Morality without Absolute Morality

[Hans Blaster]

Of course not. However, claiming that nothing is true unless one believes it so is extreme skepticism. In itself, the claim is a truth claim that allows no argument.

Not what I claimed. Not even close.

 

[Bradskii]

So, you ask, how do I know which is which? My opinion and experience is > the Bible can help.

Well, lots of things can help. But if absolute morality exists and we have no way of determining it, other than making the decision ourselves (which makes it relative morality) then the concept is nonsensical.

 

[zippy2006]

Respectfully, you are resorting to adhominem attacks.

Is that what you would tell the judge in the courtroom? That labeling someone a "hostile witness" is ad hominem? What happens when the poster is the problem? When a person is consistently dishonest in their posts? In that case addressing the posts and not the dishonesty will do no good.

How would you answer the question, given that you provided the original definition?

Based on the definition you have accepted, is someone who thinks rape is always intrinsically wrong a moral absolutist? Yes or no?

 

[zippy2006]

What do our other atheists say? @Hans Blaster, @NxNW, @Larniavc?

Consider this definition:

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.

If we are using that definition, then is someone who thinks rape is always intrinsically wrong a moral absolutist? Yes or no?

(Feel free to elaborate, but please give a clear answer to the question. It seems to me that a straightforward 'yes' is in order given the definition we are using.)

 

[zippy2006]

The problem with the idea of absolute morality is that even if we agree it exists (which I don't), we're still left with trying to interpret it. If I ask a Catholic and a Mormon if God approves of us using birth control or drinking alcohol, I'll get two different answers.

Why don't you begin by telling us what you mean when you use the term "absolute morality."

Revealed by a deity.

On that definition of 'absolute morality', isn't it clear that the problem you outline simply arises because two different deities are at stake? If someone agrees that absolute morality exists then they must know which deity morality is revealed by, no? If someone does not know which deity morality is revealed by, then why would they commit to absolute morality as you have defined it?

 

[Bradskii]

If we are using that definition, then is someone who thinks rape is always intrinsically wrong a moral absolutist? Yes or no?

B: You asked earlier if rape was wrong. By rape you mean..?
A: Sexual intercourse without consent.
B: So it's sexual intercourse in that context.
A: Yes. The woman didn't give consent.
B: So that was the context of the alleged crime.
A: Correct.
B: And with regard to the circumstances?
A: He forced himself onto her.
B: So those were the circumstances of this alleged crime?
A: Yes.
B: And to be clear, you want an answer as to whether that act was absolutely wrong.
A: Yes.
B: May I refer you to the definition of absolute morality which you tendered earlier. Can you read the highlighted section?
A: '...certain actions are intrinsically right or wrong, regardless of context, culture, or circumstances.'
B: Yet when I asked you if you'd given due regard to the context, you answered 'Yes'. You gave the specific context. Quote: 'She refused consent'. And when I asked you if you'd given due regard to the circumstances, you answered 'yes'. You gave the specific circumstances. Quote: 'He forced himself upon her'. So you regarded both context and circumstances in determining, in your opinion, whether the act was morally right or wrong. So it plainly wasn't 'regardless of context, culture or circumstances', was it...

B: Your honour, whether the act was right or wrong was plainly determined with due regard to both context and circumstances, as admitted by our learned friend. The determination was obviously relative to those factors. So it cannot be a case of absolute morality as that requires a determination regardless of both context and circumstance. I thereby move to dismiss, your honour.

H: Granted. Case dismissed.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Is that what you would tell the judge in the courtroom? That labeling someone a "hostile witness" is ad hominem? What happens when the poster is the problem? When a person is consistently dishonest in their posts? In that case addressing the posts and not the dishonesty will do no good.

You have two options, report and ignore.

How would you answer the question, given that you provided the original definition?

I would answer yes.

 

[NxNW]

On that definition of 'absolute morality', isn't it clear that the problem you outline simply arises because two different deities are at stake? If someone agrees that absolute morality exists then they must know which deity morality is revealed by, no? If someone does not know which deity morality is revealed by, then why would they commit to absolute morality as you have defined it?

Presumably Catholics and Mormons believe in the same deity, and believe this deity has revealed True Morality via the written word. But they disagree on a great many things, which shouldn't happen if the Truth is all written down.

 

[Larniavc]

What do our other atheists say? @Hans Blaster, @NxNW, @Larniavc?

Consider this definition:

If we are using that definition, then is someone who thinks rape is always intrinsically wrong a moral absolutist? Yes or no?

(Feel free to elaborate, but please give a clear answer to the question. It seems to me that a straightforward 'yes' is in order given the definition we are using.)

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.

 

[o_mlly]

... even if we agree it [absolute morality] exists (which I don't), we're still left with trying to interpret it.

Ahh, there's the rub. What you mean based on your posts is, "I'm still left with trying to interpret it". Even in the act of rape, you need interpretation!

If the definition [of rape] includes sexual assault of all types, then I can think of a certain President who thinks it's OK if he does it.

Is an apology forthcoming?

And sociopaths in general may not think the rules exist at all.

I ask again, are atheists who claim that even the morality of rape is in need of interpretation think that no absolute "rules exist at all". If so then by your insight that makes them closet sociopaths.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

You confuse morality as being equivalent to legality.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

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.

Not to mention that in some cultures, marital rape is a justified consequence for a wife who refuses to have sex with her husband. So it is not only legal, but encouraged as a means to discipline a wife who is failing in what they consider to be her marital duty.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I ask again, are atheists who claim that even the morality of rape is in need of interpretation think that no absolute "rules exist at all".

Laws exist, but those are certainly created by people. Not all law codes are equal or similar. The law on marital rape didn't exist in some places for extended periods because some people in those societies didn't think it was wrong enough to make it a crime. If there was no variance in moral opinion on marital rape versus other forms (based only on the nature of the rapist) then why have legal distinctions?

The only "counters" I have seen hinted at for why marital rape should be treated differently is reference to "wifely duties" proscribed in the moral commands of one of these written "moral authorities". Particularly a religious text.