It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Societies do not collapse due to moral relativism. Societies are always more or less morally relativistic. That's because human beings are. It's our nature--though that doesn't make it right, or absolve us of the moral responsibility to behave fairly and without prejudice towards all.
How do those whose application of their core beliefs, their personal absolutes, brings them into conflict with a society which frequently attempts to legislate morality and values, based solely on the standards of those in charge?
Originally posted by Astyanax
To answer your question: we fight the battles we can win, which are few, do our best to spread our beliefs by precept and example, and struggle daily with the conflicting demands of safety and conscience.
It isn't really as terrifying, or as bleak, as it sounds, though. You get used to it.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There may be instances of absolute answers to moral questions, but that's confusing the entirety of morality with a single point.
Is it moral to kill one person to save two?
Which is more moral: to kill a child to save an adult or to kill an adult to save a child?
Which is more moral: to feed one starving child or another?
I don't care if he's a Christian, Muslim, atheist or follower of Thor, I care about how he runs this country
Originally posted by adjensen
If you read the remainder of the thread, the OP is just a kicking off point. If there is absolute morality, there is no "more moral", there is simply moral or not. If there is absolute morality, it is not moral to kill one person to save two, any more than it is moral to kill two people to save one.
None of your questions address morality, rather, they address rationalization, which is the justification for having violated one's morality.
But it's quite easy to demonstrate that there isn't an absolute morality
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
If you do not flip the switch, you are responsible for the deaths of hundreds.
If you do flip the switch, you are responsible for the death of 1, 2, or 3 people.
That is not a rationalization issue. Flipping the switch would be an inherently moral situation. You'd be killing at least one person, but you would be saving the lives of hundreds.
Originally posted by slugger9787
www.proofthatgodexists.org...
Do not believe in absolute:
That statement in and of itself is absolute.
Originally posted by MrRed
What is good for one may not be for another. Whether right or wrong, my moral may differ from yours.
Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by adjensen
Might makes right.
He who is mightiest is rightest.
There's your moral relativist, Astyanax :-)
Originally posted by MrRed
There is no absolute anything. There is always "room" for discussion and maneuver.
Originally posted by adjensen
If there is not a common source of right and wrong, what decides what is right, what is wrong?
Originally posted by Astyanax
Of course, neither the train problem, nor the others you two have been discussing, really have a bearing on the question of whether absolute morality--or even an absolute ethics--exists.
Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by adjensen
If there is not a common source of right and wrong, what decides what is right, what is wrong?
Ma Nature tends to get the casting vote in this kind of decision, don't you find?