How can you say that murder is an act qualified by the context and then say there's no contextualising?
Because its already qualified as murder. The context is always going to be that its murder. There is no context that can change murder into not murder.
Here's a question: I killed someone yesterday. Was it morally acceptable or unacceptable?
You have the context lol. We are no longer talking about murder.
We'll save some time and I'll tell you what you're going to invariably say. Which will be that you can't tell because there's no context. It might be me killing someone just for fun or me acting to protect myself. Please pay close attention to this next statement:
Yes but thats a different thing altogether. Murder is murder. Your not comparing apples with apples. One is murder and the other is killing or killing in self defense. They are different situations.
Murder will always be murder and there is no context that can ever make it not murder. For the very reason the context is specific. But then thats the only time it can every be murder and immoral.
Absolute morality means that acts are wrong regardless of context.
Yes so murder is always wrong because it is called murder and not killing. There will be no context that can undo the context that murder is murder. In that sense its absolute.
But its not immoral because there is a conext where people can kill in self defense. That is a seperate moral issue which is another moral that is the basis for why it is what it is. A moral of preserving life. Not a contextualised murder that can somehow be justified.
But to tell me if I was being immoral or not you need the context. It therefore cannot be defined as absolute morality by the very definition of the term. So when it's me killing to protect myself, 'killing' is the act and 'to protect myself' is the context. Obviously a case of relative morality. Because the morality would change if the context changes. If we change that context to 'just for fun' then it becomes immoral.
Yes in the overall scheme of morality because it never works in isolation from other morals that its the context in which it happens. But I think its not as simple as each moral is either absolute or contextual. I think the moral itself is the context that has already been established and its either always wrong or not.
So in the case of murder its context is always its immoral. You don't need to envoke other contextes because its already intrinsically wrong. Theres no way around it.
But if you do envoke other context your really envoking a completely different moral rather than the same moral being contextualised. That being self defense is a different moral situation about preserving innocent life. If you don't then you are culperable of wrong by ommission.
I cannot relate killing in self defense as a context for which murder is ok or related that somehow makes the same act not murder. Its a category destinction. Its like compromising murder into ok killing. Rather than grounding non murder in a completely different moral basis that gives weight to why each are completely different morals rationals. But both can be absolute because they have their own basis for why they hold such moral status.
The fact that we have a term for both of those acts, being 'murder' and 'self defence' doesn't change anything.
I think it does. Its all in the label we have given it. We call it murder for a reason. Its already qualified. Otherwise we call it self defense to destinguish its not murder but something else.
Is lying morally acceptable? Well most people would say it would be ok if it was to save the family in the basement. That is a classic case of relative morality.
Why. How is it relative. What are the options. Lie and save the family or don't lie and allow the Nazi to take the family. For which I might add would breach the whole point of hiding the family in the first place. So its not relative. Either saving or condeming the family to death.
The whole idea of whether its ok to lie is a red herring. The moral situation was already determined as the moral that we must save life as we would want to be saved. Basic humanity and the Golden Rule. Its one of the most basic morals humans know.
The moral was already set and the issue of lying had been negated and irrelevant. It was a greater moral that was grounding the actions. Not that its ok to lie depending on some relative opinion or belief about the context.
Now if we had a word for 'lying to save a family in the basement from the Gestapo' - let's say it's 'zeitblinter',
Does it have to be German lol. my German is not good. What about Sauerkraut. I like Sauerkraut.
then to then say that zeitblinter is always wrong, therefore is an example of absolute morality, is absolute nonsense.
If explaining the situation in a few words is an example of relative morality then how in heaven's name does explaining the situation with one word change it to an example of absolute morality?
That's crazy town.
My point is not that there is no contextualisation because obviously lying to the Germans to save the life of humans is different to lying for selfish gain that harms others.
I am saying that within each context there is an objective and even absolute moral truth that can never be contextualised out of being morally ok to do.
The idea of realtive morality often fuels the idea that morality is itself relative and subjective. The reason being is because the fact that morals can be contextual but also absolute and objective within each situation. There will always be a moral truth to be found that can never be contextualised or rationalised away.
