Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thinker_Doer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thinker_Doer said:
ou are mistaken. I am arguing against absolute morality, not against objective one. Remember “absolute” vs. “relative” is NOT the same as “objective” vs “subjective
Click to expand...
Okay, I think I understand where you are coming from now.

I think were we disagree is on how we apply the word ‘absolute’. For example, let’s go back to the stealing example. When it is said that stealing is wrong, you argue ‘but what if you’re starving, and are stealing to survive? Then stealing is not wrong’, and use this as an argument for a subjective rather than absolute morality. I however, still see this as being two prongs of the same absolute morality. To me, the absolute statement is ‘stealing is wrong, unless you are starving’. This one absolute rule might apply differently depending on the scenario, but it is itself just one rule, and therefor the rule (including all of its ‘unlesses’ ) is the absolute rule.

I also think we disagree on the subjective value system. You say that different moral systems vary depending on the value system that gives rise to them, as though the value system and moral system are distinct. I consider them to be a unified whole. That’s why I think morality can be true or false. For example, you and I probably have differing opinions on abortion. You think it is okay, because it’s the woman’s body and the fetus isn’t a person. I think it is wrong, because the fetus is a person. These are the two different value systems that give rise to our differing moralities. The thing is, the value systems themselves are either true or false. If the fetus is not a person, then your value system (and moral system that springs from it) is true, and mine is false. If the fetus is a person then my value system/moral system is true, and yours is false. That’s why I view morality as either true or false. You could argue that, in this case, it’s impossible to know if the fetus is a person or not - however, both of us act as though we know value system is true and the other’s is false. And also, not knowing the answer is not the same as there not being an answer.
 
Last edited:
lelinator said:
I’m not even an atheist and I have no problem with believing that there are no moral absolutes. I don’t like absolutes unless you can prove that they actually are absolutes.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that absolutely? [Sorry, I just couldn’t resist]. 😏
 
Thinker_Doer said:
I am free to interpret any verse as I see fit. 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s fine. But don’t mistake your personal interpretation as objective evidence to offer to an argument.
Thinker_Doer said:
Why not? Have you never heard of civil disobedience? And peaceful petition to redress our grievances? And I am not interested in “moral” foundation.
Click to expand...
Why would you protest if not on moral grounds? What other grounds are there?

Is there such a thing as basic human rights exist?
 
Last edited:
By serendipitous coincidence, I just saw this, posted by an atheist friend on social media.

I wonder how she defines what’s “right?”

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
SPBlitz said:
I think were we disagree is on how we apply the word ‘absolute’. For example, let’s go back to the stealing example. When it is said that stealing is wrong, you argue ‘but what if you’re starving, and are stealing to survive? Then stealing is not wrong’, and use this as an argument for a subjective rather than absolute morality. I however, still see this as being two prongs of the same absolute morality. To me, the absolute statement is ‘stealing is wrong, unless you are starving’. This one absolute rule might apply differently depending on the scenario, but it is itself just one rule, and therefor the rule (including all of its ‘unlesses’ ) is the absolute rule.
Click to expand...
It is not my thread, but I need to jump in. “Absolute” means “under any and all circumstances” - in other words, without ANY qualifier. As soon as a qualifier is introduced, it becomes a “relative”. Not to mention, that there can be numerous other qualifiers, when stealing is not wrong.
 
I understand that. I’m not looking for synonyms but reframing the discussion. “Absolute” is too black and white. For instance, I argue that lying is wrong. But if I call it absolutely wrong, I don’t leave any wiggle room for complicated dilemmas with competing ethics, e.g. lying to conceal anything from a surprise party to potential victims of genocide.
 
blackforest said:
I understand that. I’m not looking for synonyms but reframing the discussion. “Absolute” is too black and white. For instance, I argue that lying is wrong. But if I call it absolutely wrong, I don’t leave any wiggle room for complicated dilemmas with competing ethics, e.g. lying to conceal anything from a surprise party to potential victims of genocide.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean and agree. Life is not black and white.
 
lelinator said:
But where does this leave us as far as morality is concerned?
Click to expand...
What is this “morality”? There are several competing and contradictory ethical systems. The same act is considered “moral” in some of them, and “not moral” in others. There is no balance scale to measure which one is correct.
 
If that’s all that is meant by a relative morality, then I don’t necessarily have any problem with it.

However, in common usage, that isn’t what is meant. When someone says that morality is relative, they mean that one person committing the action is good, while another person committing the same action is evil, and the only difference is that one person believes it to be good and the other evil. For example, if someone were to say ‘premarital sex is bad’ then for them to have sex before marriage would be evil, while if someone were to say ‘premarital sex is good’ then for them to have sex before marriage would be good. My point is that moral acts are not determined by belief. If someone believes a good act to be evil, then they are in reality mistaken, and if someone were to believe an evil act to be good, then they’d equally be mistaken.
 
SPBlitz said:
When someone says that morality is relative, they mean that one person committing the action is good, while another person committing the same action is evil, and the only difference is that one person believes it to be good and the other evil. For example, if someone were to say ‘premarital sex is bad’ then for them to have sex before marriage would be evil, while if someone were to say ‘premarital sex is good’ then for them to have sex before marriage would be good.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that the morality of an act can’t be judged outside of the overarching context in which it occurs, and that perhaps God represents that overarching context.

One person may argue that such and such is bad, while someone else may argue that it’s good, but there’s a greater context that must be considered to actually determine the “goodness” or “badness” of an act?

Wouldn’t that be to argue that morality isn’t necessarily absolute, but rather contextual, and that God may represent that context?
 
Last edited:
SPBlitz said:
If that’s all that is meant by a relative morality, then I don’t necessarily have any problem with it.
Click to expand...
That is what the word means. For the rest, please consider the post above. Different ethical systems view the same act in a different light. And there is no objective epistemological method to evaluate them against each other.

In a very good sense ethics is exactly like aesthetics. The same musical piece is very pleasant for one person, and a cacophony for others. Remember the hilarious observation: “Wagner’s music is actually much better than it sounds!”.
 
Thinker_Doer said:
In a society where sex is normal, there is no “shame” with performing it in the open.
Click to expand...
What society is that? Do you have an example?
(Where did you get this idea that “primitive” people have no sense of privacy? You don’t just lump them as another form of chimpanzee or gorilla, right?)
Thinker_Doer said:
Children growing up in a rural environment see nothing wrong with observing animals to copulate, and they learn to “play” with their little playthings, since it feels good.
Click to expand...
If you think people get the idea that touching certain parts of themselves feels good by watching cows or horses, I don’t think there is any chance you grew up around cows or horses. (I have some reason to doubt you have raised any children, either.)
 
Last edited:
And yet there are some black-and-whites. When the nation learned of a dentist poaching wild, endangered animals in Africa, people expressed moral outrage everywhere from social media to his Yelp page.

There was no discussion along the lines of, “Yes, but poaching endangered animals felt right for him. You shouldn’t impose your morality on him.”

The moral relativist/subjectivist is in no position to express any moral outrage or take any moral stand.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
The moral relativist/subjectivist is in no position to express any moral outrage or take any moral stand.
Click to expand...
First of all “relative” and “subjective” are not synonyms. Second, from denying “absolutes” it does not follow that any stance must be considered as equally acceptable.
 
macska said:
it does not follow that any stance must be considered as equally acceptable.
Click to expand...
The thing is, if there truly is no epistemic way to compare moralities, then yes, you would have to say any stance is equally acceptable.
 
SPBlitz said:
The thing is, if there truly is no epistemic way to compare moralities, then yes, you would have to say any stance is equally acceptable.
Click to expand...
Moralities cannot be compared, but physical actualities can. Poaching causes actual harm or damage, and that is the reason that one can rationally object to it. The concept of “I disagree, but I would not force my opinion onto you” is only applicable if there is no actual damage / harm done to others. (One exception, however. If the “victim” does not object to the harm, or even welcomes it, then it comes to the acceptance by the victim.) I hope this clarifies our position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top