such practices are wrong, not just “different.”
So reason is the objective standard you appeal to.Or best argument.
It would justify it to the majorities in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.
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?