proving absolute morals exist...

Tide

Smurf,

That is not equating them. The point was that they all creations of the mind.

Dmstifik8ion

Now were getting warm.
What theistic humanism (seems somewhat contradictory) lacks is the ability to tie reasoning to our requirements, as dictated by our physical and intellectual nature and how to enter into mutually beneficial relationships, as opposed to the dictates of an undefined being who purpose can only be assumed. This must be due to a lack of understanding of our nature and therefore what those requirements are.

Dmstifik8ion

We must learn that unjust rules are not enforceable. We cannot ignore the requirements of human nature in dictating the rules. People have a great capacity for suffering but in the end if the moral code laid down by those in power is not livable we must change them or if change is not permitted we must rebel or die trying to abide by a morality that does not correspond to the absolute of reality.

Tide

No. The relativist recognizes and uses logic and reason but also recognizes that morality can change over time and space.

How about some specifics? If morality is absolute then you should be able to come up with an example or two in which a moral principle is always right. :)

Smurf

Yes, but what I'm trying to clarify is that relativism does not recognize any specific way that a person should or should not act. It sees morality as an idea that changes as the whim of society/people change. It rejects deonology in other words.

Depriving a person of life or liberty. For example.

Tide

"Whim" is a bit of oversimplification. Relativism recognizes that not everyone (globally and temporally) shares the same values. That is not to say they have no morals or standards. Also, I presume you meant "deontology."

You would not deprive a serial killer his liberty? You would not deprive someone of life who is in the act of using lethal force against you or a loved one?

Smurf

Yeah, that's what I said, and yes I meant deontology.

What I would "do" and what I would recognize as being inherently ungood (evil) are quite different things. You can justify an act without it being morally good.

Dmstifik8ion

Initiating the use of force against another individual who has not threatened your life or liberty equally negates the your right to life and liberty. Liberty does not entail the ‘right’ to abuse the rights of others.
If a further explanation is required then this certainly deserves consideration. I will attempt to address this need later. Got to go now but I’ll be back. Fascinating discussion!

selfAdjoint

This is evidently a part of the Dmstifik8ion code of morality. Various world thinkers have disagreed.

An important feature of any selfAdjoint code of morality would be "Every requirement I lay on my neighbor, I lay on myself, and every permission I grant myself, I grant to my neighbor."

And my neighbor consists at least of every living human being.

Dmstifik8ion

Not just world thinkers but world leaders as well. Disputes between individuals, groups and nations arise when they are unable to agree on what constitutes a fair and equitable moral code. Unless and until a moral code can be demonstrated to arise out of a reality-based necessity, such disputes will necessarily continue indefinitely without any real and lasting resolution.
I recognize that everyone requires the same essential rights and privileges as me. I also realize that these rights and privileges must be extended to each of us to satisfy the requirements of existence imposed by our nature and the nature of the reality in which we live. All other rights and privileges must be earned and won by mutual consent devoid of any threat of violence.
I impose no requirement on my neighbor except that they demand nothing of me except that which we have agreed is in our mutual self-interest. Reality makes the demands and I comply by meeting the requirements imposed by it. If anyone requires anything not available by cooperative exchange with another than it is to reality that they must conform, not me to them or them to me. My only obligation to my neighbor is to assume the responsibility that is mine for the consequences of my actions and to defend their rights as they do mine.
If this seems harsh then your gripe is with reality, not me. My neighbors know me to be a kind and generous spirit and respect and honor my personal rights as I do theirs. What more could anyone reasonably ask for accept that the world at large do likewise. This can only be achieved when the rights of all are understood and are equally acknowledged and defended.

selfAdjoint

the "Reality" is in your own mind. The harshness, if carried out, is on your own head.

Another element of selfAdjoint morality: "Your reality is not my reality. We must learn to live together in spite of that."

Tide

I seem to be hearing subtle tones of relativism! :)

Tide

Are we discussing morality or rights? I don't think they are the same.

The question was, in essence and in the context of absolute morality, whether another person's "immoral" act which will cause you harm is superceded by a different moral standard. I.e., the stated absolute moral position that "depriving another of life or liberty is always wrong" appears to have exceptions.

Dmstifik8ion

Reality is what I endeavor to understand since I have no choice but to live within its laws and principles along with everyone else. The quality and value of our lives depends on how well we, collectively as well as individually, conform to it. How well we live together in it depends on how well we understand it and derive value from it so that we have something of value to offer each other. From what I have seen so far, there is nothing of value we have to exchange. Nevertheless I respect your rights, (among them the essential right to believe as you wish), even if you refuse to define them or even acknowledge that they exist.

Dmstifik8ion

Not exactly the same but interrelated; "morality", (compliance with a valid moral code), is the complete set of which "rights" are members. The concept “morality” subsumes the various concepts “rights”.
Yes, this is an incomplete moral precept in that its limitations are not defined.

Smurf

Not really, I just didn't feel like answering. Regardless, you still havn't responded to barely anything I said and asked you.

Do you want a detailed explanation of how I would view those situations you cited?

Tide

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought I had answered your questions. Sometimes I reply to several posts at once rather than posting individual replies to each so I may not have addressed one or two specifically to you.