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.
Well its got a lot of different senses to it. So its important to define terms before launching a discussion. I dont think that happened here."Absolute morality."
Sure, but does it ever happen? I've never run across the term "absolute morality" in any professional or academic ethical or metaethical writing.Well its got a lot of different senses to it. So its important to define terms before launching a discussion. I dont think that happened here.
I see. But for better or worse this thread is open to non pros and folks like me with lowly bachelors degrees in non related subjects.Sure, but does it ever happen? I've never run across the term "absolute morality" in any professional or academic ethical or metaethical writing.
For better or worse the internet is full of people who want to "declare victory without having to do anything." But again, the question is, "Does it ever happen?" Does anyone ever come clean about what their mysterious accusation is supposed to mean? What religious rites must I be initiated into before I am to understand the mysterious meaning of "absolute morality"?I see. But for better or worse this thread is open to non pros and folks like me with lowly bachelors degrees in non related subjects.
You should just respond to them directly and ask what they mean.For better or worse the internet is full of people who want to "declare victory without having to do anything." But again, the question is, "Does it ever happen?" Does anyone ever come clean about what their mysterious accusation is supposed to mean? What religious rites must I be initiated into before I am to understand the mysterious meaning of "absolute morality"?
Right, and so we could rename the thread, "Morality without the divine," which is perhaps a more fitting title. That is, what you've done here is argued against the necessity of divine law for "legislative" purposes. That's an intelligible argument. I follow the general contours of the reasoning. There are no words like "absolute" which are ever-ambiguous.I usually assume people mean moral laws set for us by some divine order. But I have to admit, that concept starts to lose coherence when I examine at any deeper than surface level.
I mean, if a moral law doesnt serve a rational purpose, then it seems arbitrary. And if the law does emerge from a rational purpose, then no divine originator is required. The main role remaining for the divine seems to be enforcement. Executive, but not legislative, so to speak.
Remember discussions about "objective" morality? Oy vey!Right, and so we could rename the thread, "Morality without the divine," which is perhaps a more fitting title. That is, what you've done here is argued against the necessity of divine law for "legislative" purposes. That's an intelligible argument. I follow the general contours of the reasoning. There are no words like "absolute" which are ever-ambiguous.
Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.What do you think the term means?
Agreed.Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.
Yes, but I'll take those over these discussions about "absolute" morality. At least the opponents self-identify as holding to objective morality, and so it is not merely a one-way label.Remember discussions about "objective" morality? Oy vey!
So do you yourself believe that raping a woman is wrong "regardless of context, culture, or circumstances"? Or is there some context, culture, or circumstance where you yourself would greenlight rape?Agreed.
Let's look at some examples of whether an act is morally acceptable or not.So do you yourself believe that raping a woman is wrong "regardless of context, culture, or circumstances"? Or is there some context, culture, or circumstance where you yourself would greenlight rape?
You wrote a bunch of words and managed to evade the question put to you entirely. Predictable.Let's look at some examples of whether an act is morally acceptable or not.
Evaded it? You'll see that the last example addressed it precisely. Here's the answer again:You wrote a bunch of words and managed to evade the question put to you entirely. Predictable.
The context isn't arbitrary. It's always present and always extremely specific. It's literally the facts of the matter. Which will determine the morality of the act.Part of the incoherence of "absolute morality" construals is the arbitrariness of "context" that you are showcasing. You want to say, for example, that the act is having sex and the context is non-consent, and therefore a prohibition against rape is a contextual and therefore non-"absolute" prohibition.
But that's not the meaning of 'rape'. It is one form of rape. I asked you about rape itself, not a specific form involving alcohol.Having sex with a woman after plying her with booze to get her so drunk that she passes out (which is rape) is morally unacceptable.
Right, and that's because the notion of "absolute morality" is incoherent, which is my whole point. You're the one who wants to use the incoherent concept of "absolute morality," and yet the way you use it is completely pointless and nonsensical. You are claiming that an unconditional prohibition against rape is not an absolute moral rule because rape is sex in the context of coercion.But your position would render all moral questions absolute. There wouldn't be any relative morality at all.
So if I add context you don't like the answer? That makes no sense. What if you ask if killing someone is wrong? If I say that if you do it in self defence it's OK, then what's your response going to be? 'No, that's just one form of killing. I asked you about killing itself, not a specific form involving self defence'.But that's not the meaning of 'rape'. It is one form of rape. I asked you about rape itself, not a specific form involving alcohol.
It's my point as well.Right, and that's because the notion of "absolute morality" is incoherent, which is my whole point.
See post 196. I'm quite happy with that definition. It pretty much matches the ones given by any number of searches. And I had a poke around for 'non absolutism'... From here: Is there a rigorous formalization of Moral Absolutism vs Non-Moral Absolutism?You're the one who wants to use the incoherent concept of "absolute morality," and yet the way you use it is completely pointless and nonsensical. You are claiming that an unconditional prohibition against rape is not an absolute moral rule because rape is sex in the context of coercion.
Folks like yourself who want to utilize this strange notion of "absolute morality" make either everyone a moral absolutist or else everyone a moral relativist, which is itself proof that your notion of "absolute morality" is not linguistically coherent.
So I would suggest that folks like yourself should either stop using the term or else provide a definition that is coherent, namely one in which some people could truly be called moral absolutists and others could truly be called non-absolutists.
If I ask you the question, "Do you think cars should be outlawed," and you answer by saying, "I think Toyota Camrys should be outlawed," then you have not answered my question.So if I add context you don't like the answer? That makes no sense.
Then your definition of "absolute morality" is entirely otiose. It is not logically possible for anyone to be a moral absolutist, given your definition. That's why it's such a dumb term. It is a bogeyman term, through and through.There is no act possible without there being some context.
Post 196 doesn't exist yet.See post 196. I'm quite happy with that definition.
Non-X means something that is not X.And I had a poke around for 'non absolutism'
So you've cooked up a definition of "moral absolutism" whereby everyone must be a moral relativist. Again:How that is not relativism is beyond me.
The first rule of discourse is that if you've cooked up a concept that is impossible for anyone to hold, then you have cooked up a monster strawman.It's just a way to declare victory without having to do anything.
My very first question would be 'What cars? Who's car? And under what circumstances?' The question is pretty meaningless as it stands. No context.If I ask you the question, "Do you think cars should be outlawed,"
Again, it's not my definition. But I agree with you that using what is the normal, everyday definition does mean that it's not possible for an absolute morality to exist. Feel free to offer a different definition if you like.Then your definition of "absolute morality" is entirely otiose. It is not logically possible for anyone to be a moral absolutist, given your definition. That's why it's such a dumb term. It is a bogeyman term, through and through.
Apologies. It was a typo that I could have sworn I corrected. It's post 149. But surely you must have read it already..?Post 196 doesn't exist yet.
So if you don't hold to absolute morality then using the only definition that we have at the moment means that all morality is relative. As that passage that I quoted explained.Non-X means something that is not X.
Yet again, it's not my definition. It's the standard, everyday, run-of-the-mill usual definition.So you've cooked up a definition of "moral absolutism" whereby everyone must be a moral relativist.
I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat that it's not my concept. I really didn't think I'd have to posts a link to explain how everyone understands it.The first rule of discourse is that if you've cooked up a concept that is impossible for anyone to hold, then you have cooked up a monster strawman.
Did you write that?Absolute morality is the ethical belief that certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances. It asserts the existence of universal moral principles that apply to all people at all times without exceptions. This means that some moral rules or laws are unchanging and must be followed universally, no matter the situation or outcome.
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?