16 Sep 10
Step 4 is a load of BS. Asking if absolute moral laws exist. I would say it doesn't as morality is relative to the individual based on beliefs and what is compatible to those beliefs.
After answering that absolute moral laws do not exist, it then has the loaded choices:
Molesting Children For Fun Is Absolutely Morally Wrong
Molesting Children For Fun Is Not Absolutely Morally Wrong
To me, molesting children is completely incompatible with my beliefs and therefore against my moral code of conduct, but my all my morals are not universally absolute to everyone.
If you don't believe absolute morality exists, you cannot use them in both the above choices. They both become invalid.
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by lauseyGot this from wikepedia:
Step 4 is a load of BS. Asking if absolute moral laws exist. I would say it doesn't as morality is relative to the individual based on beliefs and what is compatible to those beliefs.
After answering that absolute moral laws do not exist, it then has the loaded choices:
Molesting Children For Fun Is Absolutely Morally Wrong
Molesting Children For Fun I ...[text shortened]... lute morality exists, you cannot use them in both the above choices. They both become invalid.
Morality has two principal meanings:
* In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred.[clarification needed] This sense of the term is also addressed by descriptive ethics.
* In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral." It is often challenged by a moral skepticism, in which the unchanging existence of a rigid, universal, objective moral "truth" is rejected,[6] and supported by moral realism, in which the existence of this "truth" is accepted. The normative usage of the term "morality" is also addressed by normative ethics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Could you elaborate more on your remark "but my all my morals are not universally absolute to everyone" please?
The only reason for asking is to know what it could be. If it's personal I'd understand if you wouldn't share it with us, but then again, wouldn't that then be wrong? We can all learn something right?
16 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by NickstenMy morality will be in the "descriptive" sense. Our sense of "right" and "wrong" evolved because of game theory. What is "good" is what benefits society as a whole and survive. We evolve the instincts which benefits society which generates morality. Religion has borrowed from this and claimed that it came from a higher power and then claim authority on the subject. Evolution got there first, but religion then says that people without religion can't be moral.
Got this from wikepedia:
Morality has two principal meanings:
* In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to en again, wouldn't that then be wrong? We can all learn something right?
I, along with most people, have also had these instincts which cause me to consider certain acts abhorrent, yet there are many instances with some people where experiences in upbringing, teaches from dogma or genetic abnormalities overwhelm these instincts, and cause them to commit atrocious acts relative to other people.
Considering we have evolved these instincts independently on this planet from the rest of the universe without prompting from a "higher power" (as many religions will have some of us believe) then it cannot be universally absolute.
Due to these variations on how we evolve, there is also variation on how "good" something is or how "bad". Some people believe that adultary is a sin punishable by death. They believe they are morally right and good, while I (and most other people) will think it is wrong. That is what I mean by "all my morals are not universally absolute to everyone". Each person has different levels of how "good" something is.
I noticed on that site it said this:
I feel that the best test to determine whether or not you really believe that absolute moral laws exist, is not whether you feel that atrocities like rape and child molestation could be right somewhere in the universe, but whether they could ever be right if perpetrated against you or someone you love. Please keep in mind, I am asking what YOU believe, not what you think anyone else believes.
If they are asking what *I* believe, then it cannot be absolute. It is a contradiction.
16 Sep 10
Originally posted by lauseyThank you for sharing.
My morality will be in the "descriptive" sense. Our sense of "right" and "wrong" evolved because of game theory. What is "good" is what benefits society as a whole and survive. We evolve the instincts which benefits society which generates morality. Religion has borrowed from this and claimed that it came from a higher power and then claim authority on the su ...[text shortened]... e asking what *I* believe, then it cannot be absolute. It is a contradiction.
I think the author was only using the "normative" sense in this case. It would make sense to use that because in the "descriptive" sense there are much loop holes to consider, of which you have mentioned. I unfortunately do not believe in evolution but in creation - thus I'll disagree with you on who got there first - I'll go with God was there first 😉
We actually need to consider both these senses now. Even from your example of adultery, the fact is that adultery is the problem, the sin and which falls in the "normative" sense. While others believe this sin is punishable by death, this is also wrong to me, to you but maybe not to other which then falls in the "descriptive" sense. I was only using your example here cause it was mentioned, but by breaking down stuff, we can categorize it like I just did. This gives us much to think about.
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are moving towards the "descriptive" sense of morality here and completely leaving out the "normative" sense. The more I have dig into this, the more interesting this is becoming.
There is no absolute moral. Every moral is relative of the culture of whom an individual belongs.
I can not disagree with your second sentence, but with the first there is a problem. If there is no absolute moral, then would it be alright if someone rapes your wife and or daughter because in his culture it is no problem to do so? I think your answer will be no.
Thus absolute moral must exist - would you now agree? If not, please tell us why?
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by NickstenOkay, let's stick to my first sentence: "There is no absolute moral." You give an example, and I will give you a standard answer: In our culture, no. In our time, no. But in any time and in any culture I can see a possibility that this can be considered within good moral.
You are moving towards the "descriptive" sense of morality here and completely leaving out the "normative" sense. The more I have dig into this, the more interesting this is becoming.
I can not disagree with your second sentence, but with the first there is a problem. If there is no absolute moral, then would it be alright if someone rapes your wife and ...[text shortened]... be no.
Thus absolute moral must exist - would you now agree? If not, please tell us why?
Let me remind of the Book of Judges, chapter 19, where an example shows where rape, and worse, is used as good moral.
I think my second sentence just is an explication of the first one. If you agree to the second, don't you also agree to the first?
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasWhen I read that whole chapter, the message I am getting is that the old man offered his daughter and the wife of the man to the men that wanted to rape the man. Remember that these men were thugs.
Okay, let's stick to my first sentence: "There is no absolute moral." You give an example, and I will give you a standard answer: In our culture, no. In our time, no. But in any time and in any culture I can see a possibility that this can be considered within good moral.
Let me remind of the Book of Judges, chapter 19, where an example shows where rap ...[text shortened]... explication of the first one. If you agree to the second, don't you also agree to the first?
In my opinion the old man offered the two woman, as God did not make it that way that a man must have sex with another man. One died as a result of the rape. If the old man head weapons this could have changed the situation as he could have tried defending his people, but thugs tend to always overpower their targets.
I can not disagree with you, as though it seems like it was considered good moral (descriptive sense) ages ago, this has moved onto the normative sense and today is a crime if you do such a horrible thing. Time has moved on and I am sure that more and more things that fall into the descriptive sense of morality could find themselves in the normative sense.
I honestly don't think that someone in their right mind today will offer their wifes or daughters up for rape - you must be a psycho if will allow it, and yeah, there are still of them around today I guess.
17 Sep 10
Originally posted by NickstenRight. Moral is relative, not absolute.
When I read that whole chapter, the message I am getting is that the old man offered his daughter and the wife of the man to the men that wanted to rape the man. Remember that these men were thugs.
In my opinion the old man offered the two woman, as God did not make it that way that a man must have sex with another man. One died as a result of the rape. ...[text shortened]... you must be a psycho if will allow it, and yeah, there are still of them around today I guess.
If you say moral is absolute now and here, you're may be right, but nonetheless it is relative our culture and our time.
I don't want this discussion be a discussion about semantics. I've given my point. I'm satisfied with that.
18 Sep 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasThe problem which many relativists seem to miss is that a great many examples of what they would call relative moral standard, upon closer examination turn out to be something else.
Right. Moral is relative, not absolute.
If you say moral is absolute now and here, you're may be right, but nonetheless it is relative our culture and our time.
I don't want this discussion be a discussion about semantics. I've given my point. I'm satisfied with that.
Take for example your sentence with an example:
Morality is "nonetheless relative to our culture and our time".
Okay, to show respect in the US you shake hands upon meeting.
To show respect in China you bow before the one you meet.
To show respect in some Middle Eastern countries you kiss the one you meet.
The practice of HOW you show respect changes from culture to culture. But the showing OF respect is universal to all those cultures.
This is a matter not of the relativity of morality but the changing ways in which it is practiced.
Just one example there. ( I may have loosely quoted you ).
18 Sep 10
Originally posted by NickstenI would still say absolute morality does not exist. Individual morality does.
I can not disagree with your second sentence, but with the first there is a problem. If there is no absolute moral, then would it be alright if someone rapes your wife and or daughter because in his culture it is no problem to do so? I think your answer will be no.
Thus absolute moral must exist - would you now agree? If not, please tell us why?
This goes by my point that we have evolved instincts which benefit society as a whole. These instincts give us individual morality. Morality that will tell us that rape wouldn't be the right thing to do. I mentioned earlier that dogmatic beliefs and upbringing can overwhelm these instincts. This can therefore develop beliefs that allow for abhorrent acts which would normally be against our instincts (e.g. rape). I know this is a hypothetical example as I am not aware of cultures that allow for rape of someone's wife or daughter, but such thing can potentially exist. The fundamentalist group "Christian Voice" in the UK, however, does allow for rape (although they don't call it rape) within marriage, but I digress.
As I am sure you are aware, there is international media attention regarding Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani who had been sentenced to death by stoning because of adultery. She no longer will be stoned to death because of the world wide attention, but the point is there are cultures over there who believe that adultery is punishable by death.
We have the instincts that there is nothing wrong with sex (as long as both parties consent and both are of mature enough age to understand the implications). Marriage is based on dogmatic beliefs (i.e. tradition and custom) which became strongly a part of religion. These developed belief systems where sex and marriage go together and sex outside marriage is wrong. Some customs have taken this to the extreme where death should result. These have gone strongly against our basic evolved instincts that sex isn't wrong.
It isn't in our natural instincts to get married, but social pressures have said that this is the right thing to do for people who want to be together romantically.
18 Sep 10
Originally posted by jaywillYou've brought up something very interesting and true.
The problem which many relativists seem to miss is that a great many examples of what they would call relative moral standard, upon closer examination turn out to be something else.
Take for example your sentence with an example:
Morality is "nonetheless relative to our culture and our time".
Okay, to show respect in the US you shake hands upon ...[text shortened]... ways in which it is practiced.
Just one example there. ( I may have loosely quoted you ).