Moral Absalutes COME ON!! try and tell me murder is wrong!

reply to post by the illuminator


has something undesirable occurred recently in your life? Someone saying/doing something you hated/disliked?

RIGHT and WRONG are human concepts. They don't exist without the mind that conceives them. RIGHT and WRONG DO NOT EXIST, except in your mind. Nobody does anything wrong, given their frame of reference of the world; not Hitler, not Stalin, not Mao. In THEIR mind, they did not do anything wrong. Nobody does anything wrong IN THE PRESENT MOMENT, otherwise you wouldn't be doing it, or you are NOT in the present moment.

I wonder why you are asking a question like this.....please explain, because I can't understand why anyone would ask that question.

the point of this thread is i want someone to tell me there is no moral absolutes. so many people have used moral relativism as a way of disproving God. i want to know how many on ATS believe that our moral judgment of right on wrong is nothing but chemicals moving around in our brains. if that's the case who is to say murder is wrong? who gives that authority? why do we know murder is wrong?

reply to post by the illuminator


The good old illusion of absolute moral laws.



Atheists don't insist that anything goes; Even if they do highlight moral relativism.

And religion is just as guilty of moral relativism as any modern democratic society; do Christians still burn witches and wizards in accordance with doctrine?....Actually some still are.

Most Christians don't admit (or are too cowardly to admit) that they consider homosexuality detestable and wish to ban it as a matter of state law.

Just because most cultures on Earth find paedophilia abhorrent; doesn't make it an absolute law; but by no means is that condoning paedophilia as a moral act.

Moral laws are subjective on earth; many tribes still practice cannibalism; some even consider it "spiritual" or "religious", many cultures marry young children, or have younger drinker ages. It can depend on the current zeitgeist in a historical period; culture, religion, or state law.

But just because atheists acknowledge different moral laws; doesn't mean that they could justify abusing a child; or stealing from a friend.

I fully reccommend you watch this video; and watch it without prejudice. I know Sam is an atheist; but his points are worth considering:-

Its considered wrong in most everyday situations for one human in a 'tribe' to murder another human being in the same tribe. Its wrong because we have collectively decided it is. Human society relies on collaboration and most of our moral rules serve to ensure cohesion is maintained within a tribe.

Nothing much changes except the size of the tribe.

Originally posted by the illuminator
the point of this thread is i want someone to tell me there is no moral absolutes. so many people have used moral relativism as a way of disproving God. i want to know how many on ATS believe that our moral judgment of right on wrong is nothing but chemicals moving around in our brains. if that's the case who is to say murder is wrong? who gives that authority? why do we know murder is wrong?

Morals are relative.

Every action can be justified depending on the circumstances.

There are destructive actions whose agenda is to arrive at nothingness.
There are creative actions whose agenda is to arrive at infinity.

Infinity=Nothing. If infinity were something it would be finite. Anything you say about infinity, you can say about nothing.

What I'm saying is its all about perspective. Are you headed towards nothing with your action, or infinity? It doesn't matter, all paths lead to the same destination.

reply to post by the illuminator


OK.....thanks for the reply. It sounded like you wanted permission to murder someone I think we do inherently have a sense of right and wrong to a point. For instance, when I was a child, I didn't know about death, but I accidentally stepped on a cricket.....and it died. I cried and cried over killing a cricket. So that had to be my mind, as my Mom had to sit me down and explain death to me. There are some people who might not have it naturally, but I think most people are born with the ability to empathise, and can "feel" right and wrong.

Originally posted by the illuminator
the point of this thread is i want someone to tell me there is no moral absolutes. so many people have used moral relativism as a way of disproving God. i want to know how many on ATS believe that our moral judgment of right on wrong is nothing but chemicals moving around in our brains. if that's the case who is to say murder is wrong? who gives that authority? why do we know murder is wrong?

So this is about proving the existence of God? I don't think that's necessary when it comes to defining murder as wrong. Murder involves folks removing other folks from society for whatever reason,and it's societies that decided that's not cool -- long before Christianity was popular. God or not, it was my mom who first pointed out to me that people who kill other people are bad, not a burning bush (though that would've been cool).

If a Father kills the man that raped his daughter I would find this morally just!

If a person kills a pedophile who is victimizing a child, as long as the child is not witness to the murder, I would find this morally just!

If a child who is tortured murders the adult who is torturing them, I would put them away and have them understand that they did have choices even though they felt they did not, and then upon reaching adulthood I would find it morally sound to give this child back their freedom without the conditions of "murderer" or "killer" placed upon them. I would find that the child acted within the best interest of their survival!

If a murderer is murdered do we find the one who murdered him to be any less a murderer? No!

I guess the question that remains is the redemption of the murderer, but that is not for us to judge, only GOD can do that. Could I murder? I wanted to, and I have often thought of this, but the time is wrong because now I am no longer the child that was being tortured or molested. So I ask forgiveness and I try so very hard at forgiving them without allowing them back into my life. Could I murder? Yes, anyone can, it is very easy to do!

It is about right and wrong, but there are things that are justified in the face of the evil that exists within Man! This is why we have prison and this is why we have Laws. Murder is wrong and yet there will be many that die because they are filled with hatred and evil; they will be justly rewarded in the end!

reply to post by the illuminator

Murder is always wrong because murder is defined as wrong.

murder: the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

As many have already pointed out, killing other people needn’t be murder. Your challenge should have been ‘try to tell me killing is wrong’. Because it often isn’t.

But the example of murder, or even killing, doesn’t take us very far when discussing whether morality is absolute or not. Obviously, for any person whose morals are religiously derived, morality is absolute – where God has spoken, Man may not argue or disobey. For people who derive their morals from non-religious ethical principles, things are harder.

It is difficult to make a case for moral behaviour in a universe that seems both amoral and indifferent to humanity. That has not stopped philosophers from arguing that absolute ethical principles do exist, or that we should bring them into existence by acting as if they do. Other philosophers have argued for a humanistic or existential morality which doesn’t pretend to be universal and absolute but can be considered in that way when applied to human beings and our interactions with the natural world.

*

reply to post by l_e_cox

Moral values are not rational.

I don’t completely disagree, but consider this. Our moral values are based on our animal instincts.

Like other social animals, we instinctively form hierarchies, cooperate and share resources, give and take favours, form sexual pair bonds to raise offspring, protect and sacrifice ourselves to help those related to us (the closer the better) and so on. Also, and again like other animals, we try instinctively to take what we want when we are able, and we may instinctively put our interests ahead of others’ even to the point of hurting or killing them. Our desire for revenge, too, is instinctive.

All these instincts evolved because they offer certain evolutionary advantages. These advantages often work against each other (while helping yourself to the last drumstick on the table may nourish you and gratify your appetite, it will also earn you the potentially dangerous resentment of your fellow diners), but in themselves they are always rational.

Morality is a way of handling the rational but often conflicting claims of instinct. So whether a moral prescription is rational or not depends on whether the resulting behaviour is always (or ever) rational. Religious morality can result in irrational behaviour when its basis for judging an action is traditional (pigs are unclean, having more than one husband per lifetime is wrong) or mythological (the god of the volcano can only be placated by the sacrifice of virgins). Whatever rational bases once existed for such traditions and taboos, they have long since vanished.

Ethics are personal. Morals are social.

The difference between ethics and morals is simply that ethics prescribe how we should behave while morals describe what we should or shouldn’t do. Ultimately, though, both relate to our social behaviour.

Here are two famous examples of ethical prescriptions:

• Do as you would be done by
  
  
• Make of your life an example to others of how to live

Compare them with these examples of moral prescriptions:

• Don’t murder people
  
  
• Be faithful to your husband

Ethics are superior to morals, because they allow you to adapt your behaviour to circumstances while still acting according to your principles, while morals simply tell you that you can’t do this or that, no matter what the situation. The disadvantage of ethics compared to morals is that ethical behaviour requires intelligent thought, and even if you are a genius, thinking takes time.

reply to post by Greensage

If a person kills a pedophile who is victimizing a child, as long as the child is not witness to the murder, I would find this morally just!

The current Western hysteria about paedophilia is prurient, disgusting and ridiculous. Paedophilia is wrong because it ruins innocent lives, but it is no worse than any other behaviour which has that effect.

Child marriage was the norm in the long-ago Middle Eastern societies that gave rise to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You will find no proscription against it in any of these faiths.

Your willingness to justify the murder of selected fellow-humans is quite as reprehensible to me, in its way, as paedophilia. If – like you – I thought people should be killed for doing wrong, why should I not think it perfectly right and just that you be killed?

Murder is neither correct nor wrong. It just happens to be part of this reality. Collectively, death of a physical representation of an entity is sad. So yeah, in the hearts of those who still retain their souls, murder is bad. Killing is bad, too. Revenge taken as a means to "right the wrong" is balanced:- an eye for an eye.

Murder is defined as immoral or unlawful killing, thus it is by definition always wrong. The question is "what is murder? What is immoral killing?"

Now if you ask even better question "can killing other people be moral"? Then the answer is yes. Killing when required due to self-defense or defense of others is moral, thus in fact, not killing in that case is immoral.

From that we can see that acts themselves (killing, stealing, helping others..) are NOT universally moral or immoral. Some can produce moral effect in most cases, some can produce immoral effect in most cases, but we can still find an example when for example killing or stealing is moral. The effects or consequences (when compared to alternatives) is what determines morality of our choice of conduct (moral consequentialism - utilitarianism is a subtype of it).

reply to post by Maslo

If only it were that simple.

An action is to be judged by its consequences? Who can tell all the consequences of an action? One consequence begets others, and these beget still others, and so on down the stream of causality. Are we capable of enumerating them, let alone making an account of their value?

Or shall we limit our assessment of consequences to only those which the actor intended? Then we are left with the doctrine that the end justifies the means.

Yet the question of the actor’s intent cannot be left out of the accounting. A man may plot and carry out evil plans, which then go wrong to the general benefit of everybody. Should we praise him and his actions? On what grounds do they earn our praise?

reply to post by Astyanax


Lets differentiate between morality of an act (determined by its consequences), and morality of a person (determined by his/her intent). Those are not the same.

reply to post by Maslo

Yes, this is recognized, but it does not help us out of the difficulty I outlined above.

reply to post by Astyanax


The difficulty of determining morality of an act in advance is recognized. It is true that we cannot determine with absolute certainty the consequences of many actions, and thus cannot determine reliably their morality. But thats only the problem of our prediction ability and problem of having incomplete information, it does not imply the morality of an act itself is in reality undefined.

Yet the question of the actor’s intent cannot be left out of the accounting. A man may plot and carry out evil plans, which then go wrong to the general benefit of everybody. Should we praise him and his actions? On what grounds do they earn our praise?

We should praise the actions, but we should not praise him as a person.

It is possible for a moral person to commit immoral act, while having good intent, and ammoral person to commit moral act, while having bad intent. Thats precisely because our ability to predict the consequences is limited.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Greensage

 

If a person kills a pedophile who is victimizing a child, as long as the child is not witness to the murder, I would find this morally just!

The current Western hysteria about paedophilia is prurient, disgusting and ridiculous. Paedophilia is wrong because it ruins innocent lives, but it is no worse than any other behaviour which has that effect.

Child marriage was the norm in the long-ago Middle Eastern societies that gave rise to Judaism, Christianity and Islam. You will find no proscription against it in any of these faiths.

Your willingness to justify the murder of selected fellow-humans is quite as reprehensible to me, in its way, as paedophilia. If – like you – I thought people should be killed for doing wrong, why should I not think it perfectly right and just that you be killed?

edit on 7/7/11 by Astyanax because: of typos.

If I am the reason why I was sexually and physically abused, if I am the reason I was emotionally abused then yes you should kill me. If you are incapable of killing the monster then you might very well be enabling the monster to exist, perpetuating its existence.

Using Religion to justify the existence of this evil makes no sense to me. My Spirituality exists outside of Religion and has been the very core which has kept me from killing, but maybe that is about to change. I can only answer to GOD on my own as to why my life was torn and broken by the wicked at such a young age, I am sure I will be Forgiven for my failings as I own them.

The harm that is placed within never goes away so I am incapable of seeing your point of view. You condemn Western Society in its failings and then speak as if "the norm" of Middle Eastern philosophies are a Root to this madness. Even if that were so, I do not understand why you are incapable of seeing how removing a monster is unjust; would you let a rapist do time and expect them to change?

Killing is the easy part, not killing is the conscious effort to be better than them! So you are confused in your "acceptance" of be and let be approach to this, albeit as you say "disgusting and ridiculous".

Personally, I will forgive the murderer under the circumstances I stated, and for a very good reason! I am sure you are safe in your world and this was your blessing, not mine!

reply to post by Misterlondon


There are two types of people. Those to whom unprovoked murder is ok, and those to whom it isn't. No laws are needed to bind us in this pointless philisophical discussion. It is a simple matter of conscience. Do you have an instinct inside that tells you that this act is wrong or not. Angels and Demons. Could this be the difference between having a soul or being born without one?

Who's to say...

reply to post by Maslo

But thats only the problem of our prediction ability and problem of having incomplete information, it does not imply the morality of an act itself is in reality undefined.

So you do believe in absolute morality, then!

If the morality of an act can be defined independent of any human opinion about it, then morality is by definition absolute.

We should praise the actions.

Why should an action taken with intent to benefit the actor only, which results in an unforeseen benefit to others that was undesired by the actor, deserve praise? On what basis should we praise it? Merely because it benefits us? That’s not very moral.

That there are no good or bad people, morally speaking, is understood. So far we have been discussing only the moral quality of actions.