Absolute Morality: Does it exist?

Well, I don't see it necessarily as something that "everyone need agree on",

Ok, not necessarily, but widespread, lively, committed disagreement is a bad sign that there is any impersonal sense that some particular behavior is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

I appreciate that just because something is true, or morally right, or insert good quality here, it isn't necessarily obvious that it's true, etc.

But if the matter is disputed? And not casually, but backed up?

I'd worry about my "absolute" in that case.

we agree that this is abhorrent behaviour.

But is this merely in accordance with our current societal view of what is right, and what is wrong, or does it indicate something deeper?

Merely is shaky. We happen to live in a society that has invested heavily, for thousands of years, in trying to figure out what is right, how to express that in workable laws, studying how other societies handle and have handled similar problems, and so on. We didn't get where we are by winging it.

But, we did get where we are by changing over time. Adult homosexuality: No problem, big problem, no problem if you're discreet about it, being discreet about it is the problem, don't ask, don't tell, ...

You name it, we've had it as our (then) current societal view of what is right on that subject.

That we even care is the "something deeper," I think, identifying the categories of what kinds of behavior present moral questions.

The answers change, except maybe at the extremes, the really vile stuff that nobody is ever going to condone. As opposed to the really vile stuff that at one time or another, or in one place or another, was just the way things were there and then.

You should refresh your recollection about what kinds of experiences the phrase rite of passage refers to, even today in some places, and in years past, just about any place.

People just like us did that to other people just like us. And neither donor nor recipient thought anything amiss, at least not in any moral sense.

Originally posted by adjensen
1) For those of you arguing age of consent -- my question was whether it is acceptable to sexually abuse children, so my question to you would be "at what age is it acceptable to sexually abuse children?"

Anything under 18 is rape or sexual abuse to some ppl and in some jurisdictions though.

So there is no absolute morality to that question since we already know ppl will give a different opinion depending on who you ask.

OK - There are moral absolutes and there have always been moral absolutes and never will change, basically everything you can express in Latin describes God's Laws and they are unchanging and never will change because there will never be any new latin words.

Latin has been called a dead language, but is it not the basis of everything we know? The laws of nature, the law of gravity, the laws of science, the laws of mathematics, the law of motion, Newton's law and all the other guys who discovered laws that were named after them (of which there are very many indeed), all based in Latin, then interpreted to the very many languages that derived from Latin: French, German, English, Spanish, Portuguese, Greek and Romanian.

None of these are relative. They are and always will be absolutes.

Originally posted by eight bits
But, we did get where we are by changing over time. Adult homosexuality: No problem, big problem, no problem if you're discreet about it, being discreet about it is the problem, don't ask, don't tell, ...

You name it, we've had it as our (then) current societal view of what is right on that subject.

This is probably a good example of the non-absolute side of things. As I said earlier, I've been on both sides of this, for a variety of reasons, as has society. The changes that you've noted above are (save the first) changes that American society has seen in the past 50 years. Other parts of the world have seen different changes, some have seen none.

Our own moral values are either the things that seem to be inherent, or are things that we've reasoned or been persuaded the merits of. Societal morals, though, seem to be less inherent and less reasonable, and more persuasive. I've noticed over the years that activists tend not to vanish after they have effected some sort of social change, they generally move on to the next thing that they want to change.

The result is our own moral code frequently needing to be reevaluated against this often shifting societal code, which is generally being directed and defined by people who are not us, but who believe that their own personal absolute view of some issue needs to be what the rest of us believe.

Often times, that's okay, because the issue at hand is either one that we don't care all that passionately about, or the difference isn't all that great, or we can live with it, but when the activist's application of their absolute runs affront of someone who holds a polar opposite absolute, that's when problems arise. In many cases, the person who disagrees with this societal norm is told that it is wrong to hold their position, even if it was acceptable a short time before.

(BTW, I sent you a U2U last night, but with this new system, I don't even know if we get notified of those things any more. Check the "Member Tools" menu if you didn't get it.)

reply to post by adjensen

adjensen,

Of course everybody is going to answer "no" to those questions but that answers comes from a very questionable source.

I think I would say no to all three questions but that answer is coming from the same place that houses my super-ego (morality). It is kinda biased in informing me how I should answer.

Great thread!! Thanks for giving me something to wonder about the coming week. S+F

Peace

reply to post by adjensen

if you want a answer, ans another question: what is reason to have whatever morality

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by adjensen

 

if you want a answer, ans another question: what is reason to have whatever morality

Morals guide our choices, both as individuals and as groups, but what guides our morals, that's what we're trying to work through here.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by SarK0Y
reply to post by adjensen

 

if you want a answer, ans another question: what is reason to have whatever morality

Morals guide our choices, both as individuals and as groups, but what guides our morals, that's what we're trying to work through here.

yes, in other words, morality enlists rules to live in society & those rules define stability of whatever society. that's crucial clue to distinguish bad or good morality: good morality produces well-stable society. now, we got next question: what is well-stable society? it's society of well - educated persons, where Life & Health of each other are most important goal. society w\o good morality cannot get most advanced science. now, we have the cult of money & pleasure, morality is downplayed & perverted, tolerance is gone beyond whatever sanity, churches are just supermarkets to sell plenary indulgences of sins to consumers for humble money btw, take to read the real Brilliant among the World literature, The Sorrows of Satan. there're many answers about mankind.

reply to post by adjensen


I don't believe in morality all together. Morality is only as good as the people define it. I chose logic instead. Common sense. The universal rights of man. These things based on reason put morality to shame.

Morality only shows up once in the bible. And it isn't even talking about good morality or bad morality. It's talking about the universal logic God put in every man that he is so keen to ignore.

My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires. 21Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you

Forget Morals. They are nothing more than acts of man to try and be like God. Use some common sense and reason. That above statement will bring you to it naturally.

reply to post by Gorman91


I'm confused, Gorman. Are you saying that you believe in God, but do not believe in an absolute morality? Or that morality doesn't really matter?

reply to post by adjensen


I'm saying morality does not exist. it is a fabrication of mankind to attempt to return to what was once nature to us.

Take away the last 10,000 years of human history. All that utter... for lack of a better term, utter bulsh*t. Throw it away. Return to basics. This was done long ago by European philosophers of the Enlightenment era, but the lack of understanding of such common fact is frightening for the contemporary world.


You are you. You are human. You have a right to exist because you are. You have a right to what you make because it was made by you. The rest is common sense. Those who respect that deserve the same returned. Those who do not respect that still deserve it, but their infractions means they must be removed from where you are for the safety of both. These are the basic concepts of the rights of man. Most simple and most common.

What morality is is only right to those who follow it. It is a fabrication of man to try and make man return to how he once was. To try and make things right and wrong. What is right and what is wrong is quite obvious using some common sense and logic. Logic is absolute and unchangeable. It does not change in France or China. Morals do, because they are fabricated.

It should be common sense. But I have noticed a general decay of this once common knowledge in my short life. it is scary.

The simple fact is that morality is, by nature of being made by man, flawed. For man is flawed. If you chose to make morality follow logic, then you have something that is logic with a different name. It is, however, still logic. Logic therefore can be called the absolute morality. But morality does not exist. It is merely the human lens on logic. Worse off, those who do not have an education cannot know logic for they do not understand the concept of common sense. And common sense has been going extinct in this time period. A general decay of what was once so obvious.

It is sad this generation choses the curtain of morality to support their way of life rather than the walls of logic. Curtains have no load bearing strength. Morality in this way is the surest way to miserable failure and a general decay of civilization.

Morality is the byproduct of 10,000 years of human bullsh*t. It is nothing more than a fabricated view of reality.

0 degrees Fahrenheit is good to pack meat and bad to go swimming.

Absolutist says: "0 degrees is good" or "0 degrees is bad"

Relativist says: "0 degrees is not good or bad. Nothing is good or bad"

Both are mistaken.

Child Molestation is bad in the context of health and respect towards our fellow human, i.e. survival of our species. If Survival is not the context we live in, then Child Molestation is neither good nor bad. But since Survival is the basic context we all share, then hurting others is wrong/bad.

Originally posted by Gorman91
The simple fact is that morality is, by nature of being made by man, flawed. For man is flawed. If you chose to make morality follow logic, then you have something that is logic with a different name. It is, however, still logic. Logic therefore can be called the absolute morality. But morality does not exist. It is merely the human lens on logic. Worse off, those who do not have an education cannot know logic for they do not understand the concept of common sense. And common sense has been going extinct in this time period. A general decay of what was once so obvious.

Interesting.

As I wrote earlier, morals are either inherent, reasoned, or taught. Your position, then, is that inherent and taught morals are fruitless, and that one needs to apply logic (reason) to an issue and work out what their moral position might be?

I can see that, and I think that many people try to do that, but it implies (or requires) something that doesn't seem to exist -- a common agreement on what is good and what is evil. Even within the framework of a religious moral code, there is a struggle to sort out good and evil.

For example, I can give you a compelling logical argument in favour of homosexual rights, from a religious, political and societal perspective. But I can also give you a compelling argument in opposition to them, as well, from the same perspectives.

The reason that I'm currently on the side of favouring them is because my core good/evil metre shows that this is the morally correct view (for me.) The question is whether that metre has changed, or whether my analysis of the logic of homosexual rights has changed. And if the metre has changed, what other views do I hold that might be in opposition to that, because I haven't given them the thought that I have this one?

Just as a person holding an absolute morality will struggle to hold it, or struggle to be accepted, in a society that holds that same morality in a non-absolute fashion, our own personal morality cannot be viewed as absolute unless our view of good and evil is also unwavering, right?

Furthermore, morals are only needed for a civilization that does not understand or know karma. By karmic law, everything you do unto others will eventually be done unto you throughout the millenia of your existence as a body or a soul. An enlightened society that would understand this would require no laws and no morals because everyone would be voluntarily do what is natural and good.

Are there absolute objective laws of science?
Are there absolute objective laws of math?
Are there absolute objective laws of logic?
Are there absolute objective laws of morality?

www.proofthatgodexists.org...

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Child Molestation is bad in the context of health and respect towards our fellow human, i.e. survival of our species. If Survival is not the context we live in, then Child Molestation is neither good nor bad. But since Survival is the basic context we all share, then hurting others is wrong/bad.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with you, because there is survival of the individual, and the survival of the species or society, and treating others poorly or horribly doesn't really affect the second, and only marginally affects the first.

Rather than survival, it seems that this is a matter of "decency" or "justice." It offends, deeply, our sense of fairness and our desire to protect the innocent. For example, a eugenicist might argue that society would be better off to kill persons who are born with disabilities that will cause them to drain societal resources and not be able to contribute anything. The vast majority are mortified by this notion, not because they've sorted out anything as regards the benefit to society's longevity, but because their sense of decency and justice outweighs any such benefit.

Survival can be an aspect of morality, but it cannot be the only thing, and, as in this example, it can be trumped by another aspect which is far less cut and dried.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Furthermore, morals are only needed for a civilization that does not understand or know karma. By karmic law, everything you do unto others will eventually be done unto you throughout the millenia of your existence as a body or a soul. An enlightened society that would understand this would require no laws and no morals because everyone would be voluntarily do what is natural and good.

Those starvin' African kids sure got what they deserved.

So did those Kurds, and don't even get me started on the Jews during WWII. Those poor sops, Manson was surely the hand of God dispensing some good, old-fashioned justice, why arrest him? Those Dalits in India are just paying the karmic price for their inequities, why do people even bother to protest their treatment, are they simply too damn unenlightened?

I disagree with karma because it gives people excuses to not be humane.

[edit on 7-9-2010 by 547000]

reply to post by Skyfloating


So you would have no problem having Charles Manson or Jeff Dahmer living in your house?

Originally posted by slugger9787


So you would have no problem having Charles Manson or Jeff Dahmer living in your house?

If you think so then you dont understand my position.

Originally posted by 547000

I disagree with karma because it gives people excuses to not be humane.

The opposite is true. If I know and understand karmic law then I do only acts of kindness and respect toward others.