Absolute Morality

Originally posted by Starrman
Lol, talk about misdirection!

Universal implies something which applies to or spans the universe; is found everywhere. So no, morals are not universal, they do not apply to the universe, neither are they found everywhere in it. The apply to people.

There are morals within the universe, but morals are not universal, surely you can see that?

I spoke of a moral universe and you said that you were not aware that the universe had morals.

Originally posted by Starrman
Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.

No, your next paragraph in no ways follows from your first. When will you get off this ridiculous belief that morals require an absolute origin and that without that people are instantly serial killers? You sound like someone who is just accepting the faulty instruction of their religious teacher and doing so b ...[text shortened]... y definition right. You're making yourself look silly, try thinking for yourself for a change.

Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.

Shame. And you are not even aware that this is an absolute statement of truth?

Or do you at least concur that statment may be false?

Originally posted by dj2becker
I spoke of a moral universe and you said that you were not aware that the universe had morals.

Yes, and I say to you again, how can the universe have morals or how can morals pervade throughout the entire universe?

Do you see the contextual issue, or are you being purposefully obtuse? Perhaps you should just explain what you mean by a moral universe.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.

Shame. And you are not even aware that this is an absolute statement of truth?

Or do you at least concur that statment may be false?[/b]

Oh drokk, not this again. You seriously need a few classes in epistemology and methodology.

We were talking about right and wrong in terms of morals, not the nature of absolute truth, please try and stay on topic.

I presume it's a result of the style of schooling you receive, but you seem unable to reason about the points you yourself make. It's like you're reading them from the text book you've committed to memory, but have no knowledge of what they entail. You've learnt the stimulus and response without learning the reason.

Originally posted by Starrman
Yes, and I say to you again, how can the universe have morals or how can morals pervade throughout the entire universe?

Do you see the contextual issue, or are you being purposefully obtuse? Perhaps you should just explain what you mean by a moral universe.

Of course morals apply to people, and people live in the universe.

People are moral beings. Or are they not?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Of course morals apply to people, and people live in the universe.

People are moral beings. Or are they not?

That depends, they can be amoral sometimes. As long as we're clear before you continue that the nature of the universe is not that it is moral and that morality only exists in humans, which in turn exist in the universe (unless you're going to go all Spinoza on me and suggest that the universe is god is humans is morals).

Originally posted by Starrman
Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.

No, your next paragraph in no ways follows from your first. When will you get off this ridiculous belief that morals require an absolute origin and that without that people are instantly serial killers? You sound like someone who is just accepting the faulty instruction of their religious teacher and doing so b ...[text shortened]... y definition right. You're making yourself look silly, try thinking for yourself for a change.

Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.

Yeah, right. Wait till I punch you on the nose... and lets see whether or not you will blabber the same line...

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.

Yeah, right. Wait till I punch you on the nose... and lets see whether or not you will blabber the same line...[/b]

There you go again, surely you can see that an action can be relatively wrong, by the context of social agreement?

Please, for the love of everything you stand for, go and read some books on morality and try and understand why relative morality does not equate to a desire to do evil.

Originally posted by dj2becker
I believe that since God is the only unchanging absolute, His moral law is also absolute.

And I also believe that every single human being is guilty of breaking God' moral law.

OK, now, which of these rules is absolute?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Yes, there is no absolute right or wrong.

Yeah, right. Wait till I punch you on the nose... and lets see whether or not you will blabber the same line...[/b]

Let us first ask "what makes something morally wrong?"

Is something morally wrong if we wont do it?
Is it morally wrong if we believe it to be wrong?

You seem to believe that it is only morally wrong if God commands it to be so. Does that mean that when I punch you on the nose whilst following Gods command, it is not morally wrong even when you know of no justification for the action? Are you saying that God always has a justification or that the very fact that he is doing the commanding is justification enough?

What I find interesting is that you are claiming that morals are universal. Then you are trying to provide the fact that most people find murder unacceptable as evidence for this. Then you claim that God is the source of these morals. So, why would so many of Gods actions (as listed in the Bible) be considered morally wrong by most people if the consistency of peoples inbuilt morals is evidence for a moral absolute?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
OK, now, which of these rules is absolute?

Every word spoken by God is absolute.

Originally posted by dj2becker
Every word spoken by God is absolute.

Absolute what?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Absolute what?

Absolut Vodka?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Absolute what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolut_Vodka

Originally posted by Starrman
There you go again, surely you can see that an action can be relatively wrong, by the context of social agreement?

Please, for the love of everything you stand for, go and read some books on morality and try and understand why relative morality does not equate to a desire to do evil.

There you go again, surely you can see that an action can be relatively wrong, by the context of social agreement?

So if I punched you on the nose for no reason, you would only think that it is wrong because it is within the context of social agreement?

Are there any people in the world that would say it is right to punch someone on the nose for no reason?