Absolute Morality

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Well, I don't know, really. Are the doctors themselves sure? Are we ever so sure about anything at all? Are you sure that Mary was a virgin when she had Jesus? Was there a doctor's medical report? Did Jesus have God's DNA in him? Was it ever tested?

OK. Let's use your example and apply it to truth.

Let's for a moment pretend that Jesus did have God's DNA in him. Would the fact that I believe that Jesus did not have God's DNA in him change the truth of the fact that Jesus did have God's DNA in him?

That is what you have been applying all along. The fact that you believe something does not make it true.

Consider a simple illustration. You and your friend find an apple on a table. Your friend believes that it is full of worms, but you believe that it is fresh and worm-free. Can your differing beliefs about the apple create two different truths that each of you can experience as reality? The way to find out is to slice the apple open. Then you will discover that either the apple has worms or that it doesn't. The moment that you slice into it, either your ''truth" or that of your friend will be exposed as error. The truth about the apple is independent of whatever either of you may believe about it.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You can't. But you can be certain enough to stake your life on it - and we do that every day.

[b]If truth is absolute as you stated on a number of occasions, it does not logically follow that truth can be relative at the same time.
I never stated that it did. At no point have I claimed that truth is relative.[/b]

If truth is absolute, then it means that right and wrong are also absolute. You specifically stated that truth is absolute and that right and wrong are relative.This is a HUGE contradiction. Read your own posts again...

Originally posted by dj2becker
If truth is absolute, then it means that right and wrong are also absolute.

No it does not. That is absolutely false. Repeatedly stating it does not make it true.

Originally posted by dj2becker
OK. Let's use your example and apply it to truth.

Let's for a moment pretend that Jesus did have God's DNA in him. Would the fact that I believe that Jesus did not have God's DNA in him change the truth of the fact that Jesus did have God's DNA in him?

That is what you have been applying all along. The fact that you believe something does not make ...[text shortened]... he truth about the apple is independent of whatever either of you may believe about it.

OK, that sounds sensible enough, and I can live with it. So when is God coming into the picture? You are heading in that direction, aren't you?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No it does not. That is absolutely false. Repeatedly stating it does not make it true.

It is not logically possible for something to be both right and wrong at the same time.

If you want to discard logic from your life then it will be as totally incoherent as it is at the moment.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It is not logically possible for something to be both right and wrong at the same time.

If you want to discard logic from your life then it will be as totally incoherent as it is at the moment.

So are you getting anyway at all with this logical reasoning of yours?

Originally posted by dj2becker
If truth is absolute, then it means that right and wrong are also absolute. You specifically stated that truth is absolute and that right and wrong are relative.This is a HUGE contradiction. Read your own posts again...

If truth is absolute, then it means that right and wrong are also absolute. You specifically stated that truth is absolute and that right and wrong are relative.This is a HUGE contradiction. Read your own posts again...

If you assign to the word "right" the meaning: true, and then assign to the word "wrong" the meaning: not true then with absolute truth (in the context of logic), right and wrong are indeed absolute.

HOWEVER...If you assign to the word "right" the meaning: morally acceptable, and then assign to the word "wrong" the meaning: morally unacceptable then in the context of morality (or any other), right and wrong are not absolute...further more in this context, absolute truth is meaningless.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]If truth is absolute, then it means that right and wrong are also absolute. You specifically stated that truth is absolute and that right and wrong are relative.This is a HUGE contradiction. Read your own posts again...

If you assign to the word "right" the meaning: true, and then assign to the word "wrong" the meaning: not true then wi ...[text shortened]... nd wrong are not absolute...further more in this context, absolute truth is meaningless.[/b]

What he's trying to establish here is to force upon us that there is absolute morality. Then once we accept that, he will try to impress upon us that if there is an absolute morality, then there must be an absolute moral 'lawgiver'. Finally, he's going to try to connect that lawgiver somehow to God. The amazing thing about all this is the fact that he's trying to do all this by using 'logical reasoning' to make the connection. So far, after over 230 posts, it's not happening yet. But as you can see for yourself, he's still trying....... and failing.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]If truth is absolute, then it means that right and wrong are also absolute. You specifically stated that truth is absolute and that right and wrong are relative.This is a HUGE contradiction. Read your own posts again...

If you assign to the word "right" the meaning: true, and then assign to the word "wrong" the meaning: not true then wi nd wrong are not absolute...further more in this context, absolute truth is meaningless.[/b]

.further more in this context, absolute truth is meaningless.

So in other words, everything that you have just said is meaningless. Or is everything you have said not absolutely the truth?

Originally posted by dj2becker
.further more in this context, absolute truth is meaningless.

So in other words, everything that you have just said is meaningless. Or is everything you have said not absolutely the truth?[/b]

If the excerpt .further more in this context, absolute truth is meaningless. is what justifies your statement "everything that you have just said is meaningless." then I am astonished at your reasoning skills.

Everything I have said is not absolute truth because for one, there may exist some person who can state my meanings more accurately. (and there may exist a person that can improve upon theirs, and so on...)

Originally posted by dj2becker
If you want to discard logic from your life then it will be as totally incoherent as it is at the moment.

You speak from experience.

Originally posted by Agerg
If the excerpt [b].further more in this context, absolute truth is meaningless. is what justifies your statement "everything that you have just said is meaningless." then I am astonished at your reasoning skills.

Everything I have said is not absolute truth because for one, there may exist some person who can state my meanings more accurately. (and there may exist a person that can improve upon theirs, and so on...)[/b]

Absolute truth is an objective reality that exists totally independent of what anyone thinks or feels about it. It is a reality that is true for all people, for all times, for all places. Truth is real and solid whether or not we choose to believe it, just as Mount Everest is real and solid whether or not we choose to climb it. Contrary to your postmodern views, I believe that we do not create truth, we discover it. Belief does not determine reality, reality exists apart from belief. Our belief in truth merely brings us into alignment with it and activates its power in our lives.

Originally posted by dj2becker
It is not logically possible for something to be both right and wrong at the same time.

It is not clear from your statement which type of right and wrong you are talking about. Please clarify.

If you want to discard logic from your life then it will be as totally incoherent as it is at the moment.
At no point have I discarded logic. On the other hand you seem intent on making illogical deductions based on the identical spelling of two totally different words.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not clear from your statement which type of right and wrong you are talking about. Please clarify.

[b]If you want to discard logic from your life then it will be as totally incoherent as it is at the moment.
At no point have I discarded logic. On the other hand you seem intent on making illogical deductions based on the identical spelling of two totally different words.[/b]

Why would one type of right and wrong function logically and another type of right and wrong function illogically?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Why would one type of right and wrong function logically and another type of right and wrong function illogically?

I have never said that any of them function illogically.

They are two unrelated word pairs. Maybe for the purpose of this thread we should even spell them differently. Lets use:
1. For Logical right and wrong, rightL and wrongL.
2. For moral right and wrong, rightM and wrongM.

Something is said to be rightL if it is logically true. This can include statements which refer to absolute truths such as "There is at least one atom in the sun".
Something is said to be rightM if the person using the word believes that it is the course of action which best implements that persons moral code. It is also often generalised to actions which best implement the average moral code of the majority of people.
rightM is relative by definition.

I personally believe that rightM can be subcategorized to include a rightP which is what you personally believe to be the best course of action even if it does not match your own moral code. For example obeying a particular authority may be important to you even though it is morally neutral.

The fact that rightM is relative and may differ from person to person does not make it illogical. At no one time or in one given context is it both rightM and wrongM and no statements involving rightM or wrongM are rightL and wrongL at the same time. Sometimes though they may be to vague to have a rightL or wrongL value and this can be mistaken for being both.