Absolutes

[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]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

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.