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]

Originally Posted by krylo

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.)

Originally Posted by krylo

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]

Originally Posted by adamark

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.

Originally Posted by adamark

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.