Morality without Absolute Morality

[Colo Millz]

If morality

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.

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?

 

[Bradskii]

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?

I've no idea what another version of 'Do Not Lie' might be? I can see different versions having variables on the sub heading.

Do Not Lie: How to know when you can break that rule!
Do Not Lie: Why that rule doesn't always hold up.
Do Not Lie: How to avoid answering difficult questions.

It doesn't matter how many variations there are. The person who makes the decision as to whether they follow the guide or not in any particular circumstance is...you. Well, unless you want someone else to do it for you. I'll help if you like.

 

[fhansen]

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?

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.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

 

[Colo Millz]

In other words, true morality does not rely on moral absolutes.

Nor can it be purely contextual.

Objective principles are necessary, otherwise, morality becomes solely what societies say it is.

 

[com7fy8]

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.

I would say there are absolutes, about how to make choices about outcomes.

There are times when it is clearly harmful to let an outcome influence what you do; so this would be an example of when not to let an outcome decide.

But in case you know you must look for a lost child in the woods; you use a bloodhound because the outcome of using the bloodhound is so likely to be that you find the child.

So, absolutes can go hand in hand with what the outcome will or can be, subjectively.

And God knows, by the way, if a certain action will have a bad result; it may not be obvious, but God knows.

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. But if God knows His Holy Spirit will not have you do that thing, doing it will have you getting affected by "the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience" > in Ephesians 2:2. And Satan's evil selfish spirit is harmful, emotionally and spiritually and even having physical effects that are not good. And so you can see how sexually wrong people can keep on having personality problems that do not go away . . . because of not doing their things in God's love.

God's love makes us strong so we do not give in to fear and worry and arguing and complaining and hurts and unforgiveness; so God has rules about what to do and not to do . . . knowing which things He approves of and therefore has us doing these things in His love which does us so much good while doing things in God's own love.

And when people do not follow God's objective moral rules, they get the emotional and social and relational outcomes of disobeying God. And God does not want them to have such outcomes, because our Father cares about any and all people. But people want their pleasure.

 

[doubtingmerle]

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.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

If the whole point of this thread you've created is to contend for the proposition that Absolute Morality isn't needed and it'd be better to instead emphasize Objective Morality as a more practical way to designate the functionality of human morality wherever it may be found, then just say so..........................

 

[Colo Millz]

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.

My apologies I thought if I starred *solely* it would be obvious that was my insertion.

Let the record show.

 

[Bradskii]

Morality based on utilitarian or practical principles or on opinion has no firm anchor; it can change with the wind.

As they say, that's not a bug. It's a feature.

 

[Bradskii]

Nor can it be purely contextual.

Objective principles are necessary, otherwise, morality becomes solely what societies say it is.

Except that society determines the 'objective' principles. Whether it's a Muslim society, a secular society, a Christian society...

 

[Bradskii]

And God knows, by the way, if a certain action will have a bad result; it may not be obvious, but God knows.

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?

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.

So it's not a case of absolute morality if you can decide it's ok at times.

 

[Colo Millz]

Except that society determines the 'objective' principles. Whether it's a Muslim society, a secular society, a Christian society...

If morality is entirely determined by society, then reformers (e.g., abolitionists, civil rights leaders) would always be “immoral,” since they opposed prevailing norms.

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.

 

[Colo Millz]

If society determines morality, then whatever society decides is automatically just. That would justify atrocities committed by majorities (e.g., Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa). But we intuitively know such practices are wrong, not just “different.”

 

[Bradskii]

If morality is entirely determined by society, then reformers (e.g., abolitionists, civil rights leaders) would always be “immoral,” since they opposed prevailing norms.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Colo Millz]

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.

If there is no objectivity in morality it is indeed a matter of might makes right.

Otherwise, if it is my "decision to make", on what basis do I determine?

 

[Bradskii]

If there is no objectivity in morality it is indeed a matter of might makes right.

Or best argument.

Otherwise, if it is my "decision to make", on what basis do I determine?

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.

 

[Bradskii]

If society determines morality, then whatever society decides is automatically just.

To that society.

That would justify atrocities committed by majorities (e.g., Nazi Germany, apartheid South Africa).

It would justify it to the majorities in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.

But we intuitively know such practices are wrong, not just “different.”

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?

 

[Colo Millz]

Or best argument.

So reason is the objective standard you appeal to.

Otherwise why bother with it? Just choose whatever you prefer.

 

[Colo Millz]

It would justify it to the majorities in Nazi Germany and apartheid South Africa.

So all you can say against Nazi Germany and South Africa would be something along the lines of "I have my own opinion about whatever you're doing, but - like, that's just my opinion, man."

That's not good enough.