reply to post by adjensen
I'm going to assume that by absolute morality you mean OBJECTIVE morality as in it would be the same for everyone.
2) No. As far as I know even in the days of child brides it was considered wrong to molest children.
because there are people who DO believe it to be acceptable
So wait. I thought you were arguing FOR absolute morality. How can it be absolute if people disagree with it?
You claim that it is absolute BECAUSE we agree with it - the idea that its a matter of opinion, however, would immediately make it SUBJECTIVE and not
Now that we've seen that an absolute morality exists
But you haven't demonstrated any such thing.
Morality stems from what is deemed best for individuals as a society. This is why things like slavery were kept around for so long. The slaves were
not counted as part of the society, they were considered less than human and even after they were considered human their labor was considered too
integral to society to allow them to be free.
The reason we all have a revulsion to child molestation is because we are taught a collective morality that stems from the society in which we live.
It is not absolute and to prove this all one needs to do is find a less horrific issue than child molestation like legalizing pot or same sex
marriage. You'll find a vast array of differing opinions on those subjects.
Same sex marriage is one that often points out the source of someone's morality. If someone is raised in a very religious family where homosexuality
is thought to be a sin than that person will likely turn out against same sex marriage. Once again this points toward SUBJECTIVE morality.
The wavering morality we see if we look back to history is indicative of morality being subjective and not absolute.
My take away of that is that this particular absolute morality points to something which underlies it
Yes. Human beings are a social animal, we survive better in communities. As such behaviors that hurt the community/society, or individuals within the
society, are considered immoral. Evolution has provided us with a very basic moral framework. This I think is the underlying "absolute" you are
pointing to, that the human mind is hardwired for morality. But we can see that despite the hard-wiring it is the nurture element that has the upper
hand on the nature part.
one would think that even an intellectualized species would not shy away from this.
Animals that kill their young have a distinct disadvantage to those that don't. This is why typically those that do kill or eat their own young are
the sort of animals that reproduce more than one baby at a time. Human beings typically only have children one at a time and our infants, unlike the
infants of some other species, are almost entirely helpless and need to be nurtured. Evolution has built into us instincts to nurture our young which
are meant to subvert more primal instincts that might be vestiges of a time before we were apes.
However that is not to say we haven't practiced plenty of infanticide. Human sacrifice was once common in certain cultures as was killing off the
sickly and deformed infants. Once again we see that morality is equal parts nature and nurture.
While I do think a moral framework exists within us I also think it fairly obvious that this is not absolute. The framework is there but the morals
themselves are decided typically according to what is deemed best for society or necessary.
I'm reminded of a line the Joker gives to Batman in the Dark Knight about how people are only as good as the world allows them to be. We're only as
good as the society we live in and our morals are only as good as the source of our morality. Our parents and our society give us a starting morality
to work from and as adults we typically make up our minds on how WE feel about subjects often taking into account our experiences.
Morality is Subjective, not absolute.
[edit on 5-9-2010 by Titen-Sxull]