Proving absolute morals exist

  • Thread starter DB
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Absolute
In summary, the philosopher king would have the perfect amount of selflessness to be able to determine what is moral and immoral in any situation, and would have perfect rational thought to justify it.
  • #1
DB
501
0
Hi, I've been reading a lot about philosophy to write an argumentative essay on Absolutism vs. Relativism in favor or moral absolutism. Unfortunatly I have come to the point where I'm thinking too hard. I am not good enough in philosophy (very new to it!) to prove that absolute morals exist, I'm having some trouble. But in all the thinking I've done, I have came up with this dedective reasoning that I guess:uhh: (I really don't know if what I wrote is logical) is my belief of proving that absolute morals exist. (this is just one argument in my essay, I have others) Of course, not on my own! Plato and Aquinas pretty much wrote this for me, I just kind of combined some of their points into one. I'd just like to know what you guys think. Am I just a stupid kid who thinks he can prove something? or have I written something logical here.

I wrote it in point form, I'll put it into wrinting once I feel it's worthy...:

In Plato's Republic he says that a good city would be gouverened by "philosopher kings". He meant that the kings would gouvern the city in a just manner, with perfect moderation between selfishness and selflessness, that which is the fourth virtue, justice.

Plato said, that one cannot possesses justice without the other three virtues: "if the three where discovered...justice would be the fourth remaining". So his just philosopher kings would have to possesses all four virtues.


I want to prove that if these virtues exist and are atteinable, absolute morality exists.


THE PHILOSOPHER KING:

-He possesses the four cardial virtues: wisdom/prudence, temperance, courage and justice

-Then he could gouvern a city in a just manner

-Then he would know what is right or wrong, in any situation

-Knowing what is right or wrong in any situation would imply that he would know what he ought to do, in a specific situation. Thus is a clear conscience. Like Aquinas said, prudence is the most important virtue because it is the innate knowledge of good and evil, right or wrong

-Having prudence would imply having perfect rational thought

-If he was to gouvern a city with the paragon of rational thought, then he would know what anyone ought to do, in any situation. He would know what would be good-doing, and what would be wrong-doing in a particular case

-Knowing what would be good-doing or wrong-doing (what ought to be done) would imply knowing what is best, and what is just.

-Knowing what is best in any situation, would mean knowing what is best for everyone (he could rationalize what is just in any situation, for any conflict, between any persons withing his city)

-Knowing what is best for everyone, would indicate a purpose (if I know what is best for you, then I know what you ought to be doing, you have a purpose)
NOTE: I said knowing what is best would indicate a purspose, not define it. Sort of like walking north to reach the horizon. You know your direction, but you'll never know what's there because you can never reach the horizon. Remember that knowing what is for the better or for the worse (ought do to, or not to do) is, as Aquinas said, an innate knowledge (given by god) that can only be known with prudence, temperace, courage and (as Plato said) the fourth virtue, justice, will follow, sustain and perfect the other three.

-With these four virtues he would have the abilty to listen perfectly to his conscience

-His conscience would tell him what he ought do in any situation. (he would not necessarily know why, because he only knows through intuition. He knows the direction but doesn't know the purpose. But the purpose exists.

-Having a purpose of being, on this earth, would mean that their are actions which would be for the better of oneself and/or everyone, and actions that would be for the worst of oneself and/or everyone

-These actions would indicate what is moral or immoral

And if purposeexists, then their would be specific actions that are for the good of the purpose and for the bad of the purpose. These actions would indicate a system of morality which is absolute.

The philosopher king knows morality best.


Take into account that with the fouth virtue, justice, which is the perfect moderation of selfishness and selflessness, the philosopher king with a clear conscience (prudence) and justice, would be able to take into account any conflict, in any situation, between any persons, and justify what is moral and immoral in the right way, because he has the right amount of selflessness. As plato would say, justice is "minding one's own business".

------

Sorry if its redundant, what do you guys think? I will take no offence to constructive critisism.

Thank you for taking the time to read this long post!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Morals are "absolute" if you define them to be absolute or if you redefine absolute.
 
  • #3
Your argument seems to be backwards. You claim that a philosopher king will be able to tell what single action one ought to do. How do you know there such a single action that one ought to do? I believe you can only say what one ought to do with respect to some given purpose. If you want to make friends, you ought to try to make eye-contact. If you want to be left alone, you ought to avoid making eye-contact. If you want to promote the welfare of society, you ought to do X. If you want to do as God wills, you ought to do Y. Does it even make sense to simply speak of what one ought to do, without some presupposed purpose? No. So if you claim at the outset that having these qualities will allow a person to determine the specific action (without specification of what the purpose is) that one ought to do, then you are presupposing that there is a single purpose. The rest of your argument doesn't really prove that there is a single purpose, it essentially goes backwards, revealing the fact that you've implicitly presupposed a single purpose, but making it look like you've proved that there is one.

I have my purposes for doing things. Society as a collective has some shared purposes. Perhaps more often than not, the purposes of the individual coincide with that of society. Apparently, God has some purpose for us as well, and sometimes our purposes coincide with his. But what would it mean for there to be The Purpose? Especially, if this purpose did not coincide with any of our individual purposes, would we even bother following it? What makes a given purpose The Purpose? Is there any objective way to determine whether a given purpose is The Purpose?

Now you can claim that there are purposes, and one of these may be The Purpose, and actions may be judged in accordance with this Purpose, even if the judgement of every person and society on Earth differs. But then what makes the label of "The Purpose" any different from some purely arbitrary label?

I think the biggest problem you face is to make sense of what The Purpose could even mean. I can talk about my goals, or society's goals, or even some arbitrary random set of goals. I can't even begin to make sense of what The Goals could be. You may say The Goals are the goals that my goals should be? Why, because The Goals say so, and they're capitalized? My goals say that my goals should be what they are. Why are The Goals special? Are they better? What makes them better? To even make sense of this, you must argue that they are better at serving some purpose. But if you claim that The Goals define The Purpose, then you've just gone around in circles. Sure, The Goals are best at serving The Purpose, but why should I care? Otherwise, you must say something like The Goals are best at serving society's purpose. But then you've lost absolutism, for you're no longer speaking of The Goals (whatever that may mean) but simply society's goals.

As far as I can see, you can either say that there is some set of goals which are The Goals, and the absolute morality of an action is judged in terms of how it relates to The Goals, and refrain from saying what The Goals are in terms of other goals. If you do this, then the qualifying this morality as absolute morality becomes entirely arbitrary and meaningless. Otherwise, you can say that The Goals are, say, society's goals, or your goals, or God's goals, and this would have to be nothing but plain assertion. There's no reason why one set of goals would be The Goals, but people often claim that their morals or the morals of their society are The Morals anyways. Since there's no reason, the label again becomes arbitrary or meaningless. Note that giving a reason like "because it is what's necessary for society to work," is no good because any person could call their morals The Morals and say that "they are necessary to make me happy," and this justification would be equally as meaningful as the above, but clearly neither justification is good enough to say why one set of morals would be The Morals while still being meaningful.

Perhaps most of this was unnecessary, you may not needed to know all the problems with absolutism, just criticism about your particular argument. However, it's sometimes good to look at arguments contrary to your position in order to make something of your own position. However, if most of it did seem superfluous, the initial comment I made still stands, that your argument seems circular: you talk about what one ought to do, implicitly presupposing a purpose. You then attempt to use this to prove the existence of a purpose, but you haven't because you've really just presupposed it.
 
  • #4
There is a big diffeence between moral behavior and ethical behavior. An ethical person does what is right. A moral person does what he or she thinks their god will let them get away with. Who are you, and do you believe there are ramifications to your behavior?
 
  • #5
AKG, you are right and I agree with your critism, the only thing I would say in defence is that The Morals are given to us by god, but we can only find them in our conscience, which is innate. God has given us a purpose, I tried to prove that if morality where to exist then a purpose would aswell, and we wouldn't have to define this purpose, we'd just have to know its existed.

But then again, as I've come to realize, unless we know the purpose, only then can we know what is for the good or bad of it.

Thank you
 
Last edited:
  • #6
Besides for going in circles, is any of my reasoning false or illogical? just wondering...
 
  • #7
I'd like to ask a question:

Would you guys agree that IF we could understand our Purpose, then morality would be absolute?
 
  • #8
God has his own purposes and intentions for us. But what would make his purpose The Purpose in a meaningful way? More importantly, given that I still may have my own goals and purposes for myself, why in the world would I give them up to satisfy some other set of goals, just because those goals are called The Goals?
Would you guys agree that IF we could understand our Purpose, then morality would be absolute?
I think IF the notion of "our Purpose" (as in The Purpose) even made sense, then morality might be absolute. The way you asked the question, it makes it appear that we do have a Purpose, and we just haven't figured it out yet. I argue that this is because there is nothing to figure out, because there is no Purpose in the first place, and that in fact, the notion of The Purpose doesn't really even make sense.
Besides for going in circles, is any of my reasoning false or illogical? just wondering...
That's an oddly worded question. It is because your reasoning is circular that it is illogical. Circular reasoning means that you don't prove anything, you merely state an assumption as though it were a proven conclusion.

Now if we are to look at God's will, then there is only one answer as to what is right with respect to that purpose. If we look at the purpose of furthering the ambitions of society, then again, there is generally only one right answer. If we take a very simplistic case, then allowing murder simply will not work if society is to achieve it's goals like safety, stability, etc. Perhaps what you ought to do is use this to help argue that morality is absolute. Of course, you would still have to say why one set of goals is The set of goals. However, many people state quite boldly that morality is precisely about serving society's goals, and so when it comes to morality, society's goals are The Goals. This is, of course, highly questionable. Even absolutists don't agree here, as some absolutists will argue that morality is precisely about God's will, and so God's rules simply are The Rules. There's no reason why either of these would be the case, but it is commonly argued nonetheless. You will often hear people argue that murder is absolutely wrong because if murder were accepted, society would crumble. You should notice here the implicit assumption that the goal that society not crumble is an absolute goal. People do this all the time, and so you may get away with this kind of assumption in your paper. I know that doesn't sound appealing, but unfortunately, I can't give you an appealing argument for absolutism as I believe there is none.
 
  • #9
Tide said:
Morals are "absolute" if you define them to be absolute or if you redefine absolute.


hehe, that's great! I like it. A morally relativistic argument for absolute morals.

I've always thought that the relativist had a better argument in that he/she can always say "sure, morals can be absolute if you want them to be".

But it still doesn't convince me that morals are relative.
 
  • #10
Jonny_trigonometry said:
hehe, that's great! I like it. A morally relativistic argument for absolute morals.
I've always thought that the relativist had a better argument in that he/she can always say "sure, morals can be absolute if you want them to be".
But it still doesn't convince me that morals are relative.

I think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that morals are absolute. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis and all attempts eventually lead to invocation of supernatural arguments. The OP has his work cut out for himself.
 
  • #11
AKG said:
That's an oddly worded question. It is because your reasoning is circular that it is illogical. Circular reasoning means that you don't prove anything, you merely state an assumption as though it were a proven conclusion.

sorry that's not what i really meant, i meant did i missinterpret any of plato or aquina's philosophies
 
  • #12
AKG said:
...I argue that this is because there is nothing to figure out, because there is no Purpose in the first place, and that in fact, the notion of The Purpose doesn't really even make sense...
I would like to argue that it is the "Purpose" of all individual existents within the universe to continue to exist. Since individual humans are such existents, it is then their "purpose" to continue to exist from time of conception (e.g., union of gametes).
 
  • #13
Tide said:
I think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that morals are absolute. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis and all attempts eventually lead to invocation of supernatural arguments.
The argument of absolute morality has been logically offered in the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, and let there be no mistake, Rand made no use of the supernatural to develop her philosophy. I do not wish to restate Rand here, only to correct what I see to be a false statement about "lack of supporting hypothesis"...
 
  • #14
Rade said:
The argument of absolute morality has been logically offered in the Objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand, and let there be no mistake, Rand made no use of the supernatural to develop her philosophy. I do not wish to restate Rand here, only to correct what I see to be a false statement about "lack of supporting hypothesis"...

There is certainly no lack of supporting hypotheses. My statement was there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis. IIRC, Rand basically defined morality to be absolute and declared it "objectivism."
 
  • #15
Tide said:
There is certainly no lack of supporting hypotheses. My statement was there is no evidence supporting the hypothesis. IIRC, Rand basically defined morality to be absolute and declared it "objectivism."
Well, no, Rand defined morality has "a code of values accepted by choice"--then logically derived her hypothesis that morality as thus defined must always be absolute. Thus the "evidence" is within her logical argument. Plus, the title for her philosophy is not derived from the concept of "the good", it is derived first from metaphysics.
 
  • #16
Tide said:
I think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim that morals are absolute. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis and all attempts eventually lead to invocation of supernatural arguments. The OP has his work cut out for himself.
Couldn't you say the same about relativist morality?
 
  • #17
Rade said:
Well, no, Rand defined morality has "a code of values accepted by choice"--then logically derived her hypothesis that morality as thus defined must always be absolute. Thus the "evidence" is within her logical argument. Plus, the title for her philosophy is not derived from the concept of "the good", it is derived first from metaphysics.

"accepted by choice" = "defined!"

If I choose a different set of values then my morality is also absolute by the same logic. I would say this new evidence is problematic for the absolutist position.
 
  • #18
Smurf said:
Couldn't you say the same about relativist morality?

Not exactly. Nevertheless, the fact that morality is different from one culture to another and varies within a given culture over time all but extinguishes the notion that morals are absolute. It comes down to the absolutists claiming a hypothesis contrary to direct observation and experience which imposes a rather high burden.

The arguments for absolute morality come down to that morality having always existed or having been created by an ostensibily supernatural "creator." I think that is a rather extraordinary claim.
 
  • #19
tide said:
Nevertheless, the fact that morality is different from one culture to another and varies within a given culture over time all but extinguishes the notion that morals are absolute.
the fact that particular mores differ does not mean that morality is not an absolute ideal. it simply means that particular mores are relative to particular centers (people, cultures, societies, etc).

what is morality? have we answered this yet?
i will get a definition... don't let les see us referrencing a dictionary, though...

•concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
•ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
by the very fact that we sense that there is a right and wrong, but that we have yet to define their meanings, expresses something interesting, i think.

although people interpret their "sense of morality" differently (and thereby determine morality's definition differently), shows, in the least, that all people have a "sense of morality"; a sense of right and wrong; though this may all be a brand of social conditioning.

all morals stand in relation to the "sense of morality," and are, therefore, relative.
 
  • #20
same,

I'm not quite following you. You seem to be saying that an absolute morality exists because we sense it (though you're a bit vague on what "it" is) but because we sense it morality can be relative? What happens if your "ideal" morality and my "ideal" morality do not coincide?

Also, morals and mores are the same and not the same? :)
 
  • #21
Tide said:
"accepted by choice" = "defined!"
If I choose a different set of values then my morality is also absolute by the same logic. I would say this new evidence is problematic for the absolutist position.
Quite so if there were in fact numerous "sets of values" available that were absolute, but Rand held that moral values have a "fundamental" nature. Thus, using your terms, there is only one "set of values" available, and it (e.g. the Code, the set of fundamental values {a,b,c,d,...}) is by definition "absolute" and it MUST BE CHOSEN. How ? --humans must discover this absolute set of values, this "code" via rational thinking since we are not born with an instruction manual. And thus the importance of the science of morality--the science that teaches what actions this absolute code of values requires. And of course Rand writes much about the details of this set, the dynamics. But I deviate in my thinking from Rand and hold that her absolute set of values can be reduced to a single absolute moral axiom, e.g., that the root of all good is when humans use self as a means to end, and the root of all evil is when humans use others as a means to end--e.g., a neutral monism dynamic. Thus I hold that this is the action code of morality that must be chosen by each human if the species Homo sapiens is to obtain absolute and pure good. But I enjoy a logical argument, and look forward to comments.
 
  • #22
I hope sameandnot doesn’t mind me saying, I think he has a valid point in that answering a question might involve phrasing it in a manner where agreement is an option. After all, a moral code which applies to us all requires agreement or if that is not possible than enforceability and I think most of us would prefer the former over the latter and if enough of us agree on the rules then enforcement would not be as big a problem.

I wonder if answering these questions will help us determine whether there are and if so what are moral absolute/s:

Is reality absolute?
Do life and death qualify as absolutes?
Is morality the province of creatures that have options from which to choose and are we as humans such creatures?
Is the fundamental choice for those who have a choice life or death?
Is life good and death bad or vice versa?
Is a moral code the rules we use and abide by to choose between right and wrong, good and bad?
If we learn these rules and implement them justly will we all be better off for doing so?

If we agree that this is applicable to this thread perhaps this gives us a start in forming some ideas on how to continue with this thread.

DB, are you there, what say ye to this?

I just checked; It appears to me that DB hasn't posted here since 12/9. Does that make it community property?
 
Last edited:
  • #23
aren't rules just a way of enforcement?

all of our present attempts at attaining a "moral society" have been implemented from without; that is, they have enforced moral behavior as rule, with punishments according to "rule-breaking".

none, yet, have set to bring about moral behavior from within, as an unforced and natural disposition of being-with.

it seems that we are lacking in some very fundamental areas of education; self-governance. (of course, this would mean trouble for those invested in police forces, policy institutions, military, judicial and executive institutions, prison systems, ... the list seems to go on and on). basically, the self-actualization of the individual is a threat to the present institutions of big-business and government; imposed authority, in general, who thrive on conflict.

if we are not educated properly, early on, to be in understanding of truths of wisdom, how can we proceed to a moral and peaceful society? afterall, isn't it prejudice and ignorance that have lead so many out of peace?

where do we go from here? if not educating the young, we are imposing the the historical, societal will on them... with all of its prejudice and lack of care for wisdom and virtue, and the cycle never ends.

where do we go now?
 
  • #24
Tide said:
Not exactly. Nevertheless, the fact that morality is different from one culture to another and varies within a given culture over time all but extinguishes the notion that morals are absolute. It comes down to the absolutists claiming a hypothesis contrary to direct observation and experience which imposes a rather high burden.
Tide, you're arguments seem to already assume that morality is in the same group as your average fantasy character and doesn't have any basis with reality. You have to prove that first.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
sameandnot said:
if we are not educated properly, early on, to be in understanding of truths of wisdom, how can we proceed to a moral and peaceful society? afterall, isn't it prejudice and ignorance that have lead so many out of peace?
Isn't it education that has lead to so many to prejudice and ignorance? :tongue:
Having said that, this isn't politics, get back on topic.
 
  • #26
Smurf said:
Having said that, this isn't politics, get back on topic.
i won't even validate this remark by addressing it.
on your line about education: smurf, i am certain that you have not, in fact, read the posts which preceded your "observation" about education, and i am certain that you are unaware of the terms being used here.
unfortunately this is a regular occurrence, in philosophy. many argue over syntax rather than meaning. (for arguments sake? perhaps.)
question for smurf:
has education made a prejudice of education, in general? surely there is ignorance, of the meaning, of the concept of "education", by smurf, and the continuation of a meaningful dialogue with smurf, is not possible until smurf reads the context of the posts which precede smurf, and engages the meanings present in them. (ya know? the "idea" "behind" the name...)
 
  • #27
Rade,

humans must discover this absolute set of values, this "code" via rational thinking

You are overlooking the possibility that such a set may in fact be the empty set. And even if it is not empty, you still have the problem that concepts of "right" and "wrong" may still be (are!) fabrications of the mind.

There is no question that morality can be "discovered" by rational thought but using the word "discovery" does not to imply existence independent of mind. In fact, I suggested that in one of my first posts in this thread, i.e., the adoption of a particular set of morals may have survival value for the species. Others claim that morality is "discovered" by authority or the supernatural.

If you claim that morals exist independent of mind and are absolute then you must provide evidence that they do in fact exist outside the mind and independent of mind. I have neither seen nor heard evidence to support that notion. Rand's arguments look more like rationalizatons than an appeal to rational (i.e., objective in her parlance) thought (with regard to moral absolutes).
 
  • #28
Smurf said:
Tide, you're arguments seem to already assume that morality is in the same group as your average fantasy character and doesn't have any basis with reality. You have to prove that first.

Seems? Please provide something to back that up. You imagine something and I am supposed to prove it?
 
  • #29
same,

if we are not educated properly, early on, to be in understanding of truths of wisdom, how can we proceed to a moral and peaceful society?

That's a good point. The sets of moral values cultures possesses today have evolved largely by trial and error - more or less keeping what works and rejecting that which does not work. However, such process does not distinguish between absolute and relative morals though the fact that the evolution occurs would seem to support relativism.
 
  • #30
Tide said:
Seems? Please provide something to back that up. You imagine something and I am supposed to prove it?
If I misinterpreted your post, it would be appropriate to point out what I got wrong and what you meant in it's place. Also, I don't know what you mean about me imagining something. What did I imagine? That morals are absolute, or something about what you said?
 
  • #31
sameandnot said:
i won't even validate this remark by addressing it.
on your line about education: smurf, i am certain that you have not, in fact, read the posts which preceded your "observation" about education, and i am certain that you are unaware of the terms being used here.
unfortunately this is a regular occurrence, in philosophy. many argue over syntax rather than meaning. (for arguments sake? perhaps.)
question for smurf:
has education made a prejudice of education, in general? surely there is ignorance, of the meaning, of the concept of "education", by smurf, and the continuation of a meaningful dialogue with smurf, is not possible until smurf reads the context of the posts which precede smurf, and engages the meanings present in them. (ya know? the "idea" "behind" the name...)
Does your browser not load smilies properly?

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure that this thread is about what is/is not moral and wether morality exists at all. Not about how to get people to figure it out. I'm of the opinion this is off-topic, and since I find the topic particularly interesting I'd rather not diverge from it into something more political.
 
  • #32
Tide, here's my understanding of relativism and moralism. (Since I'm not particularly sure what you're arguing, I want to do a little overview)

Relatvisim, which I think is your position, basically holds the concept of morality is purely a human concoction and therefore any individual can declare what is right or wrong. This leads to the conclusion that everything is OKAY because, short of a supreme creator, there's no reason for it not to be. Essentially, this is denying the existence of morality. (Michel Foucault)

Moralism, which tends to be my general view, holds that that certain actions (or all/most acts) have inherent characteristics of being right or wrong. These views are strictly humanistic and are arrived at by logical and empirical arguments. (George Holyoake)

Theistic humanism is the same as Moralism, but usually appeals to a supreme being and/or creator as the source of morality. (St. Aquinas)

Arguments? Comments? Short Rants?
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Smurf,

You said it seems like I equated morality with fantasy characters. Then you said I have to prove that. Now I am supposed to point out what you got wrong? Okay. I never said any such thing and it's a rather large leap to infer anything of the sort from what I did say.
 
  • #35
Smurf,

That is not equating them. The point was that they all creations of the mind.
 
<h2>1. What is the definition of absolute morals?</h2><p>Absolute morals refer to a set of principles or values that are universally accepted as right or wrong, regardless of cultural or individual beliefs.</p><h2>2. Can absolute morals be proven scientifically?</h2><p>No, absolute morals cannot be proven through scientific methods as they are based on subjective beliefs and values, rather than empirical evidence.</p><h2>3. How can we determine what absolute morals are?</h2><p>Determining absolute morals is a complex and ongoing process that involves examining philosophical and ethical principles, cultural norms, and individual beliefs.</p><h2>4. Are absolute morals the same for everyone?</h2><p>While there may be some overlap in absolute morals across different cultures and individuals, they are not necessarily the same for everyone. Individual experiences and beliefs can influence one's understanding of absolute morals.</p><h2>5. Do absolute morals change over time?</h2><p>Absolute morals are believed to be timeless and unchanging, but societal and cultural shifts can lead to changes in what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable.</p>

1. What is the definition of absolute morals?

Absolute morals refer to a set of principles or values that are universally accepted as right or wrong, regardless of cultural or individual beliefs.

2. Can absolute morals be proven scientifically?

No, absolute morals cannot be proven through scientific methods as they are based on subjective beliefs and values, rather than empirical evidence.

3. How can we determine what absolute morals are?

Determining absolute morals is a complex and ongoing process that involves examining philosophical and ethical principles, cultural norms, and individual beliefs.

4. Are absolute morals the same for everyone?

While there may be some overlap in absolute morals across different cultures and individuals, they are not necessarily the same for everyone. Individual experiences and beliefs can influence one's understanding of absolute morals.

5. Do absolute morals change over time?

Absolute morals are believed to be timeless and unchanging, but societal and cultural shifts can lead to changes in what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
663
  • Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
Replies
7
Views
193
Writing: Input Wanted Number of Androids on Spaceships
  • Sci-Fi Writing and World Building
Replies
8
Views
252
Replies
16
Views
9K
  • General Discussion
7
Replies
235
Views
19K
Replies
10
Views
7K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
2K
Back
Top