Moral Absolutism

[frnate]

If we are so inclined. As proponents of ‘natural law’ show in spades, one need not know what something is to do it.

How dedicated to the scientific method are you? Even if not at all, are you really that incurious?

My attitude toward other ethics is ‘wrong, but as long as it works out to about (read: relatively) the same conclusions I arrive at it’ll do’, which is not relativist in the least.

Do you still stand by this?

It is a solution, but unless one can prove a specific brand of theism correct, an unacceptable one. But that’s a debate for elsewhere.

Actually, theism does quite nicely for this debate because it doesn’t muddy the waters with the specific brand issue.

I think we both know which brand I espouse
But you’re right, which brand *is *another debate altogether.

Peace,
+N

 

[Mirdath]

How dedicated to the scientific method are you? Even if not at all, are you really that incurious?

Just teasing

Do you still stand by this?

Have you ever used a butter knife as a screwdriver? I said ‘it’ll do’, not ‘it’s correct’. Good and good enough are qualitatively different things.

Actually, theism does quite nicely for this debate because it doesn’t muddy the waters with the specific brand issue.

The problem is that it rests its perhaps-admirably simplistic and unvarnished view of morality on one specific answer to a question which has not even been shown to be humanly answerable.

 

[Greg27]

I think many different philosophers have given good accounts of how we can be virtuous without necessarily being theists. Aristotle and Kant’s systems of ethics, which (despite some flaws) are in my view very powerful and coherent accounts of what goods we should aim for, which do not explicitly rest on a model of relevation or divine command theory of ethics. Buddhist and Confucian ethics also offer in many ways a beautiful ethical framework, without appealing necessarily to a divine lawgiver.

John Finnis also wrote some interesting material on this, connecting it with natural law theory, in arguing as to what goods human beings desire.

 

[richardwy]

You didn’t even read the thread, did you?

Didn’t need to. You’re not absolute

 

[Hubriss]

I don’t see there being any evidence for absolute morality. The accepted view on morality has deveoloped and changed among societies since the beginning of man. There are key principles that people can realize that they should live by if humanity, and themselves in particular, is going to prosper or decline. The golden rule is the best guide to morality we have since all morality is derived from selfish instincts ingrained into our systems by the process of natural selection.

 

[CarlosG]

Since people keep referencing Kant, from what I remember in his second volume he says something to the effect of purpose defines morality (simplified) which is what people seem to forget, without the purpose morality becomes meaningless relativity. Kant was not an atheist though he was not orthodox either (them dang Lutherans ). He believed purpose was determined by God, and the categorical imperative is meaningless with out Him. His only point with the categorical imperative was that God gave us the faculties to determine ethical behavior apart from revelation through “pure practical reason”, which is obviously arguable, but no amount of “PPR” could give us purpose.