Absolutes

[Bob The Mercenary]

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)--Barely a third of all Americans believe in absolute standards of right and wrong, and far fewer hold to a biblical worldview, a new poll says.

The poll by The Barna Group, a Christian research organization, shows that only 35 percent of Americans believe in absolute standards of morality -- that is, believe that right and wrong do not change with time or circumstances.

Thirty-two percent of Americans say that morality depends on the situation and the circumstance, while 33 percent say they do not know if morality is absolute or relative. The poll involved interviews with 1,002 adults in July.

Moral relativity is often reflected in such statements as "that might be true for you, but it's not true for me" and "who are you to judge?"

"The fact that only 35 percent of all Americans believe in moral absolutes provides some frightening insight into our culture and the future of this country," Craig Vincent Mitchell, instructor of Christian ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, told Baptist Press.

"This statistic translated means that most people are willing to do whatever they can get away with. ... With so many rejecting the idea of moral absolutes, it is only a matter of time until our society collapses. A moral society is a happier society and a more successful one. An immoral society is one that destroys itself and its citizens."

But despite the outward rejection of moral absolutes, people still believe in absolutes "when it involves them or what belongs to them," Mitchell said.

"It is also interesting to note that most people who reject moral absolutes believe that Hitler was evil," he said. "No one believes that Kenneth Lay did the right thing for his employees or investors when he was the CEO of Enron. In other words, what people say or profess is often one thing, but what they really believe is another."

I stumbled upon this article while reading a christian newspaper my mom gets. I found it interesting because it reminded me of the adultery cards thread and the argument over morality in there. The paragraph that I thought was most interesting I put in bold. Do you agree with it?

And what do you think of morals? Are they static or do they change with time?

I cut the article where it went into 100% talk about the Bible so as to avoid religious discussion.

[Edit] Also, do morals change with the situation?

[Krylo]

If morals are static we should still be cutting people's hands off for thievery and women shouldn't have rights.

Of course morals change with time. If there is any definitive set of morals they certainly aren't known to mankind, and the people who believe they have the definitive set of morals will be derided as morally bankrupt and disgusting in years to come.

Back when women didn't have rights, moral absolutists believed that women having rights was universally wrong. Back when black people were enslaved moral absolutists believed that slavery was universally right.

We can't say 'obviously they were wrong' as moral relativists, but we can say that the current moral absolutists obviously disagree with that, and that's a pretty good point against moral absolutism as a whole. It's never been right in the past, I doubt it's going to be right now.

Further, I doubt even the people who wrote that article are true moral absolutists (believing that morals don't change with situations). I'm certain that if you were to ask them if murder was ok they'd say no, but that they wouldn't damn the men fighting in Iraq for killing enemies, or deride people (at least not heavily) for killing in self defense.

Edit: Also, their method of debate is horrible.

They say that morals are good because only moral societies flourish, but they don't say what KIND of moral societies flourish. One must assume that they mean societies of their own moral code, as that they're, apparently, moral absolutists (meaning that the morals they believe in were also right thousands of years ago).

The problem being that this is from a christian magazine, so one can easily assume that they're against older men having sex with young boys, as was common in greek culture, which flourished quite a bit. Or that they're against incest and emperors being called gods: Egypt and Rome before the rise of christianity. We can further assume they don't like human sacrifice like Sumeria (ancient mesopotamia, and one of the first, and most powerful, cultures. Discovered beer, in fact). We can even use Alexander the Great to disprove it.

In reality we don't even have to rely on assumptions about their morality. Greek morality differed from egyptian morality which differed from roman morality which all differes from american morality. Yet all the cultures thrived.

It's a pretty laughable idea.

[adamark]

Back when women didn't have rights, moral absolutists believed that women having rights was universally wrong. Back when black people were enslaved moral absolutists believed that slavery was universally right.

We can't say 'obviously they were wrong' as moral relativists, but we can say that the current moral absolutists obviously disagree with that, and that's a pretty good point against moral absolutism as a whole. It's never been right in the past, I doubt it's going to be right now.

Further, I doubt even the people who wrote that article are true moral absolutists (believing that morals don't change with situations). I'm certain that if you were to ask them if murder was ok they'd say no, but that they wouldn't damn the men fighting in Iraq for killing enemies, or deride people (at least not heavily) for killing in self defense.You're forgetting that there were also people who believed that slavery was a morally repugnant institution and that all humans beings deserve to be free. There were also people who believed that there should be universal franchise and that it was an absolute.

I think there are definitely moral/ethical absolutes, but one should be extremely careful about putting them into words, or putting them on a local level. In other words, all absolutes are general and vague.

For instance, I hold as a moral, ethical, and political absolute that all human beings desire freedom.

How you define freedom is what changes. Whether that human desires freedom for himself or freedom for others, or freedom for certain groups - that changes.

[Skyshot]

If I were to detail my moral views, I would at first look like a relativist, but I'm not.

Essentially, I consider the situation to be part of the morals. Consider the legal system. In terms of general process, kidnapping someone isn't that much different from arresting someone. You take them against their will to a place they (in theory) can't escape from. But arrest is legal, whereas kidnapping is not. It's an absolute thing when you factor in variables such as intent and target. Think of it like an algebraic equation, or a computer program.

(A lot of my worldview stems from my own theories that started with how to program AI, and realizing the human mind may already work that exact way. I might explain that more in depth some time.)

I'm certain that if you were to ask them if murder was ok they'd say no, but that they wouldn't damn the men fighting in Iraq for killing enemies, or deride people (at least not heavily) for killing in self defense.Eh? Did I misread that? Did you mean "if killing was ok"?

[meb955]

for adamark, while you are correct you don't see the problem -- who decides what is the proper moral absoute? there were strong people of faith on each side of those and many other questions, and we are in no real position to declare them any different than those who did the study and are decrying the lack of belief in absolutes. the writers obviously have theirs that they believe to be correct, but many of those who disagree (like muslims) are also moral absolutists whose morals the authors may not ageree with. so who gets to set the standard? and based upon what?

[Krylo]

I'm not really forgetting that.

However, that was the moral norm at the time. The absolutists believed this to be true at the time. If the absolutists THEN were wrong, why are the absolutists NOW right?

And if you can not know the moral absolutes of right and wrong, then isn't assuming moral objectivity more... moral?

For instance, I hold as a moral, ethical, and political absolute that all human beings desire freedom.

How you define freedom is what changes. Whether that human desires freedom for himself or freedom for others, or freedom for certain groups - that changes.
This is more human psychology, really. And, at least according to the people who wrote that paper, isn't moral absolutism.


Let's assume all humans desire freedom, or, more correctly, the vast majority of (or psychologically normal) humans desire freedom, either for themselves or others.

Now you have a set of people who only desire freedom for themselves. The moral absolutists in this camp say that slavery is OK so long as it's not THEM being enslaved.

The set of people, on the other hand, who want freedom for others, say slavery is wrong and bad and evil.

By your set of moral absolutes both are 'moral' or 'right'?

At least that's what it seems.

I'm sure that the people who wrote that paper would assume that allowing both sides of that fence to be moral would be moral relativism.

Indeed, I'm pretty sure that's a text book case of moral relativism.

[adamark]

You are probably right. But the relative aspect of that statement only starts when you try to define everything.

"All humans desire freedom" as a general statement might be an absolute.
Then the relativity comes into play when you define the last word.

I am not arguing that all morals are absolute vs. relative. I think there is a mix. There are absolute constructs or general principles and within those there are relative examples.

[Robot Jesus]

You're forgetting that there were also people who believed that slavery was a morally repugnant institution and that all humans beings deserve to be free. There were also people who believed that there should be universal franchise and that it was an absolute.


Yes but when Plato mentioned equal rights for women in the republic is was considered an absurd statement at the time.

Any moral you have somewhere is considered evil. There’s even a tribe in south America that values destruction of your enemy so highly that murder is considered good play.

For instance, I hold as a moral, ethical, and political absolute that all human beings desire freedom.

Yes but some societies don’t value it and feel one must go without in order to maintain order.

[adamark]

I never said "societies" desire freedom.

If you went up to every human being and asked "Do you desire freedom?" I think they would answer yes.

[Lockeownzj00]

Yes, but I think that's less of a "moral code" and more of a common occurrence, neh? As in, "most humans would not want to be physically hurt; most humans would not want to be emotionally hurt," etc.

I think it's quite obvious that there can't be moral absolutes, even in a vague way, it implies that some force of some kind is 'maintaining' its absolutism--almost inseperably tied to religion.

Although, another argument is that the absolute is only because of its high occurrence in humans, as adamark seems to be saying--but then it's still not absolute. Absolute is what the law aspires to be (but isn't)--something to be compared to and based off of for quote "guidance." There is no such thing for "morals" or "ethics," and attempts to organise them into strict guidelines are almost always futile.

[adamark]

It's really hard to say that there are moral guidelines against something. I was going to say that murder is an absolute wrong but I can think of numerous examples where I would even allow murder.

I think a moral absolute that permits something is more likely.

For instance, "Self defense is always allowed against an unprovoked, unjustified threat." But I might want to substitiute "allowed" and have "good" instead.

The other problem with this statement is that the amount of self defense is not defined. Certainly you should not kill someone if they are simply defaming you with words. So maybe: "Proportional self defense is always good against an unprovoked, unjustified threat."

Actually the problem now lies with the word "good" because that is so malleable. Gandhi would not think it's good, probably. So I would replace the word good with "justified."

"Proportional self defense is always justified against an unprovoked, unjustified threat."

Is this a moral absolute? There are probably other problems with it that I haven't seen yet. I think the true absolutes can't be expressed in words, which is why we'll never know just what they are.

[Robot Jesus]

Ok, but do we have the moral absolutes enshrined in our society.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Morals as a whole would seem to be an illusion. Why should they be followed? What makes them right?

Let's say I go outside and kill the first guy I see. Why shouldn't I? Because it's immoral? What does that mean and why should I, or anyone, comply?

I'm not against systems of law or anything of the sort. I'm just saying that this entire discussion seems to be rather futile.

[meb955]

Ok, but do we have the moral absolutes enshrined in our society.like what? what can you list that has been an absolute value of our society from the beginning? certainly not even murder, as for a long time acts against blacks or native americans were viewed as just fine.

[Megiddo]

like what? what can you list that has been an absolute value of our society from the beginning? certainly not even murder, as for a long time acts against blacks or native americans were viewed as just fine.

Incest. That's the only thing I can think of that is seen as a universal taboo. Now, whether or not people actually follow that is another story.....

[meb955]

Incest. That's the only thing I can think of that is seen as a universal taboo. Now, whether or not people actually follow that is another story.....nope. sorry -- it doesn't fly. there have been societies that valued relationships within families (such as the eqyptian royal families and many european ones as well). of course, it also depends on the definition of insest. some cultures go to levels of cousins, others leave it specifically in the immediate family and anything else is all right. and i'm not speaking of individual exceptions, but societal norms.

[Premmy]

Well my opinon is that morals have absoultes but they may be unknown
My belief is that It Hurts someone, may hurt someone or through lack of action causes someone to be hurt its wrong, everything else is not wrong
Suicide has a negative effect on others your death messes with a lot of people. Things done unintentionally are excluded. Drug use never just ffects the user but those involved with them, And violence is only rarely the answer in self defense situations, now I get the feeling that I'm forgetting something but thats what I got Most of my beliefs stem from my Christianity so it may clash with others but thats my belief.

[meb955]

the problem is that those who did and published the survey believe that it shows the country not on firm moral ground, and therefore likely to suffer for it. the question then comes: who decides what that firm moral ground and moral absolutes are? and what happens if you disagree with them? are you therefore immoral and thus not worthy of consideration?
that's where the topic gets sticky, and issues around the country are involved around that question right now. the survey people basically called the country's moralists to do something about those results to save the country. whether the issue is gay marriage, welfare reform, how justified the war in iraq is, environmental protections, prayer at school athletic games, the ten commandments and christmas creche displays, censorship -- there is often that underlying issue of morality vs. immorality running through it. and i've yet to see any kind of universal moral absolutes that can either be overwhelmingly agreed to (and then, of course, those who disagree are immoral relativists) or shown to be consistent over a long time period.
if you can't even agree on the ground rules, discussion often becomes war.

[Elminster_Amaur]

According to standard basic-level University Ethics courses, Morality is a set of rules based upon societal expectations of right and wrong. Morality, by definition then, cannot be absolute, because all societies are not the same. Ethics, on the other hand, is the individual's sense of right and wrong, and you are all talking about this. Issues such as abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty and more are extremely complex issues, and one simplistic rule should be incapable of handling such problems. Simpler issues, such as thievery, still have people disagreeing over what exactly it is, so if people can't define it, why should you expect that a person will be able to say if it is right or wrong? For now, all we have are our personal Ethics, and once they've been instilled, it's pretty hard to make someone see in a different light, but as long as it's not harming anyone, why should it matter?

[meb955]

what started all this was:
"The fact that only 35 percent of all Americans believe in moral absolutes provides some frightening insight into our culture and the future of this country," Craig Vincent Mitchell, instructor of Christian ethics at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, told Baptist Press.

"This statistic translated means that most people are willing to do whatever they can get away with. ... With so many rejecting the idea of moral absolutes, it is only a matter of time until our society collapses. A moral society is a happier society and a more successful one. An immoral society is one that destroys itself and its citizens."and that is the problem, because there are many who do believe there are moral absolutes, and many who believe that those absolutes (or at least the ones they themselves believe in) must be the foundation of this country if it's to be successful.

and while you may see this as a clash of ethics, that ever-present "many" believe it is really a matter of morality and would likely characterize your view as a clear example of situational morality -- and therefore, a danger to this country. and to them, that's why it matters. and to the rest of us, because it matters to them it becomes something everyone must deal with.

[Gilgamesh in a Hat]

Morals only change with two things: people and circumstances.

As far as people are concerned, who's morals are we talking about? Things in america may not be as moral as in other places or to different people. And vise versa. Because there are so many different people, cultures, religions, and views, morality is subjective.

And with the cicumstances think of this, i kill someone, straight out stab-in-the-face murder. unmoral? yes it is. But lets say it was self defence, lets say in this situation and this situation alone, that killing was the best way for me to defend myself or others. unmoral? i think not.

oh, and with time, different time, different people.

[h4x.m4g3]

Personally I think the report was jumping the gun connecting "morals are not absolute" to "Do whatever it takes." I don't think morals are absolute, but I'm not going to kill/steal/cheat/etc my way to the top. No, I just think its wrong to sneak up behind a random person and break their arm for no reason, while its ok to physically disable someone if it means preventing physical harm to myself or others. And I don't think we should live by hamurabi's code (An eye for an eye) like people did in times gone by. I think that they people who took the survey and said "no morals aren't absolute" share this opinion.

[TheSpacePope]

Most people attach a value judgment that is personally tinted when they view morality. You cannot go around saying that nothing is immoral, just as you cannot say that there are moral absolutes. Right and wrong are human concepts, born from the first time someone did something distasteful to another. You cannot attach a permanant value to anything that is not permanant. Most people know when they are doing something "bad." the trouble is, they can justify it in their own perspective, giving it no value as a negative. So Morals and Justification are just things that we have created to keep order in society. Morals and justification were created, much like religion, as a rulebook to life, to help you see what society thinks that you should do. Now, what are the penaltys for disobeying a societal ruleset based on personal belifs? Could be a myiad of things, unless enough people agree with you, then poof, morality is changed in a heartbeat.
They are antiquated concepts.

[Illuminatus]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

...Never mind.

What I find funny about the article that sparked this entire conversation is that while some Christians will speak of "Absolute Morality", i.e., what the Bible says is law, the fact is that Christians interpret the Bible in many many many different ways, making the very idea of some sort of absolute moral law absurd at best.

Yes, there are some things that may seem to us as absolute. But in different cultures, time periods, and to other people, morals inevitably differ. Absolute morals are impossible and frankly, frightening.

(Sorry if some stuff doesn't match up, I kinda skimmed the thread and I'm a little distracted)

[meb955]

but the fact that many of us here disagree with the principal of "moral absolutes" means nothing. we are obviously on the downward slope of situational morality and are a symptom of this country's lack of spiritual health.

what gives the conservative morality police (as represented by the ones who gave and judged the survey) their power and authority to dictate the proper rules for society is their certainly that they are correct in their views and that god (whichever god) backs them to the hilt. that certainty lets focus on family and other similar groups censor television and radio broadcasts and insist on the morality of certain political positions because they believe they are absolutely right to do so, that their religion requires it of them and -- since their religion is the word of god made flesh -- everyone must agree so all may be saved. without that certainty, those positions would need to be seen as opinion and open to debate as such. that certainty closes debate, because the issue is settled by god.

and that is where the danger lies. women's rights (such as they were) are being eroded in iraq today because the shiite clerics are convinced their conservative view of islam (and thus, of what god wants man to do) is absolutely correct and any other view (like equal rights for women in the constitution) is immoral. many who oppose stem cell research and most who fear gay marriage (for example) do so without fear of retribution because they believe as god does -- they know that for a fact, so their opponents (like sen. frist on stem cells) can be denounced as not just wrong but immoral. and the godly do not need to debate matters of faith with the ungodly. they are right, god has said so, end of discussion.

and so no discussion really takes place; just name calling and reinforcement of the faithful on all sides while seriously talking past (or not at all to) everyone else. the frequent state of american politics.

[Lockeownzj00]

we are obviously on the downward slope of situational morality and are a symptom of this country's lack of spiritual health.

What the...what dose this even mean? Please give evidence. Totally baseless statement. "Downward slope of morality?"

Secondly you say: spiritual health. That is also an empty phrase. I liken the spiritual health of a nation to what I call the "lint factor." That is, that it is completely unimportant and irrelevant. The last thing we need to worry about is "spiritual health," especially when this ostensible concern has nothing to do with the spiritual health of the country, and in fact was just a slipper slope argument linking the idea that there aren't absolutes to the downfall of society.

But I get what you're saying about how the "God trump card" is often used.

[Staizer]

I think the definition of moral absolute is being skewed a little bit.

I hear such things as "Well, I wouldn't intentionally go kill anyone, but if I were attacked I could kill in self defense."

This is not proof against moral absolutes. If anything it indicates that morals are absolute.

If you, always, would not intentionally go kill someone (as is implied), but you would, if it were necessary, always, defend yourself even if it meant death to your attacker.

This is absolute. Morals for each individual will always be absolute. No matter how many "buts" or "eithers" you put into your moral situations it will ALWAYS be one or the other. People's morals can change over time, as they realize that their world view needs to change, but the new moral that replaces it will be absolute as well.

The people whose moral absolutes are more readily changed when they are realized to be wrong are those that are claimed to be "morally lax" or without moral absolutes. Yet, from my currently changing viewpoint, they are the ones most readily able to deal with and survive depression, pain and suffering.

Those that are considered "morally absolute" or are not willing to change how they view the world are thus, very often, hurt by it. They demand justice for the pain that has been caused to them. Often from people who they see as being stronger and able to provide for them, the "morally lax."

This is the real problem: people's unwillingness to change when it is appropriate because it causes pain, and their unwillingness to allow other people to change, because they are strange and different.

Content and contention come from the same root word. Look it up, very interesting neh?

[meb955]

What the...what dose this even mean? Please give evidence. Totally baseless statement. "Downward slope of morality?"

Secondly you say: spiritual health. That is also an empty phrase. I liken the spiritual health of a nation to what I call the "lint factor." That is, that it is completely unimportant and irrelevant. The last thing we need to worry about is "spiritual health," especially when this ostensible concern has nothing to do with the spiritual health of the country, and in fact was just a slipper slope argument linking the idea that there aren't absolutes to the downfall of society.had you bothered to actually read my post, instead of blindly leaping to attack it by taking it out of context, you would have seen that i was attempting to show how the opinions of most (myself included, as well as you) would fall into the "wrong" side as seen by those who conducted and promoted this poll, as best i can determine from the comments listed with it.

and i would have thought the rest of my post would have made that point clear to you, as well as my views of "spiritual health" and "downward slope of morality" -- phrases that are the result of too many discussions on these sorts of issues with fellow republicans who agree with the pollsters, but not with me.

[Staizer]

but the fact that many of us here disagree with the principal of "moral absolutes" means nothing. we are obviously on the downward slope of situational morality and are a symptom of this country's lack of spiritual health.

So you are saying that the bolded underlined sections was sarcasm? If so, please indicate it as such, because without some sort of mark saying "I am joking here." we have no way of knowing that.

If it is sarcasm, then I am sure that Locke has no disagreement with you whatsoever.

edit: and Dammit! would everyone please stop saying, "Have you even bothered to read my post?" Obviously they have read your post. The issue isn't whether they have read it or not, but whether the post is understandable to the person that is responding. Clarification is key, not saying "You don't read what I write, so you are obviously disagreeing with me out of spite."

edit2: which is what "Have you bothered to read my post?" means when I read it.

[meb955]

first, if it's sarcasm, i try to make it quite clear (as i 'm well aware of the pitfalls of written sarcasm), and it wasn't. i had thought it was clear enough that i was attempting to speak from the perspective of those who did the poll that started all this, but apparently not upon rereading it myself. and no (preemptive defense here), i'm not setting up a straw man by that tact. i have heard that and similar from those i know discussing issues like this. and i treat their perspective seriously and, i hope, fairly. i just don't agree with it. and i would imagine (i think fairly) that that would be the reaction to many of these posts -- including my own.

so my apologies for being less than clear on that. fighting with a slow system and poor keyboard while thinking is no excuse for not making sure that i'm not leaving ideas twisting in the interpretive wind. i've had and read too many responses elsewhere where the poster latched on to an opening phrase and skimmed (and often misinterpreted or ignored) what followed. and i thought i saw that here.

still doesn't challenge my concern that the poll itself (and the clear belief by the pollsters that there are moral absolutes, presumably the ones they agree with) is a sign of troubles all in itself, ones that these responses could likely never really address.

[adamark]

For morality to be absolute, you need a higher power (ie God) to establish an absolute moral cose, and it must enforce it no matter what the circumstances are. That would be a scary thing, indeed.

[Staizer]

That is true for an encompassing morallity. Such as a whole society saying slavery is wrong.

However, personal, relative morals are absolute. I will always do what my morals tell me to (or not, depending). Even if the moral changes, people still behave as if they have always been that way.

[Cheerful Coffin]

I think to some extent morality is decreasing, the radical Christian's aim is completely off though. It's not because of "hom' sexuals" or rap music, it's because stupid people have too much of a voice, and we allow it.

In today's society, we are AFRAID to be mean to people. Why? Take a forum for instance, you're not aloud to "verbaly abuse" or other wise harass someone. Why I ask? Are they going to cry? Are they going to press charges? One kindof pathetic day of age do we live in where people cannot own up to thier thoughts and feelings? I was bullied as a child, do I blame my parents? The school? No.. I took my beatings, I set some standards for myself, and I became my own person. Today's society wants nothing to do with conflict and agression, and because of that, we are more rascist, stupid, and far from being peaceful then ever before. Ignorance is the root of all evil. Because ignorance leaves us with nothing to counter the other negatives..

I'm not saying it's right to harass people for no reason at all, but most of the time conflicts are not "just for the hell of it". And as someone who was born and raised in AMERICA. I believe it is our God given right to be able to have our characters built. We may not like it, but that's not what life's about. People need to learn life isn't and never will be perfect.

And I don't even need to convince anyone that spirituality is important, it's so obvious the securalist movement though might be winning, is ultimately "the darkside" of the force and will kill themselves. Religous people live longer, have more sastifying relationships and yes, even sex lives, are healthier, and obviously.. are more prone to the protection of the enviorment..

[Jagos]

One kindof pathetic day of age do we live in where people cannot own up to thier thoughts and feelings? I was bullied as a child, do I blame my parents? The school? No.. I took my beatings, I set some standards for myself, and I became my own person. Today's society wants nothing to do with conflict and agression, and because of that, we are more rascist, stupid, and far from being peaceful then ever before. Ignorance is the root of all evil. Because ignorance leaves us with nothing to counter the other negatives..

I was bullied too. I complained, cried, among other things to get it to stop. Luckily, I got out of the area to become something better than I was. A man with a goal. It's true you can say what you want on a forum. But it's also true that there are things around, while you're not aware of them, that are there to curb your behavior in this regard.

I'll make this clear however:
Most people don't want much to do with aggression. Most people want to live their lives with family etc. in peace. Noteworthy, but lives change as do people. You have conflict in your work place, you have to show aggressiveness or be run over. I believe your comment is a tad off.

We are no more racist or anything else than the next country. Nothing stops us from learning, adapting to situations, and overcoming them except how we were raised as children.

Religous people live longer, have more sastifying relationships and yes, even sex lives, are healthier, and obviously.. are more prone to the protection of the enviorment

What religion? The religion of Christianity? Which one? The Catholic (Ie Universal) church? Buddhism? Star Warsism? Which one leaves the longest and richest life? Rich in what context?

That comment needs to be revised. I may not be the most religious man in the world but I know where my own loyalties lie. My family, my friends, and my goals are important. And no one, but me, is going to have the ability to see it through. That's my goals and my absolute conviction.

[Lockeownzj00]

had you bothered to actually read my post, instead of blindly leaping to attack it by taking it out of context, you would have seen that i was attempting to show how the opinions of most (myself included, as well as you) would fall into the "wrong" side as seen by those who conducted and promoted this poll, as best i can determine from the comments listed with it.


If it is sarcasm, then I am sure that Locke has no disagreement with you whatsoever.

Yes--reading the rest of the post, and then reading the beginning over and over again, I couldn't tell what you were trying to get across--unfortuantely, I, who use sarcasm so much, failed to recognise it--I'm sorry. But it seemed entirely to serious and run-on.

I thought you would be speaking from that perspective, but if you were, then why did you start takling about them in the third person? If you were to argue from the first person as someone in their camp, you wouldn't switch to saying, "people like that" in the second paragraph--that got me confused.

I agree with Cheerful Cofin in the sense of censorship and being PC--but I don't think it's the moral decay of our society. I just think it's the attempt by a very vocal minority to "moralise" the majority, who are already doing what they feel like, in this case. It is true that we shouldn't envision a utopia where it's life sans conflict, since that is impossible.

And I don't even need to convince anyone that spirituality is important, it's so obvious the securalist movement though might be winning, is ultimately "the darkside" of the force and will kill themselves. Religous people live longer, have more sastifying relationships and yes, even sex lives, are healthier, and obviously.. are more prone to the protection of the enviorment..

Hahaha--is this a joke? Seriously. I have a feeling it might be, which is why I'll feel dumb if I retort. But...well, if I already failed at recognising one piece of sarcasm, why not fail at two? I still feel it's too ridiculous to be serious...but.

How is the secularist movement winning? Last I checked, the world is 83% religious. What the hell? So even if I have the same diet as you--you're healthier because you believe in God? Even if I have long romantic relationships--they don't count because I don't believein God? What kind of logic is that? Biggest myth ever: atheists are sad, angry people. Woops! Totally wrong.

[Krylo]

CC, there was no reason to bring spirituality into this. I realize that absolute morality and religion are tied closely, but the way you added that last paragraph, it had nothing to do with the subject at hand AND it went into the off limits area of religious discussion.

Everyone else, drop that point and get back to discussing everything else.

Although, considering CC seems to like conflict and being relieved of ignorance, I, for one, don't care if you continue the discussion in private.

[dementedmongoose]

I have to agree with Krylo on the spirituality.

And morals are just like rules in the written language: for every rule, there are at least six exceptions.

[Igtok]

Here is something I would like you to read. It's long, but worthwhile.

"I have known people to say the Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.
But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but they have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of , say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks, and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own...Think of a country where people are admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen or every one. But they always have agreed that you ought not put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.
But the remarkable thing is this. Wenever you find a man who says he does not beleive beleive in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "Its not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties don't matter; but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties don't matter, and there is no such thing as Right and Wrong--in other words, if there is no Law of Nature--what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?
It seems, then, we are forced to beleive in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a mere matter of taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table."

These were the words of Clive Staples Lewis, a professor at Cambridge and Oxford, prolific author, and philosopher. It seems that the main flaw in the thinking of many people is they think that just because different cultures have different legal codes and social norms, this automatically points to a difference in fundimental morality. That is fallicious reasoning. Yes, there are societies in which womens rights are limited, but there are no societies that say it is good and just to beat your wife. There are societies in which cannibalism is socially acceptable, but there are no societies in which murder (killing in cold blood) is condoned, no matter what the justification. There are moral absolutes, saying otherwise is ignorant.

[Kcaine]

a couple of things

1. Most of how I have observed the use of the words morality and ethics. Everyone I have ever met has used the word Moral to reffer to concepts of right and wrong that are by definition universal, while all the ones who consider themselves moral seem to disagree as to exactly what that morality means. Ethics is usually taken in the context of a proffessional paradigm such as; law, business, education, government. A code of ethics defines how a person who is devoted to one such paradigm should behave.

2. Under these definitions I have come to the conclusion that morals do not exist or, if they do, they are completely irrelevent.

For morals to be absolute they must, by definition, be objective and thus independent of any will and opinion.
So how would we define what was good and what was evil? Is it the will of god? Definitively for morals to be absolute they must be free of any will or opinions. God may be wise and powerful but his opinions are still opinions, and thus can not inform goodness.

If morality is absolute and objective. and if we are somehow capable of discovering what it is. What is the point? Why bother to be good?
Because we will be punished if we are not? Doesn't work, for there to be punishment there must be a will to enforce it. Thus what is important is to appeal to this entity (whether this is GOD, Hades, or some non-anthropomorphized force). This entity may be using Morality as the basis for it's actions, but that is not what causes punishment, and thus is not our motivator.

3.Given the above. I have come to the conclusion that all moral systems are completely artificial and subjective. I can not seem to find a reason that I should enslave myself to any of them, even if it were one to be created by myself it would still be artificial. I find it much more useful to simply remove the concept of morality from my decision making process. I do not consider moral dimensions to any of my actions or to situations I observe. I take the action that best achieves my goals.

4.This does not make me so terribly different from anyone else. All beings do what they think best achieves their goals, most people just have adhearance to some moral code as one of their goals.

The reason many people dislike relativists is that it is presumed by moralists that when we say that an action isn't evil, that we are saying it is good (I.E. someone asks me if Rape is evil, I say no, and they take that to mean that I beilieve Rape is good). This is a logical fallacy. I do not say Rape is Evil, I do not say Rape is Good, I simply say that Rape is.

This doesn not mean that I rush out to eagerly commit acts that are considered by most to be imoral. My actions, in general, would be seen to operate under the principal of Enlightened Self-Interest.

Going out and commiting wanton Rape and Murder would not advance any of my goals. It is generally not in my best interest to kill people. Most of the situations where it would be it would not fall under the category of murder (self-defense), and the exceptionaly few times it might be in my best intrest to commit murder are lessened even more by the looming threat of execution or life imprisonment.
Often people respond that it would be in my best intrest if murder were legal.
Again this is false. If murder were legal then many people might choose to kill me, or those that I care for. Keeping other people in check is well worth sacraficing the ability to commit the few murders that might otherwise be in my favor.
I also believe that it would not be in my best interest to have me and only me exempt from the law. People do not enjoy tyrants and I would quickly have my exemption, and most likely my life, taken from me.

4.To some up. What's beneficial to me is usually beneficial to the majority of society as well.


5.to Igtok Yes, there are societies in which womens rights are limited, but there are no societies that say it is good and just to beat your wife.
There are plenty of societies where it is completely permissible to beat your wife. Many cultures do not consider women people. They consider them objects, property. There are still other cultures that even encourage it as a means of teaching them their place in society, beating their "inherent evil" out of them. Cannabalism not accepted by any culture? What about the ancient Aztecs? There was a ritual of young warriors who would capture a prisonder in their first battle and take him back to the temple to be prepared for a ritual feast where the young warriors would feast on their first prisoner. There are several tribes in New Guinea that permit and encourage canabalism on members of other tribes.
Of course murder is seen as imoral in all societies, but the definition of murder when comparing cross-culturally becomes killing a person without justification. This doesn't mean ethics aren't relative. The definition of person and justification, take on radically different meanings in different cultures. In some cultures slaves are not people, in some cultures women aren't considered people. On the other side there is P.E.T.A. who consider animals to be people. There are several east asian cultures that considered trees and other plants to have souls and thus given the same rights as any other living thing.

Just because cultures do not necesarilly differ on every single object of morality does not mean that they are not fundamentally different. Ask a Fundamentalist Evangelical if Homosexuality is imoral and nearly every one will say yes. Ask them if it is equal in its imorality to murder and a significant number will say yes. Ask an openly Gay person if s/he thinks that homosexuality is imoral and almost none will say yes.
This is not simply a difference in perception of the same moral truth.

[quote=Igtok]There are moral absolutes, saying otherwise is ignorant.[/qute]
pretty dicey statement coming from someone who has apparently had absolutely NO experience with even the most basic concepts of Cultural Anthropology. (that's the comparisons of cultures across the world and across time to try to better understand the Human condition)

[Steel Shadow]

The mistake your making is that Morality is absolute in a universal sense. Morals differ from person to person, but for each person, each moral is absolute. There's no one moral that is shared by every person on this planet. Each person has their own morals, and whilst some may be shared, none are shared by everyone. And under almost all morals there's a litle subclause (Unless:). That's one of the causes of all this aparent shifting. Its not right to kill someone in cold blood, but it is to save your family. It's not right to upset someone for no reason, but it is to spare them more pain later on (Those are only examples, theres a ton more things that aren't quite so extreme). Another reason is that people often have compleatly different morals from the next person. It's not imoral to break a promise, but it is to break their legs, etc.

Thing is, Morals are a survival instinct we've developed.

If I give this to that person, they might give me something back: Sharing, good.

If I kill that person, someone might kill me: Murder, bad.

If I take this, someone might take from/catch me: Stealing, bad.

If I keep my word, someone might keep theirs to me: Keeping promises, good.

See, the point of staying on the good side of morals, hell, the point of having them in the first place, is to survive. If we all abandoned our morals and did anything, civilisation would be destroyed withing a decade. It's impossible for us to do though, becuase our morals are very, very deeply embeded within us.

[Kcaine]

See, the point of staying on the good side of morals, hell, the point of having them in the first place, is to survive. If we all abandoned our morals and did anything, civilisation would be destroyed withing a decade. It's impossible for us to do though, becuase our morals are very, very deeply embeded within us.

I don't think we neccessarily have to have morals to have ethics. I think the concept of Enlightened Self-Interest would be enough to hold civilization together.

[Archbio]

There are moral absolutes, saying otherwise is ignorant.

I disagree, and I hardly find this quote worthwhile, and that for several reasons. The second paragraph reads as if if it irrelevent altogether: I just can't decide which fallacy is more prominent. It is basically addressing a position by characterising hypothetical people holding it, and then using generalizing that at large. There are many things wrong with this.

As for the second paragraph, it seems a case of trying to make a lot with little. In the author's case, making a lot is demonstrating that there is a Law of Nature, Universal Right and Wrong (and other ominous things), and in the rest of the post it's demonstrating Moral Absolutes. The little evidence given for that: similitudes, parallels. It doesn't measure up to the terms. Also, the common points are things vague enough that there is no way things could have been different. Selfishness isn't outright regarded as moral? We're social being, and this question basically involves looking at a social view of morality which evolved through the life of societies. It seems to me that what cultures have in common is as likely to be only material conditions surrounding which in turn have conditionned moral frameworks.

Frankly, the examples given are dubious. 'Murder' has never been condoned no matter what the justication? Human sacrifice, vendetta, war, executions as well as some murder that were condoned without putting a justification badge on them.

Yes, there are societies in which womens rights are limited, but there are no societies that say it is good and just to beat your wife.

This is quite the unfounded claim. There were societies in which women had no rights, the conception of them having rights not even truly existing.

Humanity rationalizes. Suggesting that only some topsy-turvy example in which something which is defined either by its inverse relation to a known moral code (fleeing in battle, breaking an oath) or how it makes social life impossible (disordered murder) would prove that there is no moral absolute is foolish. A society that wouldn't consider keeping one's word moral wouldn't have a custom of making oaths and contracts.

Edit: People have been more eloquent on these points while also being faster. Curses!

[Lockeownzj00]

[quoet]Morals differ from person to person, but for each person, each moral is absolute.[/quote]

Nope. I can tell you for a fact I had different morals and often deplorable ones (according to who I am now) about 4 years ago.

[Kcaine]

[quoet]Morals differ from person to person, but for each person, each moral is absolute.

Nope. I can tell you for a fact I had different morals and often deplorable ones (according to who I am now) about 4 years ago.[/QUOTE]
His point, I believe was that at any given time any given person holds their current set of morals to be absolute.

[Lockeownzj00]

This is still not true. I maintain even now that my morals aren't "absolute." They're malleable like emotions.

[Staizer]

mmm, maybe I should say that since that is how you feel at the time, that is how you behave. Thus they are absolute solely for however long you hold them.
The more maleable the better I say, because that means you don't get in a rut.

[Steel Shadow]

mmm, maybe I should say that since that is how you feel at the time, that is how you behave. Thus they are absolute solely for however long you hold them.
The more maleable the better I say, because that means you don't get in a rut.

That's a better way to say what I said, thanks.

Morals are tricky, huh? You abosolutly positive you can shift your morals in a split second? How long would it take you to kill someone for no reason? (Just asking, no need to test it)

So which morals do you shift? I'm wanting to be clear on this.

[Lockeownzj00]

To answer your question: I used to be an objectivist pacifist. Now, I'm not. I've said it before, but it's a good example: I realise circumstances change. As a general rule, for myself, I would not kill someone unless necessary. If the situation arose that I or others might be better off, and I took multiple other things (ie the law) into account, might I do it? Depends. It's obviously a more demanding change than others, but it's possible.

I think Staizer is right about that: basically what I've always maintained. Keep your morals, your emotions, and such subjective, so you don't end up in a "rut," per se.

I get what you're saying about how one's morals at a given tiem determine how they act--this is true, but just because it is true, doesn't make them absolute--just a point of reference at such and such a point in time.

I also think "split second" is misconstruing the stance, a bit. Most people do not change in a split second--these things (I think, "obviously") take a while to form. Or, when they eventually do change because of some coincedental catalyst, there was much thought leading up to that point (a personal example i can think of is when i stopped being anti-gun).

[Sokolov22]

I would sum it up thus:
The absolute truth is that my morals are relative to my experience and beliefs.

(As a semi-aside: someone mentioned incest which was followed by talk about Egyptians. What is interesting about their practice there tho is that it was considered undesirable for a daughter of the royal family to marry "beneath" herself. This often meant that a young woman there would have to marry within or go without a spouse. It might be said that incest was still a taboo in general, but was seen as less undesirable than marrying beneath oneself or being alone.)

While the article's idea of moral absolute might be debatable as we've seen in this thread, I like their point about how a person's own morality changes with the situation. Because it's a different question than "Are there unverisal moral absolutes?" to which most of us seem to be answering no.

But should there be PERSONAL moral absolutes? If we can change our "morals" based on how the situation affects us personally, can that really be considered moral? Are we simply being unclear about what we believe in those cases? Or perhaps undecided?

[Steel Shadow]

As a general rule, for myself, I would not kill someone unless necessary. If the situation arose that I or others might be better off, and I took multiple other things (ie the law) into account, might I do it? Depends. It's obviously a more demanding change than others, but it's possible.


I think we're in agreement here:

under almost all morals there's a litle subclause (Unless:). That's one of the causes of all this aparent shifting. Its not right to kill someone in cold blood, but it is to save your family.

See?