Questions on morality

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Such criticisms mean nothing to the likes of josephw and FMJ. They love false dichotomies so much that they use them as their primary debating method.

Denial is your primary debating method.

Denying the existence of moral absolutes is no different that denying your own existence. No doubt you'll generate an argument proving you're a figment of your own imagination.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
If there are no moral absolutes it means there is no single correct answer to a question of morality. For example if I were to ask you is it always wrong to commit the act of rape, you cannot say yes, because you would then be agreeing to a moral absolute. Yet you have told me that rape is always wrong. Which means you do believe in at least one moral absolute.

When I was 18 years old I played in a cricket match for an unofficial Hertfordshire side against a South Africa Under 17 side after their scheduled match had been cancelled due to a last minute boycott.

The match was very one sided and not very interesting. But the drink in the team's hotel bar later that night I found very interesting. One of the youth team's coaches turned out to be profoundly racist.

Somewhat assisted by the alcohol, among several other pronouncements and observations, he explained to us that it was morally wrong for blacks and whites to have sexual relations, and above all, it was always morally wrong for black and white people to produce children. In that matter, he believed there was a single correct answer to a question of morality.

Do you think his undeniable sincerity and certainty on this issue created an "objective" and "universal" "moral absolute"?

Originally posted by josephw
Denying the existence of moral absolutes is no different that denying your own existence.

I disagree. I believe that our capacity to make moral decisions and behave in a morally sound way in our interactions with one another, and do so in the absence of "moral absolutes", is what defines us as human beings and is the 'human spirit' in action.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
My standard is of value to me.

Here endeth the lesson.

Actually that's where it begins.

Your standard is of value to you. By making that statement you infer that an absolute standard of morality doesn't exist, that whatever moral standard that exists is relative to individual interpretation, which by default makes all moral standards equally valid.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
...the likes of josephw [...] love false dichotomies so much that they use them as their primary debating method.

josephw has suggested that it's a case of EITHER moral absolutes [as he defines them] exist OR you are denying your own existence. So there's a false dichotomy you can put in your pipe and smoke.

Originally posted by josephw
By making that statement you infer that an absolute standard of morality doesn't exist, that whatever moral standard that exists is relative to individual interpretation, which by default makes all moral standards equally valid.

"Equally valid" according to whom?

Originally posted by josephw
Denial is [b]your primary debating method.

Denying the existence of moral absolutes is no different that denying your own existence. No doubt you'll generate an argument proving you're a figment of your own imagination.[/b]

Denying the existence of moral absolutes is no different that denying your own existence

This is really quite funny, and on the face of it absolutely ridiculous. I presume you have some sort of basis for it though - are you going to explain the reasoning behind this bizarre claim?

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
This is just nonsense.

For each action, an individual weighs the considerations of which he or she is aware and makes a decision based thereon. Some actions are more easily weighed than others. Consider vegetarianism; it seems to me quite easy to conclude that vegetarianism is a more positive moral position than the converse, and yet most people, ...[text shortened]... tes means that all views on morality are equally valid, then quite clearly your logic is faulty.

Reasoning by way of human standards is preventing you from rational and logical thought. You're just jabbering your opinions and ideas without thinking it through.

"If your logic tells you that the rejection of moral absolutes means that all views on morality are equally valid, then quite clearly your logic is faulty."

That's a perfect example. You haven't said anything more than just your opinion. You haven't provided a logical argument for the non-existence of moral absolutes.

Think it through. If there is not an absolute standard of morality, then whatever standard that one holds to is relative to that individual in the same way every other individual holds to their own standard.

Logically that makes all moral standards equally valid because an absolute moral standard, which by its very existence, trumps individual and relativistic standards whether they are in agreement with the absolute standard or not.

If an absolute moral standard exists it has no equal. All others are relative and therefore equally valid. Unless of course you think your standard is better than mine or anyone else's. Someone else can say the same thing. It is circular logic when one is trapped in denial of an absolute moral standard.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
'Thou shalt not steal'. Is this one of your moral absolutes?

How old are you?

Of course it is a moral absolute.

Better to starve to death than steal.

Originally posted by josephw
Think it through. If there is [b]not an absolute standard of morality, then whatever standard that one holds to is relative to that individual in the same way every other individual holds to their own standard. Logically that makes all moral standards equally valid ...[/b]

You say it "makes all moral standards equally valid", but according to whom?

Originally posted by Eladar
Of course it is a moral absolute.

Better to starve to death than steal.

Is that what Proverbs 6:30 means then?

Originally posted by FMF
You say it "makes all moral standards equally valid", but according to whom?

Why "to whom"?

It's simple logic. In the absence of moral absolutes any standard held by an individual is equally valid as any standard held by another.

In the absence of moral absolutes the "whom" is you, or whomever.

Originally posted by josephw
It's simple logic. In the absence of moral absolutes any standard held by an individual is equally valid as any standard held by another.

But what you are saying is not "simple logic". The statement "In the absence of moral absolutes any standard held by an individual is equally valid as any standard held by another" is a simply an assertion of your personal opinion about morality.

Originally posted by josephw
Why "to whom"?

Because whether something is "equally valid" is a human perception and judgement. So you can't just keep saying it would be "equally valid" "equally valid" "equally valid" over and over again and then refuse to say WHO would perceive it to be "equally valid"; it is just a dodge on your part.

Originally posted by josephw
In the absence of moral absolutes the "whom" is you, or whomever.

It's me? What? But I am not saying that all actions are "equally valid". I haven't said anything of the sort. If you are using me as your example of someone who finds all actions are "equally valid" morally speaking, then I really don't think you know what you are talking about, and you certainly haven't been following the conversation.