Absolutes

[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]

Originally Posted by Robot Jesus

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]

Originally Posted by meb955

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]

Originally Posted by Megiddo

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:

Originally Posted by from Bob the Mercenary's original post

"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.