Absolutes

[Kcaine]

Originally Posted by Steel Shadow

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]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Lockeownzj00

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?