Morality without Absolute Morality

[Bradskii]

...and his reasoning is that such a person will agree with his (paraphrased) claim, "The act of rape is not wrong in the context where it is consensual, therefore it is not absolute."

I'd suggest that you quote me directly rather than misrepresent my position. Thanks in advance...

 

[zippy2006]

@Bradskii, the "reasoning" you are resorting to is an embarrassment to humankind:

Your sophistry could be applied to anything:

• Interlocutor: I am a moral absolutist because I think rape is always wrong.
• Bradskii: No you're not, because you don't think consensual rape is wrong.

• Interlocutor: I am a moral absolutist because I think murder is always wrong.
• Bradskii: No you're not, because you don't think murdering a peach is wrong.

• Interlocutor: I am a moral absolutist because I think the Holocaust is always wrong.
• Bradskii: No you're not, because you don't think a Holocaust where no one dies or is harmed is wrong.

• Interlocutor: I am a moral absolutist because I think slavery is always wrong.
• Bradskii: No you're not, because you don't think voluntary and temporary slavery for predetermined wages is wrong.

This is the level of sophistry that is always present in your "posts."

 

[Bradskii]

the "reasoning" you are resorting to...

...will be exhibited when you finish this statement:

'The definition of rape is...'

Look, I know you don't want to do it. But it's a ridiculously easy ask. You've brought up rape so I want you to define it.

There are 2 reasons why a person won't answer a question. One is because they don't know what the answer is. The other is that they don't like what the answer reveals. And every refusal emphasises that fact.

And I'll ask you yet again. Don't attribute words to me that misrepresent my position.

 

[NxNW]

I personally changed my mind about the morality of abortion as have millions of Americans (in both directions). Morality does change.

Same here.

 

[zippy2006]

'The definition of rape is...'

"to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling, using violence or threatening behavior" (Cambridge Dictionary).

Now go ask a third grader, and they will explain to you why that definition does not entail that rape is not wrong in every context. "Rape excludes consent," does not mean that there must be some context in which rape is morally right.

You're on ignore. You are a shame to the human race.

 

[Bradskii]

"to force someone to have sex when they are unwilling, using violence or threatening behavior"

Ah, so the term includes the context. Thank you for confirming that. Good to finish on that note.

You are a shame to the human race.

Because I think that rape is wrong? How very odd.

You're on ignore.

A good idea. I can't honestly say that you were doing very well in that little tete-a-tete. But I'm sure that your mileage will vary...

 

[Hans Blaster]

More word games?

I thought that was your thing.

No, your and their idea of morality changed.

Who else's ideas would there be but us apes?

The morality of direct abortions has not.

So you claim.

Moral truths are outside the mutable thinking of human minds.

This is precisely the thing I deny. Can you prove this claim or is this just an assertion?

So, Who can tell us the eternal moral truths?

No one. That is the point.

 

[o_mlly]

Moral truths are outside the mutable thinking of human minds.

This is precisely the thing I deny. Can you prove this claim or is this just an assertion?

Self-evident claims do not require proof.

All truths are beyond the thinking mind, as is the reality of all things. Those who believe in scientism, the dogmatic beleif that science is the only source of knowledge, are handicapped in the search for truth. They admit that any pretension on their part in grasping truth is impossible for them as all of their claims are merely provisional.

However, "morality" is an idea, an object of thought, and not in the realm of phenomena perceived by the fallible senses. Debating objective ideas with those who are incurably addicted to the subjective sense of "ideas" cannot be profitable (as this thread demonstrates).

Ideas—the objects of thought—that we reflect upon when we start to philosophize, lie beyond the reach of sense perception. In debating morality we examine the grounds upon which moral claims may be judged either true or false. An appeal to a transcendent source for objective truth will always be beyond the handicapped mind of the materialist.

Justice Jackson appealed to the "transcendent" idea of justice at Nuremberg. Even though the Nazis had operated within their own (subjective) laws, their actions were still criminal because they violated fundamental (objective) principles of morality and justice that bind all people. Christians, like Jackson, make the same appeal to the Transcendent One.

 

[com7fy8]

We have God, and Jesus is our way to God and to His benefits of His morality.

If that works for you, great. It doesn't for the rest of us who are, let's say, less impressed by his claims and morality.

Everyone is benefiting, somehow, whether we know it or not.

"God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5).

This is why I in my self-righteous ways of "Christian" morality do not succeed in getting all that I might dictate is right, as I claim only what everyone else is supposed to do. And you can read Romans 1:18-32, to see how others have gotten into an emotional trap because they have supposed they are too good and too smart for God > in their seeking for pleasure, instead of first seeking God for Himself.

If that works for you, great. It doesn't for the rest of us who are, let's say, less impressed by his claims and morality.

Jesus is not conceited, even though there are humans who think He is not good enough for Him > so He has suffered and died on the cross and is now humble to love and forgive us, though we have refused Him. This is included in God's morality . . . for Himself, to be so humble with us.

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.

So, there are husbands, then, who are not humble about being refused by their wives?? The Bible says,

"nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock." (1 Peter 5:3)

So, I must not lord myself over my wife, by forcing her. Also, we have >

"submitting to one another in the fear of God." (Ephesians 5:21)

So, to me this means we need ***m-u-t-u-a-l*** submission in our close relating; with this, we have >

"The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does." (1 Corinthians 7:4)

So, there can be immoral ways of living in heterosexual marriage, meaning the couple themselves can be immoral . . . with each other . . . if there is forcing and whatever you call it when one is holding back in order to get his or her own way.

Another thing > I see how this does not mean so each one can get all the pleasure he or she desires, just using the other; but it means so I have power to love the other, and not be limited by her "independence" when I could do her good. And it means she can help me, though my pride might dictate that I don't need her.

So, it means for loving, not for using. People whose real preference is for pleasure have gotten into quite a trap, as I see through Romans 1:18-32.

So - -

But if there is a crime of rape between husband and wife then it would be absolute? Isn't that what you are saying?

My offering is > even if no law is in the books against rape in marriage > it still is rape . . . absolutely

Now, I think of this > you could have God's absolute rules about something like this, but how can you enforce this? What if she is the only witness who will testify, and he won't???? God's word also says we must have "two or three witnesses" to any crime >

"'One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.'" (Deuteronomy 19:15)

That is in the earlier scriptures, yes, but our Apostle Paul says, for church moral judgments >

"By the mouth of two or three witnesses every word shall be established." (in 2 Corinthians 13:1)

He says, "every word", while the earlier Bible says "the matter". So, he goes farther, I would say. And I see how some number of morality activists leave this out, and only go after certain wrong people, not dealing with problems which can help cause people to become morally wrong. Ones can argue that it is not legally practical to enforce certain things. But I would say it can be good to make a good law, so the wrong thing is an issue and at least gets attention.

For example, God's moral rules include >

"Do all things without complaining and disputing," (Philippians 2:14)

Therefore, according to this, what God means by *arguing* is not moral . . . and, yes, arguing can be quite abusive so children have a bad example so they do not grow up knowing how to love, and so they can get into the stuff they are into, today, in their desperation for something to make them feel good > going after pleasure because they are not deeply satisfied by God's love in their relating: they have intimacy with their pleasure feelings, but not deep and perfect sustainable satisfaction in God's gentle and quiet love.

But, "give me a break!!" > how are you going to enforce a law not to argue?? You can make the law and teach in schools how to relate in love. Then the issue has been made, at least. But, yes, activists have a way of not dealing with things, including arguing abusively, which have helped bring the problems we now see.

So, if you come up with some "absolute" morality which does not deal with certain causes, including things practiced in a "number" of church culture households . . . this is why it won't work and God might not favor your effort. Because His morality includes how I must be a good example, not only pointing at certain other people who are wrong. And so I can be "the one" He is resisting because of how now already God is practicing His absolute morality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Self-evident claims do not require proof.

Your definition of "moral truths" might work for "objective moral truths" or for divinely imposed "absolute moral truths", but the existence of such things *is* the assertion that I do not accept.

All truths are beyond the thinking mind, as is the reality of all things. Those who believe in scientism, the dogmatic beleif that science is the only source of knowledge, are handicapped in the search for truth. They admit that any pretension on their part in grasping truth is impossible for them as all of their claims are merely provisional.

"scientism" is not the subject.

However, "morality" is an idea, an object of thought, and not in the realm of phenomena perceived by the fallible senses. Debating objective ideas with those who are incurably addicted to the subjective sense of "ideas" cannot be profitable (as this thread demonstrates).

You do very little debating and a whole lot of asserting.

Ideas—the objects of thought—that we reflect upon when we start to philosophize, lie beyond the reach of sense perception. In debating morality we examine the grounds upon which moral claims may be judged either true or false. An appeal to a transcendent source for objective truth will always be beyond the handicapped mind of the materialist.

Justice Jackson appealed to the "transcendent" idea of justice at Nuremberg. Even though the Nazis had operated within their own (subjective) laws, their actions were still criminal because they violated fundamental (objective) principles of morality and justice that bind all people. Christians, like Jackson, make the same appeal to the Transcendent One.

Never did quite figure out what ""transcendent" was other than a word weapon wielded to avoid discussing reality.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Everyone is benefiting, somehow, whether we know it or not.

The question wasn't about if it somehow benefits us, but if it is good morality. I find the teachings of Jesus to be a rather mixed bag morally.

"God resists the proud" (in James 4:6 and also in 1 Peter 5:5).

Idea *so* important, some early Christian pretended to be a companion of Jesus to write them down. Why should I care?

This is why I in my self-righteous ways of "Christian" morality do not succeed in getting all that I might dictate is right, as I claim only what everyone else is supposed to do. And you can read Romans 1:18-32, to see how others have gotten into an emotional trap because they have supposed they are too good and too smart for God > in their seeking for pleasure, instead of first seeking God for Himself.

All this passage tells me is that Paul is a nasty person who doesn't understand those who don't follow his religious beliefs. Nothing has changed in 2000 years.

Jesus is not conceited, even though there are humans who think He is not good enough for Him > so He has suffered and died on the cross and is now humble to love and forgive us, though we have refused Him. This is included in God's morality . . . for Himself, to be so humble with us.

Even if I thought this were true, I would not find it that impressive. It is also irrelevant to the question of the morality of his *teachings*.

 

[Larniavc]

So, there are husbands, then, who are not humble about being refused by their wives?? The Bible says,

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

 

[stevevw]

Keeping in mind that I'm an uneducated moron when it comes to philosophical questions, it's my understanding that in absolute morality it's not the morality of the act itself that's context dependent, it's the culpability.

In some sense I hold to this perspective, but it should be noted, that for me, the one true absolute is that every living being has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I'm guilty insomuch as I rob someone of these rights, but I'm culpable only insomuch as the lesser evil meant that I had no choice.

I feel I am not understanding the destinction between moral absolutes and context either. I agree culpability is the key.

I think its begging the question to make an absolute wrong contextual in the first place. It seems to me that murder is murder. Its already qualified. You can't contextualise it into not being murder.

If you do then its no longer murder at all and becomes a completely different act. Like comparing apples and oranges. Such as self defense. Self defense is not a context in which murder is ok. Its not murder in the first place.

Therefore murder already being qualified as intent and culpability to murder will always be absolutely wrong. There is no context for qualified murder that can make it not murder.