Moral Relativism: There are No Moral Absolutes

[Dennis4]

Interesting article I read a week ago:

What You Can't Say

January 2004

Have you ever seen an old photo of yourself and been embarrassed at the way you looked? Did we actually dress like that? We did. And we had no idea how silly we looked. It's the nature of fashion to be invisible, in the same way the movement of the Earth is invisible to all of us riding on it.

What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed.

[ . . . ]

Complete article at http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

 

[russ_watters]

I must admit that after reading the first few paragraphs I only skimmed the rest, but I don't see what the article has to do with moral absolutism vs relativism.

 

[Mirch]

That gave some good ways to look at ourselves.

However, I would not say that just because most societies view one thing as right, that it is right. There are probably things common that benefit humans, and so most view it as a good. But, the idea of that being some universal, all specie good, doesn't really hold..

 

[Rasine]

i would have to think contrary to your (Dennis4) implyed corralation between morals and fashion.

morals can be absloute, that is for one individual, if, however, that person is not effected by ethics. by ethics i mean socity's principle's of living; what the people say collecetivly about how to live one's life. this may change with time. for instance, the acceptance of brith controll in the 60s that was rejected in the victorian era. now it is proclaimed to be ethical.

But, as a cathloic I see birh controll as amoral. Although it may be ethical, i would never accept it to be moral.

 

[NEBRASKA NATURALIST]

Oh Yes, There Are Moral Absolutes,
AND IMO they can be determined objectively, that is, empircally, that is, scientifically. Let me a give you a few (commonly known or acceptable) objectively determinable moral absolutes to illustrate the idea.
1) Slavery and exploitation are completely morally and reasonably wrong. Slavery is parasitism, feeding off the non-consensual choice of another for the complete benefit of an other(s). (Slavery enslaves the slave and the slave-holder.)
2) Humans are animals that have a specific set of needs, like any and all other animals and when those needs are met the animal is "happy" and maximally functional. And when they are not met, to the degree they aren't met, the human animal will first substitute any other resource available to it to substitute for the unmet need and second will go (increasingly) dysfunctional. (Dr. Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs.)
3) Overpopulation ruins everything for everybody, sooner or later.
4) Violence only breeds violence. Violence avoidence is generally the best policy and plan. Non-violence, except in relatively rare and extreme cases and emergencies, eventually will win out.
5) Life is a means to an end - and not an end in itself.
6) There are some things worse than death.

There are probably many tens of these knowably objectively determinable absolutes. But, by the same token, one can identify subjetively maintained absolutes that arent universally true. As such, we have a basis for secular and scientifically-determinable religion.

Peace and love,
NN

 

[Tigron-X]

No, you're really claiming that there are moral absolutes, but the morality that an individual holds are subject to change. Well, of course that's true because our beliefs are subject to change as one expands his/her knowledge base. And just because someone believes something to be good, doesn't mean it is in the long run.

 

[Nomy-the wanderer]

There are absolutes...Probably!

But i think it depends on people's beleifs, education, community, ..bla bla.
I don't believe in absolutes in general, but there r things that a large number of people agree on..So maybe these are what uc an call absolutes...

But everyone of us is really in his own frame of referrence, looking to the world through his own glasses, so morality also comes when u try to understand what's goin on with the other frame sittin next to u..

 

[Tigron-X]

Here is my thing about absolutes:

If one made the claim, "There are no absolutes." Then wouldn't that statement contradict itself since it just stated an absolute?

 

[force majeure]

Of course there are moral absolutes.

Aren't murder, adultery, and theft universally considered wrong?

Some might argue that universal perception does not determine what is absolute. So how does one truly perceive what is absolute?

There has to be moral absolutes. Otherwise there is only chaos.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Of course there are moral absolutes.

Aren't murder, adultery, and theft universally considered wrong?

Not if your society values sacrifice to the gods and free love and rejects material possessions.

There has to be moral absolutes. Otherwise there is only chaos.

Why? Why cannot two societies with complete opposite moral values coexist? Each society would be ordered within itself, with each member adhering to that society's moral codes, but the two societies themselves are entirely different and so no moral absolutes exist.

 

[AKG]

Here is my thing about absolutes:

If one made the claim, "There are no absolutes." Then wouldn't that statement contradict itself since it just stated an absolute?

That's why you make the claim, "There are no moral absolutes." Such a claim is an absolute claim in itself, but not a moral absolute, so there is no contradiction.

 

[sneez]

WEll two opposite morals community could be existing at the same time but only one of them is 'right' in its perception of reality and fullfiling the meaning of their existence.

SO moral absolutes can exists even though not every community/individual knows about them and/or follows them.

In otherword there is only one TRUTH, one correct interpretation of our physical world. SInce our 'morals/beliefs/knowledge' are based on this physical world (what we can sense) there is only one CORRECT set of morals/beliefs/etc . Of cause only the frameworks, not the details , etc.

 

[selfAdjoint]

WEll two opposite morals community could be existing at the same time but only one of them is 'right' in its perception of reality and fullfiling the meaning of their existence.{/quote]

Physical reality has not since Hume been thought to have anything to contribute to morals.
Meaning of existence is an ill-defined phrase that different schools of thought interpret differently. Thomistic theology and Sartrian Existentialism, for example.

SO moral absolutes can exists even though not every community/individual knows about them and/or follows them.

Petitio principi; begging the question; you are assuming what you claim to show.

In otherword there is only one TRUTH, one correct interpretation of our physical world. SInce our 'morals/beliefs/knowledge' are based on this physical world (what we can sense) there is only one CORRECT set of morals/beliefs/etc . Of cause only the frameworks, not the details , etc.

Repeat what I said about Hume; you can't get "ought" from "is".

 

[Jameson]

I think the problem with absolutes is that, by definition, they really don't leave any room for grey. It is black and white.

For instance, like others have said, killing a fellow person is generally accepted to be wrong.

But what about if that person breaks into your house? And has gun pointed at you?

Still think there's a general consensus?

 

[sneez]

Thats very interesting about the physical reality no being connected. I have not thought about it could you give me something i can read upon this...

Can you explain me my logical error in the i don't quite get it...

thank you very much

sneez

 

[Smurf]

I don't really see you making a logical error per se, but you make a few assumptions that are not necessarily true, for example

there is only one TRUTH

Which about half the student body and 3/4 of the faculty of the philosophy department at my university would disagree with you on.

Some food for thought:

WEll two opposite morals community could be existing at the same time but only one of them is 'right' in its perception of reality and fullfiling the meaning of their existence.

Just because two people disagree does not mean one is more right than the other, they may be both equally right (or, you could say, equally wrong). And if one is more 'right' than the other, how do you prove it?

In otherword there is only one TRUTH, one correct interpretation of our physical world. SInce our 'morals/beliefs/knowledge' are based on this physical world (what we can sense) there is only one CORRECT set of morals/beliefs/etc . Of cause only the frameworks, not the details , etc.

Everybody interpretes and perceives our world differently, what may be self-evident as wrong to one person, another person may be completely indifferent towards, or he/she may desire it. So if you're going to say something is absolute you must use more than people's perspectives to argue it.

 

[sneez]

I see. thanx,

About the two communities, of cause there is more option of both of them being wrong etc but my point was that that two communities in opposite moral can coexist. And even though each one of them will think they are right one of them will be wrong (if the other is following the 'truth');

Now about the truth definition i had in mind. And about the perception...

I assumed that since our universe seems to be obeying one law (the ultimate theory scientist are trying to crack) there is only one correct interpretation of the laws physical objects obey. Plus throughout the universe we assume that physical laws are the same.

I made connection with morals here because we live as physical objects (our learning/growth/etc must come from material world, let's drop soul and stuff for now) and perceive only physical objects. human cannot perceive anything which is not an object (physical).

NOw the connection: since we learn from physical world and form beliefs based on it, if we got the physical interpretation correctly we should derive the correct beliefs about us as well. Therefore an 'absolute' moral could be formed.

Now I am not sure if i cleared things up (how i meant them) or the opposite. IF i did the same mistake let me know.

sneez

 

[Smurf]

About the two communities, of cause there is more option of both of them being wrong etc but my point was that that two communities in opposite moral can coexist. And even though each one of them will think they are right one of them will be wrong (if the other is following the 'truth');

Now about the truth definition i had in mind. And about the perception...

I assumed that since our universe seems to be obeying one law (the ultimate theory scientist are trying to crack) there is only one correct interpretation of the laws physical objects obey. Plus throughout the universe we assume that physical laws are the same.

I made connection with morals here because we live as physical objects (our learning/growth/etc must come from material world, let's drop soul and stuff for now) and perceive only physical objects. human cannot perceive anything which is not an object (physical).

NOw the connection: since we learn from physical world and form beliefs based on it, if we got the physical interpretation correctly we should derive the correct beliefs about us as well. Therefore an 'absolute' moral could be formed.

(Leaving aside any Solipsism ideas)

Here you make 3 assumptions:
1.You are also assuming that humans (to whom alone, morals apply) are also subject to definite, unchanging rules of the universe. This is, in science, in debate.
see: Freewill, Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

2. That a single 'true' series of events has, as a result, a single 'true' corresponding moral absolute of 'right' or 'wrong'.

3. That this single 'true' series of events can be determined by humans by some systematic procedure, and that every human will arrive at the same result.

#2 + 3 are very interesting things because in order to argue them you have to define what morality is, which brings up all sorts of questions. Are morals only defined by humans? Can they exist without humans? Can non-humans commit moral or immoral acts? Can inanimate objects be moral or immoral?

--
*sigh* I miss saint.

 

[sneez]

Thanx so much for this,

let me take 2 and 3 since holding the 1 as valid assumption (reasonable ?).

Morals are defined only by humans and living things. Since living things are objects in universe furthermore morals apply only to INTERACTION among/between LIVING objects. There is not moral to be applied to 'dead' objects. NO object is inherently immoral or moral. Only interaction can we can talk about here.

Since only living objects are related to morals => morals do not exists without life.

Humans and animals are conscious creatures. (here lenghty discussion what's the difference between humans and animals. And if we find an alien would we judge him to be able to commit immoral act or would we consider him animal which is only driven by immediate desires. I realize this point is very hard..)
SO furthermor moral actions can be taken only by the cretures which that which distninguished animals from humans (since i was not able to define it very well in short paragraph). Not vice versa, i don't think animal can take immoral step toward human or toward other animal.

Yeah now i see its hard to even define moral. (other than behavior of coformance to accepted right/wrong). hmm how to define right and wrong? An injustice to oneself or others.

Now i see that maybe without some background definition of right and wrong (justice) its very hard to even talk about moral. For example religion, that would be very easy do define morals in therms of religion but from nothing there is lot of relativism to be dealt with.

what is your stance on it?

 

[learningphysics]

I think the problem with absolutes is that, by definition, they really don't leave any room for grey. It is black and white.

For instance, like others have said, killing a fellow person is generally accepted to be wrong.

But what about if that person breaks into your house? And has gun pointed at you?

How about this statement:

"It is wrong to kill a person when the killing of that person protects nobody from harm, and is of no benefit to anybody."

Is this statement absolutely true?

 

[Smurf]

How about this statement:

"It is wrong to kill a person when the killing of that person protects nobody from harm, and is of no benefit to anybody."

Is this statement absolutely true?

What makes it wrong? The harm to the person being killed? or the fact that there is no benefit to anyone as a result of it?

Can we justify murder with gain?

There's actually a guy who specialises in this kind of argument. You may have heard of him, Peter singer.

 

[Smurf]

let me take 2 and 3 since holding the 1 as valid assumption (reasonable ?).

Sure

Morals are defined only by humans and living things. Since living things are objects in universe furthermore morals apply only to INTERACTION among/between LIVING objects. There is not moral to be applied to 'dead' objects. NO object is inherently immoral or moral. Only interaction can we can talk about here.

I would add 'sentient' to your definition. Or can bacteria and plants perform evil as well?

Since only living objects are related to morals => morals do not exists without life.

I would argue your wording, using this rule you could draw some illogical deductions. For example: If all life ceased to exist, morality would cease to exist as well. This is treating an intangible concept as something physical.

Humans and animals are conscious creatures. (here lenghty discussion what's the difference between humans and animals. And if we find an alien would we judge him to be able to commit immoral act or would we consider him animal which is only driven by immediate desires. I realize this point is very hard..)

The whole alien thing is rather irrelevant. We don't know aliens, and if we did it would quite possibly be extremely difficult if not impossible for us to understand how they view the world in comparison to us. So discussing their moral implications is.. strenuous, with no real benefit.

Yeah now i see its hard to even define moral. (other than behavior of coformance to accepted right/wrong). hmm how to define right and wrong? An injustice to oneself or others.

The most interesting definition I've heard is:
"An Evil act is an act where you use something against it's purpose". And he explained it with this example, if you use a butter knife to kill someone, you are doing evil to the knife because that's not it's purpose, and you are doing evil to the human, because you are killing it against it's will (humans create their own purpose - therefor will). Similarily, if you use a sword to spread butter, you are doing evil to the sword. But if you kill someone with it, you are not doing evil to it (but you are still doing evil to the human).
However, in this you are treating evil not as a living thing, but as a projection, a force of sorts to which one can throw at someone (thing) else. Which is very different from your own definition, where you treat it as a label, something to which you either are or are not.

Tell me, which one is right and which one is wrong?

Now i see that maybe without some background definition of right and wrong (justice) its very hard to even talk about moral. For example religion, that would be very easy do define morals in therms of religion but from nothing there is lot of relativism to be dealt with.

That's what philosophies all about.

what is your stance on it?

Oh me? I don't believe Morality exists at all or has any usefull application to our existence. Having said that, it does seem to be an ingrained part of our psyche, necessary even.

Absolutists say "This is wrong (or right) no matter what, because it is"
Relativists say "We don't know enough about it to say what's right or wrong"

In practical discussions (I.e. when discussing something tangible, like an event or a person) I tend to be quite a relativist.

To me, morality appears to be a conceptualised instinct. It's our excuse for doing everything we do. I'll explain it with an example (sort of..).

A man builds a house. Ask him "Why did you build a house?" Because I need to stay warm. Why do you need to stay dry? Because I need to stay health. Why do you need to stay healthy? Because I don't want to die.
Why don't you want to die? Because I'm afraid of death. Why are you afraid of death? Because I don't understand it. Why are you afraid of that which you don't understand? Because I don't know how to react to it. Why do you want to know how to react to it? So that I can stop it bringing harm to me. Why are you afraid of harm coming to you? Because I don't want to die.

Oversimplified I know. But at the source of every action we take is some primal instinct biologically built into us that we can't escape. A more honest answer for the above example might simply be "Because I think it's right", which is synonymous with "Because it is my nature to".

 

[learningphysics]

What makes it wrong? The harm to the person being killed? or the fact that there is no benefit to anyone as a result of it?

The harm done. "No benefit" implies moral neutrality.

Can we justify murder with gain?

It depends on what type of gain we are talking about. If the quick painless death of one person leads to millions of other people living lives free of torture (which would otherwise be filled with torture), then I think it is certainly justified.

There's actually a guy who specialises in this kind of argument. You may have heard of him, Peter singer.

Yes. I don't know enough about him, but I seem to agree with his views.

 

[learningphysics]

A man builds a house. Ask him "Why did you build a house?" Because I need to stay warm. Why do you need to stay dry? Because I need to stay health.

I'd not answer like this. I'd say "To stay healthy, and to not suffer". Why not suffer? It is difficult to answer this question. The badness of suffering "in itself" is IMO an inescapable truth, and the basis of any morality.

 

[Jameson]

How about this statement:

"It is wrong to kill a person when the killing of that person protects nobody from harm, and is of no benefit to anybody."

Is this statement absolutely true?

Your statement leaves a lot of subjective thinking, with words like "benefit" and "protects". My main point was that when the complexity of life is added to absolute morals, these supposedly innate rules of right and wrong seem to waiver among men.

 

[Smurf]

I'd not answer like this. I'd say "To stay healthy, and to not suffer". Why not suffer? It is difficult to answer this question. The badness of suffering "in itself" is IMO an inescapable truth, and the basis of any morality.

And my answer to that is to say that we consider suffering bad because of our integral, biological and inescapable instinct to avoid it. I agree it is the basis of morality, morality is nothing more than conceptualised instinct.

Why would you say there an innate 'badness' of suffering? Which is to say, what makes suffering bad, that is not present in other things?

 

[Smurf]

I'd not answer like this. I'd say "To stay healthy, and to not suffer".

Another interesting point; in saying this you imply that something moral, something 'Good', is not in it's self positive, but rather merely the absense of evil. This implies that the world is inherently good, and assumes something 'immoral' as an invader of sorts. Or am I reading too much into it? What do you think?

 

[learningphysics]

Your statement leaves a lot of subjective thinking, with words like "benefit" and "protects". My main point was that when the complexity of life is added to absolute morals, these supposedly innate rules of right and wrong seem to waiver among men.

You are right that my statement involved subjective language... I'll try a different approach. Is there no act or behavior that you'd consider wrong or evil?

 

[sneez]

smurf thank you discussing with me on my level :D

This is treating an intangible concept as something physical.

Would it be wrong ? Morals are connected with existence or not?

Meaning that even if another form of life is existent on another planet (this could be us relative to them) it would be reasonable that those creatures have 'morals' such as do not exterminate other life object unjustly.

Now a question: is logic/reason necessary for 'higher' form of life? Anywhere in the universe if we ever encounter inteligent life it must follow logic? THe same we follow? IF the answer is yes (which i think it is) than morals would be developed independently of us here. Even other 'inteligent' form would develop it. SO my argument probably summarizes into logic=> morals. Is it reasonalbe. (note I am not trying to view their concept of morals relative to ours but rather say that MORALS because of them being 'inteligent' (logic) is necessary and therefore universal)

I know this would mean that for example animals could have morals (like dolphins) for example among themselves. This would futher mean that morals maybe are relevant only to the same species or (community). I probably just have gone a circle.

I would agree with the definition of evil as an act of going against purpose. Actually its a religion teaches this as i just remembered. But it does not treat inanimate objects as having purpose i guess as we humans do. The purpose of knife and sword is logical but there are situations, and/or knives that would not fall in either category. I could go further and say that all knifes came from killing tool of early humans which has evolved into butter cutter with time. But the first purpose of knife (what ever the first looked like) was to kill or separate life from body. Therfore killing with butter knife is not unjust to the knife only to the human. The purpos of butter knife is an artifitial one labeled only by us.

I think behind every action of man is pleasure and/or loss (love/hate). Before a human takes an action there must be a VALUE associated with the result of the action. If there is no benefit/loss with it associated in our brain we are indiferent. SO this is probably the same thing you are trying to say in you house parable but you connect it with biological instint. I don't think this might be true, there are ppl who are not affraid of death and still would build a house.

sneez

 

[learningphysics]

And my answer to that is to say that we consider suffering bad because of our integral, biological and inescapable instinct to avoid it. I agree it is the basis of morality, morality is nothing more than conceptualised instinct.

What about empathy? The desire to save others from suffering... is that also instinctive?

You may be right that it is indeed all instinctive. But my position is that suffering would still be bad even if we didn't have the instinct to avoid it. I can't prove this though.

 

[learningphysics]

Another interesting point; in saying this you imply that something moral, something 'Good', is not in it's self positive, but rather merely the absense of evil. This implies that the world is inherently good, and assumes something 'immoral' as an invader of sorts. Or am I reading too much into it? What do you think?

You are very perceptive. I do consider 'good' in itself as a positive... however I believe that it is more important to prevent pain and suffering than promoting pleasure and happiness. For example I find it unacceptable to make one man suffer in order to make thousands of others experience pleasure (as opposed just a neutral feeling) This position is negative utilitarianism.

 

[Jameson]

You are right that my statement involved subjective language... I'll try a different approach. Is there no act or behavior that you'd consider wrong or evil?

That I'd consider? That sounds like a relative moral to me...

Just because I consider something moral doesn't make it absolute.

EDIT: I didn't answer your question. Yes there are acts that I would consider moral or immoral.

 

[learningphysics]

That I'd consider? That sounds like a relative moral to me...

Just because I consider something moral doesn't make it absolute.

EDIT: I didn't answer your question. Yes there are acts that I would consider moral or immoral.

I'm having trouble distinguish "immoral" and "absolutely immoral".

If you were to say:
"I consider torture immoral."

how is that sentence any different from
"I consider torture absolutely immoral."

It's like any other sentence. If I say: "The apple is red." how is that different from saying "The apple is absolutely red." ?

 

[Smurf]

Now a question: is logic/reason necessary for 'higher' form of life? Anywhere in the universe if we ever encounter inteligent life it must follow logic? THe same we follow? IF the answer is yes (which i think it is) than morals would be developed independently of us here. Even other 'inteligent' form would develop it.

We know nothing about what other life could exist. Our life is based on biochemistry, this is not the only way life is believed to be possible to exist. There could be life in gaseous form, this leaves the incredible possibility of living planets. (really, anything seems possible with what we know now)

What do you think about sneez?
Your next meal, some moral questions, a TV show, the body of a woman, the song you're writting, wether China will be the next superpower?

What do you think Jupiter thinks about?

I find it more likely that any other life on other planets will be almost unrecognizable to us, let alone follow our same thinking patterns.

SO my argument probably summarizes into logic=> morals. Is it reasonalbe. (note I am not trying to view their concept of morals relative to ours but rather say that MORALS because of them being 'inteligent' (logic) is necessary and therefore universal)

By my definition every life form would indeed have morals. How can intelligent life exist without instinct? Surely complex thought can't exist without first some basic ones. Therefor it is logical to assume that they would likely arrive at some generalisations about what is positive or negative about life. Then again, maybe not.

 

[Smurf]

What about empathy? The desire to save others from suffering... is that also instinctive?

You may be right that it is indeed all instinctive. But my position is that suffering would still be bad even if we didn't have the instinct to avoid it. I can't prove this though.

Empathy's more a matter of complex morals that arise out of these basic instincts. Instead of survival of the individual, you're not worrying about survival of the group.

This is, in part, due to the fact we no longer need to worry too much about our own survival. We've pretty much got most our needs taken care of with reasonable ease.

Suffering will always be instinctively undesired. The very definition of suffering requires undesirability. So yes, suffering will always be 'wrong'. At least to the individual that is having the suffering inflicted upon them.

 

[Smurf]

I'm having trouble distinguish "immoral" and "absolutely immoral".

If you were to say:
"I consider torture immoral."

how is that sentence any different from
"I consider torture absolutely immoral."

It's like any other sentence. If I say: "The apple is red." how is that different from saying "The apple is absolutely red." ?

James seems to have a problem here that I see quite common in these discussions. That is that we lack a proper understanding and/or definition for what an "absolute moral" is and what it means. And how it differs from any form of individual's moral thought.

 

[pallidin]

Morality is an issue of personal conduct with theirself and others and in respect(or lack of) their God or religion or whatever.

 

[force majeure]

Not if your society values sacrifice to the gods and free love and rejects material possessions.

Even a society which allows human sacrifices would have a definition for murder. I have yet to hear a society where you can go around killing anyone you like whenever you feel like it. Or a society where you can take someone else's spouse or estate just because they struck your fancy.

 

[Jameson]

I'm having trouble distinguish "immoral" and "absolutely immoral".

If you were to say:
"I consider torture immoral."

how is that sentence any different from
"I consider torture absolutely immoral."

It's like any other sentence. If I say: "The apple is red." how is that different from saying "The apple is absolutely red." ?

Ok. Take a controversial issue like gay marriage. I would say that this is moral, rational, and something our government should allow. Others would say that it is absolutely wrong, irrational, and would bring our government down. This is because our definitions of right and wrong are really our opinions, unless you are referring to some form of God, in which case this discussion could go on for a while.

Do you see how this is different from an apple being red? What issues are there surrounding the color of the apple?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Even a society which allows human sacrifices would have a definition for murder. I have yet to hear a society where you can go around killing anyone you like whenever you feel like it. Or a society where you can take someone else's spouse or estate just because they struck your fancy.

Yes, but it is not the same definition as ours, therefore is relative. You don't have to look too far in Britain's past to find a time when it was acceptable to slay a Scot in York on a Thursday or something. We call it murder because it is a morally unacceptable killing (as opposed to, say, killing an enemy in war), however back in medieval times it would have been morally acceptable - indeed encouraged. Therefore that older society, or any that allows human sacrifice, would draw distinctions that we do not. True, they would not call it murder, since murder is unlawful killing, but if the concept of murder is relative, then one person's idea of a morally unacceptable killing will be different to another's.

 

[selfAdjoint]

How about this: "The social unit (band, tribe, nation, etc.) will define what killing is licit. Any other killing is punishable by death". We are a social species; we can expect that the more generally we consider our morality, the more we will find it contingent on society.

 

[learningphysics]

Ok. Take a controversial issue like gay marriage. I would say that this is moral, rational, and something our government should allow. Others would say that it is absolutely wrong, irrational, and would bring our government down.

Ok... you say: "Gay marriage is moral." Someone else says: "Gay marriage is not moral."

Are you saying both of you are right?

The statements are in direct contradiction. It seems to me that either the word "moral" is not defined (rendering the two statements meaningless), or otherwise: one statement is true, and one statement is false, in which case the morality seems pretty absolute to me. We may not know which statement is true, but that doesn't mean that both statements can be true.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Ok... you say: "Gay marriage is moral." Someone else says: "Gay marriage is not moral."

Are you saying both of you are right?

The statements are in direct contradiction. It seems to me that either the word "moral" is not defined (rendering the two statements meaningless), or otherwise: one statement is true, and one statement is false, in which case the morality seems pretty absolute to me. We may not know which statement is true, but that doesn't mean that both statements can be true.

No, in this discussion at least, both statements are wrong, since they both suggest that a different truth is a moral absolute, when the fact that there are two claims for what that truth is demonstrates otherwise.

 

[learningphysics]

Yes, but it is not the same definition as ours, therefore is relative. You don't have to look too far in Britain's past to find a time when it was acceptable to slay a Scot in York on a Thursday or something. We call it murder because it is a morally unacceptable killing (as opposed to, say, killing an enemy in war), however back in medieval times it would have been morally acceptable - indeed encouraged.

Moral does not mean "accepted by society". That's not how the word is used, or what people mean by it.

Would you say slavery was "moral" when it was taking place?

Would you say slavery "shouldn't" have taken place?

When I say tortue is "immoral"... I'm not saying that "society does not accept torture." I'm saying "torture should not take place".

 

[learningphysics]

No, in this discussion at least, both statements are wrong, since they both suggest that a different truth is a moral absolute, when the fact that there are two claims for what that truth is demonstrates otherwise.

Please distinguish how two statements like:

"The apple is red." and "The apple is not red." are in contradiction whereas "Gay marriage is moral." and "Gay marriage is not moral." are not.

Please define moral.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Moral does not mean "accepted by society". That's not how the word is used, or what people mean by it.

Would you say slavery was "moral" when it was taking place?

Would you say slavery "shouldn't" have taken place?

When I say tortue is "immoral"... I'm not saying that "society does not accept torture." I'm saying "torture should not take place".

Do you not understand that by asking me what I think is moral is demonstrating well enough that morality is relative? Yes, I believe all of those things... they are both my own personal moral code and that of my society. But that doesn't make them moral absolutes. The fact that other societies do or have performed torture or used slaves goes to show that they are not moral absolutes. Go back 60 years and ask a white man what the moral thing to do is when a black slave speaks to his master without calling him 'sir'. He'd probably say 'whip him'. Why? BECAUSE HE'S A SLAVE!

A society's moral code contains morals that, by definition, are accepted by society. I was comparing the different moral codes of different societies to highlight that they are not absolute. To say 'murder is immoral' when different people or societies define murder differently is absurd.

Take abortion, for instance. Some people define this as murder, so if murder is absolutely immoral then abortion is immoral. However, some people realize that in a lot of cases abortion seems the moral thing to do, so to deny a woman the right to abort is immoral. If you cannot have an absolute definition of 'murder', how can you say 'murder is absolutely immoral'?

 

[Jameson]

Moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character (source - Dictionary.com)

It seems to me that you are saying any given action, thought, etc. is either moral or immoral. The only way I see a logical way of justifying this is if you say that some kind of God has expressed the morality of the universe.

Ok... you say: "Gay marriage is moral." Someone else says: "Gay marriage is not moral."

Are you saying both of you are right?

Of course not. I was simply showing a difference of opinion. One person could say that something is absolutely moral, while another says one is absolutely immoral. Who's right? I would say no one is, as both both statements are the personal opinions of the persons who said them.

By your absolute way of thinking, how do you justify your morality?

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Please distinguish how two statements like:

"The apple is red." and "The apple is not red." are in contradiction whereas "Gay marriage is moral." and "Gay marriage is not moral." are not.

Please define moral.

My post was in answer to the question of which one was right, not whether or not they contradicted each other.

 

[learningphysics]

Do you not understand that by asking me what I think is moral is demonstrating well enough that morality is relative?

Suppose some guy comes to you. He's learning the English language. He asks you what the word "moral" means. What would you say to him? That you can't say what the word means because morality is relative?

Unless I know what you mean by the word "moral", how can I understand what you're saying? You have to explain what the word means, because it seems that we mean two different things. If that is the case, then it is impossible to discuss. Communication is based on words having universally defined meanings to words.

If I said to you: "sdfsdfsdf is good.", would you have any idea what I'm talking about unless I defined what sdfsdfsdf means?

 

[Jameson]

You are correct in that we need a common ground to communicate on. In my previous post I gave the definition of moral, but perhaps I should expand on it more.

It seems that you define moral as "pertaining to things of absolute right or wrong nature". I'll post again the definion I gave above.

Moral - Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character (source - Dictionary.com)

This is how I use the world, pertaining to judgment of goodness or badness. This does not put an absolute association with it. If I said this was aboslutely moral or immoral, then I would mean just that. I think that you associate the word moral with absoluteless and that is why there is misunderstanding.

If this absoluteless is a view you hold, I can see that.

However, others hold the view that no single action can be right or wrong, it is simply what every person views it as. I think this view makes much more sense and describes why we as a human race have so many conflicting views of right and wrong: because we all have our opinions.

I would like it if you expanded on your thoughts some more.