Originally posted by Starrman
If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.
The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to start for quite a while.
Morality, n.,:
A term often used to refer to a system of principles and judgments shared by cultural, religious, secular and philosophical communities who share concepts and beliefs, by which people determine whether given actions are right or wrong.
It can thus also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.
So -- are morals relative or absolute?
Originally posted by HalitoseRelative.
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.
The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to s ...[text shortened]... ction of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.
So -- are morals relative or absolute?[/b]
As a society's beliefs change, their concept of morality will change along with it. Slavery is a prime example. It was once an accepted institution of society (even in the bible), but is now condemned. Times change. Beliefs change. Morals change.
Originally posted by HalitoseI would have to say that they are both. Morals are absolute in the sense that God is absolute and has morals that are equally absolute. We have an innate sense of these morals that we were born with but are free to deviate from them. If we deviate from absolute morality then morality become relative. This relativity is based upon personal or group preference. Morality that does not come from absolute morality must then come from man and is therefore self righteous in nature.
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.
The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to s ...[text shortened]... ction of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.
So -- are morals relative or absolute?[/b]
Originally posted by rwingettSo the phrase: "Mother Teresa was better than Adolf Hitler" would have no meaning to you as you have no independent moral standard to judge them by??
Relative.
As a society's beliefs change, their concept of morality will change along with it. Slavery is a prime example. It was once an accepted institution of society (even in the bible), but is now condemned. Times change. Beliefs change. Morals change.
Originally posted by HalitoseIt would have meaning to him. His moral code (and that of most though not all people) values helping others and condemns the slaughter of humans for the sake of ethnicity.
So the phrase: "Mother Teresa was better than Adolf Hitler" would have no meaning to you as you have no independent moral standard to judge them by??
This is consistent both with his code and with his statement about the transitory nature of morality. Just because it is possible that someday a society will not find the Holocaust reprehensible does not mean that he cannot find it so.
Originally posted by whodeyWould preferences qualify as moral values, since they (the preferences) aren't inherently normative and could be mutually exclusive?
I would have to say that they are both. Morals are absolute in the sense that God is absolute and has morals that are equally absolute. We have an innate sense of these morals that we were born with but are free to deviate from them. If we deviate from absolute morality then morality become relative. This relativity is based upon personal or group prefer ...[text shortened]... t come from absolute morality must then come from man and is therefore self righteous in nature.
Originally posted by telerionDoes this "evolving morality" not presume eventual "super-duper morals" to which we are evolving to?
It would have meaning to him. His moral code (and that of most though not all people) values helping others and condemns the slaughter of humans for the sake of ethnicity.
This is consistent both with his code and with his statement about the transitory nature of morality. Just because it is possible that someday a society will not find the Holocaust reprehensible does not mean that he cannot find it so.
His moral code (and that of most though not all people) values helping others and condemns the slaughter of humans for the sake of ethnicity.
Would you say this "moral code" is normative?
The word 'morality' can be defined any number of ways. There will generally be some similarities between different peoples' definitions, but the definition and whether or not some action or situation is moral according to any situation will depend on an individual's opinion. If there is a god or gods, then their opinion about that definition is no more valid than anyone else's.
I suppose this means it's relative.
Biological evolution is not directional in the sense that it is progressing to a supreme standard. As moral standards, I don't know. I think we have gotten better over time, but then if what rob says is true we should not be surprised that I would think so.
If there is an independent moral standard, then why is this absolute standard superior to all other standards? Should we also expect it to be internally consistent? That is, if it tells us that we should not kill (or to make it easy on us, murder), should we expect that it would sometimes condone mass infanticide?
Would you say this "moral code" is normative?
Yes, I think so.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by HalitoseWell, they're definitely not absolute. All you have to do is examine the changes in morality that have occured over the past thirty years. I would then say that most people morals are relativistic.
Originally posted by Starrman
[b]If morality is a socially agreed contract, we punish people and reward others on the basis of success. What is good for the success of the group is deemed morally acceptable, what is deemed bad for the success of the group is morally unacceptable.
The above post reminded me of a thread I had been meaning to s ...[text shortened]... ction of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life.
So -- are morals relative or absolute?[/b]
But whether morals should or shouldn't be relative is a fickle.
Originally posted by HalitoseWhen I say preferences, I am refering to choosing any moral stance that flies in the face of absolute morality which is declared by God. The preferences can either be normative through societal influences or individualy exclusive that not only flies in the face of their creator's morality, but also the society in which they live. Either way they are relative if they contradict absolute morality.
Would preferences qualify as moral values, since they (the preferences) aren't inherently normative and could be mutually exclusive?