Absolute / Relative Morals

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
like "Killing a child" is absolutely wrong no matter the circumstances.

Child sacrifice is described in the bible as an order from god.
The prohibition of child killings is a moral, but relative to the culture and time and therefore not absolute.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no. are we speaking the same language? i don't even know what you are claiming anymore.

Sorry. I do realize that I have not been very clear nor had my thoughts in very good order. I started the thread to help me get my own head around the issues.
I am saying a number of different things:
1. I didn't think that the claims of 'relative morals' in the other thread were correctly (nicely?) stated (whether or not the claim is true).
2. I do not think that morals change over time.
3. I think that what we call a moral code is unique to each individual, and may be changed by that individual, but when applied, it should be applied universally.
4. I personally think that things are absolutely wrong or right whether or not anyone else agrees with me. However such morals are not statements like 'killing is wrong in all circumstances' but rather either
a) much more general such as 'harming others without good cause is wrong'.
or
b) much more specific such as 'killing is wrong if it does not conflict with any other moral rules.'

Part of the problem in the discussion is we are both been too loose in our use of the word 'moral'. Sometimes we mean 'moral code', sometimes we mean a hypothetical absolute moral code.
I suspect that the true issue is not whether or not absolute morals exist, but something much less obvious ie what do I mean when I say something is 'wrong'.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Sorry. I do realize that I have not been very clear nor had my thoughts in very good order. I started the thread to help me get my own head around the issues.
I am saying a number of different things:
1. I didn't think that the claims of 'relative morals' in the other thread were correctly (nicely?) stated (whether or not the claim is true).
2. I do no ...[text shortened]... ut something much less obvious ie what do I mean when I say something is 'wrong'.

a) much more general such as 'harming others without good cause is wrong'.
or
b) much more specific such as 'killing is wrong if it does not conflict with any other moral rules.'

these are both pointless because it doesn't say how free i am to state what "good cause" is and whose moral rules can be included in "any other moral rules". morals like these can be made always true if i introduce enough ifs in the equation

I do not think that morals change over time.
that is not actually true. if a society holds a moral to be true, and then the society changes and that moral becomes false, how can you say the moral didn't change?

I think that what we call a moral code is unique to each individual, and may be changed by that individual, but when applied, it should be applied universally.
what do you mean? that each society(we only speak of individual when it is a society of one which is not true for humans) makes its owns rules but when applied should be applied to other societies as well? this means that if society A has rule X, and B has rule Y, A can change X but not Y and both A and B must respect X and Y? how can that be true? develop our idea because i can't make anything of it.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
these are both pointless because it doesn't say how free i am to state what "good cause" is and whose moral rules can be included in "any other moral rules". morals like these can be made always true if i introduce enough ifs in the equation

I think you are intentionally missing the point.

that is not actually true. if a society holds a moral to be true, and then the society changes and that moral becomes false, how can you say the moral didn't change?
For a start I don't think that societies have morals or that laws=morals.
Secondly, I already stated that you can change your moral code, but the moral itself does not change. If last year you thought killing was wrong, and this year you think it is OK, then this year you should think that you were wrong last year and that killing was wrong last year.

what do you mean? that each society(we only speak of individual when it is a society of one which is not true for humans) makes its owns rules but when applied should be applied to other societies as well? this means that if society A has rule X, and B has rule Y, A can change X but not Y and both A and B must respect X and Y? how can that be true? develop our idea because i can't make anything of it.
Laws are not morals, how many times must I say it!

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are intentionally missing the point.

[b]that is not actually true. if a society holds a moral to be true, and then the society changes and that moral becomes false, how can you say the moral didn't change?
For a start I don't think that societies have morals or that laws=morals.
Secondly, I already stated that you can change your mora ...[text shortened]... because i can't make anything of it.[/b]
Laws are not morals, how many times must I say it![/b]

Laws are not morals, how many times must I say it!

what you dont understand is that like laws, morals must be uttered for them to exist. a moral isn't just there and someone simply acknowledges them. and also i never said the constitution is made up of morals. whether you call them laws or rules or codes, the fact remain that every society makes it's own penal laws and its own moral laws. and you haven't answered my question. what do you mean by each society makes its own laws but they must be applied universally?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you are intentionally missing the point.

[b]that is not actually true. if a society holds a moral to be true, and then the society changes and that moral becomes false, how can you say the moral didn't change?
For a start I don't think that societies have morals or that laws=morals.
Secondly, I already stated that you can change your mora ...[text shortened]... because i can't make anything of it.[/b]
Laws are not morals, how many times must I say it![/b]

perhaps i am missing the point you wish me to accept.

"If last year you thought killing was wrong, and this year you think it is OK, then this year you should think that you were wrong last year and that killing was wrong last year."
that is exactly what i think and because of this i believe morals are not absolute.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
what do you mean by each society makes its own laws but they must be applied universally?

I prefer to talk in terms of individuals because a societies morals is really a reflection of the individuals morals.
What I mean when I say 'applied universally' is that if you decide that a given action in a given circumstance is wrong then you should judge it wrong regardless of the individual involved or date that it takes place. I do not think for example that you should arbitrarily say that John killing people is right but James killing people is wrong nor should you say that slavery was a morraly correct practice until midnight december 31st 1950.

I do believe that you believe in the existence of an absolute moral code. You said earlier in the thread "we should bloody well behave like adults." That itself is what you believe to be an absolute moral law. You believe that it is 'wrong' to behave like children and 'right' to behave like adults, and you believe that everyone is subject to that moral law, and further that your God will use that moral law when judging people.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I prefer to talk in terms of individuals because a societies morals is really a reflection of the individuals morals.
What I mean when I say 'applied universally' is that if you decide that a given action in a given circumstance is wrong then you should judge it wrong regardless of the individual involved or date that it takes place. I do not think for e ...[text shortened]... o that moral law, and further that your God will use that moral law when judging people.

no. by this argument, one should judge everyone by the morals of the OT or better by the morals of the stoneage(take what you can, answer to nobody).
and by this argument one couldn't change ones morals because "if you decide that a given action in a given circumstance is wrong then you should judge it wrong regardless of the individual involved or date that it takes place." well at first someone decided that if ZogZog has a piece of meat and Moko wants it, Moko may kill ZogZog if he can and take the meat. see the fault in your logic yet?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
no. by this argument, one should judge everyone by the morals of the OT or better by the morals of the stoneage(take what you can, answer to nobody).
and by this argument one couldn't change ones morals because "if you decide that a given action in a given circumstance is wrong then you should judge it wrong regardless of the individual involved or date t ...[text shortened]... wants it, Moko may kill ZogZog if he can and take the meat. see the fault in your logic yet?

Your repeated and unsuported claims that people in the stoneage killed each other over anything and thought it was morally correct to do so are simply ridiculous.
Secondly, I do think that what ZogZog did was morally wrong whether he knew it or not. The fact that you or anyone else 'decided' that it was morally right for ZogZog to kill is irrelevant to my moral code.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Your repeated and unsuported claims that people in the stoneage killed each other over anything and thought it was morally correct to do so are simply ridiculous.
Secondly, I do think that what ZogZog did was morally wrong whether he knew it or not. The fact that you or anyone else 'decided' that it was morally right for ZogZog to kill is irrelevant to my moral code.

exactly. which proves moral codes are relative.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
exactly. which proves moral codes are relative.

No it doesn't. My moral code is absolute.

But dont worry about it, I think we are just misunderstanding each other.

Originally posted by twhitehead
No it doesn't. My moral code is absolute.

But dont worry about it, I think we are just misunderstanding each other.

how can something be absolute when different societies have different views on it - it doesn't hold the same degree of validity universally?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly have no idea what 'incoherent' means.

Nor you what "proof" means

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Nor you what "proof" means

Enlighten me.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
how can something be absolute when different societies have different views on it - it doesn't hold the same degree of validity universally?

Validity is not based on people opinion. If the earth is a sphere not flat then it is so whether or not different societies believe it to be so. When the Jews commited genocide in the OT, it was wrong whether or not they, you or God believed it to be right.