Are There Any Moral Absolutes?

[femme_fatale!]

The major problem when we speak about morality is thay it is seen as relative so what may be wrong for me may be right to others and what may be good for me may be evil for others, etc. If such is the case then we will never come to the point of understanding each other since everyone would be imposing to the other what for them “is,” unless the other side is willing to compromise or even undergo conversion. But if everyone strongly "believes" that 'this' is the truth, the good, and firmly hold to their own convictions, unity among people would be really difficult to conceive. But despite plurality isn't it amazing that people of different backgrounds still come to the point of agreeing and respecting the other?

As I have observed here in FC, people tend to look at morality as relative; what may be moral to me may not be moral to you or what may be considered immoral in our country is moral to your country. Yet despite different backgrounds and diversity of opinions there is something that unites us and that is the respect for "life." And to respect life is to be true to oneself in as much as you give the other their own space for growth and development by letting them to be true to themselves too. I think this is what ethics or morality universal, I will the good of the other as I will the good for my self.

[Exodus1811]

But question for you all - you may go back in time and kill hiltler (for example) but since he was a product of his time and history/nature abhors a vacume what happens if the person who takes the space Hitler left behind is worse ? Or by killing him you had made him a martyr and more people decided his cause was right ?

It's easy to say that killing someone who would otherwise kill many people is right - but to quote "it's highly simplistic"


"If we are given enough details about any situation, we can decide, absolutely, what the right and wrong things to do are." - maybe you could make what seemed to be the right decision at that moment in time - but no amount of detail you think you have can help you predict the far reaching effects in the long term......because their are SO many possible permutations and the one that you dont think about is the one that will end up happening

One thing I've learned so far - is that you can sit in a cafe or on the internet and say 'I wouldn't do X ' or 'Y is wrong' - but if it comes to the crunch you will do things to survive that you never thought you would.

[Fallen]

I posted this topic because I wanted to find out if people believed in any type of absolute morality. As has been said, if morals are relative (plus, if it's just the survival of the fittest), then you are incapable of telling me that any action I take is wrong.

Mentioning Hitler though there are many philosophies under which what he did was right. Sartre, for example, "we are unable to choose the worse. What we choose is always better; and nothing can be better for us unless it is better for all". Better for me means better for you. Interesting thought.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by Fallen

I posted this topic because I wanted to find out if people believed in any type of absolute morality. As has been said, if morals are relative (plus, if it's just the survival of the fittest), then you are incapable of telling me that any action I take is wrong.

People are told that actions are wrong all the time. Our society is based on these commonly held values.

Now, as to the absolute quality of these values, they seem not to be in need of that quality. Only that they are useful.

[Pitchforkpat]

Originally Posted by Fallen

I posted this topic because I wanted to find out if people believed in any type of absolute morality. As has been said, if morals are relative (plus, if it's just the survival of the fittest), then you are incapable of telling me that any action I take is wrong.

Aahh yes, the classic, yet fallacious, Christian (or religious) argument that if we take away the absolute authority of the Bible (or some religious text), then there will be something akin to moral chaos. This position cannot be substantiated. I am actually a far more moral person now than I was when I was a Christian. I now do good for people purely out of compassion without a hint of the carrot and stick of heaven and hell. Atheism does not mean immorality. Atheists are by in large very caring and nurturing people.

Humans are gregarious. In most societies we need each other and to get along with each other in order to survive. Groups of people living in proximity need agreed upon rules (or laws) that allow common understanding of what society deems right or wrong. For example, we can all agree that violence, unless in self defence, is wrong. Theft of personal property is wrong, and I don’t mean land because that is more complicated. Despite what a certain person (whose name begins with K….then has the letters o-l-r-i-s after it) would argue, people will always feel possessive over something (i.e. children, wife, a grass necklaces, etc) and there must be rules to protect avoid random pilferage.

I’m not even sure anyone knows what “absolute morality” means in practicable terms, but if anyone thinks the Bible is a PERFECT source of moral authority, I’d be more than happy to discuss it.

[drunkenirish]

morals are personal, there are no absolutes, absolutely.

[Rehab]

Originally Posted by drunkenirish

morals are personal, there are no absolutes, absolutely.

True, yet we persist in creating laws that presume the possibility of an absolute morality.

[kyman]

Eternity is the ONLY absolute, in which are relatives exist. Form expresses eternity. The more is flows, the more it changes, it stays the same. So eternity, and its continual expression of form are the only absolutes.

[Dromiceius]

Is there any action that you would say is totally and unequivocally wrong? And, if so what is your basis for that decision?

No. Even to the person who wants to avoid suffering, and maintain order in the world, killing people helps accomplish this, even though it seems contrary to their cause.

Originally Posted by Rehab

True, yet we persist in creating laws that presume the possibility of an absolute morality.

Laws are created to keep society from crumbling.

[Fallen]

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

Aahh yes, the classic, yet fallacious, Christian (or religious) argument that if we take away the absolute authority of the Bible (or some religious text), then there will be something akin to moral chaos. This position cannot be substantiated.

It isn't about "moral chaos", pat, and I'm sure you know it. We have taken away the absolute authority of the Bible and morals have been relatively static (with some glaring exceptions).

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

I am actually a far more moral person now than I was when I was a Christian.

Sorry to hear that. How long were you a Christian and from what age?

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

I now do good for people purely out of compassion, without a hint of the carrot and stick of heaven and hell.

If that's all you think it is...I'm sorry to disappoint you, but it's not the "carrot stick" you are talking about. I don't "do good" (whatever that is ) to people because of obligation; it is out of love - whether you agree or not.

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

Atheism does not mean immorality. Atheists are by in large very caring and nurturing people.

Never said it did or that they weren't. Just means no justification for right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

For example, we can all agree that violence, unless in self defence, is wrong. Theft of personal property is wrong...

How? What makes it wrong?

Originally Posted by Pitchforkpat

I’m not even sure anyone knows what “absolute morality” means in practicable terms, but if anyone thinks the Bible is a PERFECT source of moral authority, I’d be more than happy to discuss it.

I agree that most (if not all) people do not know what "absolute morality" is. And the Bible gives you your boundaries - but if you disagree; Why? Is that only in your opinion? Who's your authority?