Morality. Absolute or relative?

[Hitetlen]

How do you define absolute morality? Something that is always good (or evil) regardless of the circumstances?

And relative would mean that the deed is sometimes moral, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances?

Are these definitions correct? And what do you think, is morality absolute or relative? (Hehe, dumb question, since I already know the answer to this last one.)

 

[Brain]

Somthing that is wrong has a negative moral effect always. The catch is, at least in my estimation, that there are situations that mitigate how much responsibility a person bears for their action. Ignorance of the evil or a double effect (unwilled evil side effect of a good action) for example can lessen the culpability of a person.

A good example is killing. Murder is a hanous crime, as it is the willful distruction of a life. Striking a killing blow on an unprovoked assailant however is still a bad thing but it wasnt evil or sinful for you in that moment.

if morals are objective they exist outside of us and they can bind on us or not given the circumstances. Only when morality is relative and completely internalized do the paradoxed arise IMHO

 

[Matt_Collins]

The more accurate terms would be “objective” and “subjective”. Something can be objectively immoral, but the particular subject who performs the action my not commit a sin by doing so because of the particular circumstances.

The classic example is that it is objectively immoral to steal. But if a person has no choice but to steal a loaf of bread from the store in order to feed his family, it would not be wrong to do so.

Speaking in terms of “absolute” morality or “relative” morality does not provide a helpful framework in which to discuss the morality of actions. Speaking in these terms effectively denies the existence of objective truth, and thus, inevitably leads to a narcissistic belief that we are the arbiters of what is right and wrong.

Rather, when we speak in terms of “objective” morality and “subjective” morality, we acknowledge that there is a Truth that truly exists, independent of our ability or willingness to recognize it. Our task, then, is to search for that Truth, and to love it and follow it, wherever it leads. Even if that means giving up long-held, preconceived ideas to which we’re deeply attached. It is an implicit acknowledgment that the arbiter of what is right and wrong exists outside of ourselves, and that it is our duty to conform our lives to the Truth, rather than conform the Truth to our lives.

It is only in the context of “objective” and “subjective” morality that the concept of conscience (and thus, the freedom and obligation to follow our conscience) has any meaning whatsoever.

 

[manualman]

morality is absolute.
Culpability is relative to ones knowledge and consent.

Know the difference!

 

[Pug]

Hitetlen:

And relative would mean that the deed is sometimes moral, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances?

Sometimes it seems that relatavistic morality can mean that it can be desireable to chose an evil action (and it is still somehow evil in some sense) so long as enough lives are saved by the action. Also, I don’t think it is always circumstances. It can be the belief system of the person acting that determines actual wrongness (not culpability).

Circumstance is highly applicable in moral absolute land. Ripping off a woman’s blouse is an action affected by circumstance in absolute-ville. You could be harming her or you could be saving her life. This type of fact gets confused somehow in the whole morality thing.

**

 

[BlindSheep]

Absolute morality does not mean regardless of circumstances, it means that an act is objectively good or evil regardless of the knowledge or beliefs of the person who does it. Moral relativism is the concept that there is no such thing as an objectively evil act, that good and evil exist only in the context of the values of a particular society or person. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that circumstances are irrelevant in determining the morality of an action. Circumstances do matter. If I shoot a man because I want him dead, that is evil. If I shoot a man to stop him from killing me, that is not. The moral absolute is the value of human life, and in both of these situations that is upheld. The relativist, however, might say that if I practiced human sacrifice because it was part of my culture’s custom to do so, it would not be immoral, while the absolutist would say that it was still immoral, though my culpability may be lessened because of my ignorance.

 

[OriginalJS]

BlindSheep:

Absolute morality does not mean regardless of circumstances, it means that an act is objectively good or evil regardless of the knowledge or beliefs of the person who does it. Moral relativism is the concept that there is no such thing as an objectively evil act, that good and evil exist only in the context of the values of a particular society or person. The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that circumstances are irrelevant in determining the morality of an action. Circumstances do matter. If I shoot a man because I want him dead, that is evil. If I shoot a man to stop him from killing me, that is not. The moral absolute is the value of human life, and in both of these situations that is upheld. The relativist, however, might say that if I practiced human sacrifice because it was part of my culture’s custom to do so, it would not be immoral, while the absolutist would say that it was still immoral, though my culpability may be lessened because of my ignorance.

In my cynical analysis, it seems to me that moral relativism is the practice of rationalizing and condoning the violation of moral absolutes in those cases where the violator had a real choice whether to violate the moral absolute or not and chose to do so.

One can affirm that as a moral absolute it is wrong to steal. But if a person steals bread to keep from starving it is not moral relativism to excuse the theft. He had no choice. However, if he shoplifts the bread simply because he doesn’t want to pay for it even though he has the money, then rationalizing excuses for the theft such as “the store charges to much and rips off consumers, etc.” is an exercise in moral relativism.

As noted above, killing another person in true self-defense does not violate a moral absolute, but killing another person in order to steal his wife does violate a moral absolute. (See David, Uriah and Bathsheba).

Giving these examples is easy, but in practice determination whether to treat responses to events as morally relativistic present extremely difficult issues.

 

[Black_Jaque]

How do you define absolute morality? Something that is always good (or evil) regardless of the circumstances?

And relative would mean that the deed is sometimes moral, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances?

Are these definitions correct? And what do you think, is morality absolute or relative? (Hehe, dumb question, since I already know the answer to this last one.)

Absolute morality is something that is always good or evil, yes.

No, relative would not mean that the righteousness of a deed depends on the circumstances, relative would mean that the righteousness of a deed depends on a person’s experience of that deed.

For example:

Sex. It has absolute moral ramifications, AND they depend entirely on the circumstances. Under a given set of circumstances, sex is always wrong, under another set, sex is always OK. But the rightness or wrongness of the act is entirely independent of the people’s experience. Under the wrong circumstances, sex is evil, even if both parties are enjoying it immensely. And under another set of circumstances, sex is good even if both parties find it frustrating and unsatisfying.

Relative morality is very close to, or possibly equated to original sin. Good and evil are defined as that which pleases and offends God. When we place ourselves as the final judge of what good and evil is, then we are being gods. “You decide what’s right for you, I’ll decide what’s right for me.” That is exactly what the serpent tempted Eve by saying, “you will be gods, and will know good and evil.”

The truth is we can’t figure out good from evil. We depend on God to tell us what good and evil is.

 

[mosher]

Black Jaque:

The truth is we can’t figure out good from evil. We depend on God to tell us what good and evil is.

This statement is incorrect and actually not compatable with the faith.

One of the most basic issues in morals is that all actions have either a positive or negative moral character (no amoral actions) and that because these actions are either intrinsically good or evil we, by the use of reason alone, can discern the objective moral quality of the action. This is at the very basis of Natural Moral Law.

 

[mosher]

Black Jaque:

Relative morality is very close to, or possibly equated to original sin. Good and evil are defined as that which pleases and offends God. When we place ourselves as the final judge of what good and evil is, then we are being gods. “You decide what’s right for you, I’ll decide what’s right for me.” That is exactly what the serpent tempted Eve by saying, “you will be gods, and will know good and evil.”

This is not quite right either.

Good and evil is not defined based specifically upon what offends God or what pleases God. This is what defines something as a sin or not. However, even if there is no God as we concieve Him moral quality of an action is absolute apart from God. Relativism is not so much that we are making ourselves the final judge of what is right and what is wrong, but rather it is that each individual decides for himself what is right and what is wrong apart from the intrinsic goodness or evilness of the action. It is coined by the axiom “What is good for you is good for you and what is good for me is good for me.” This is different then the axiom that is closly related to objective morality which is “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

 

[Black_Jaque]

Mosher,

I should elaborate on my statement about figuring out good from evil. We cannot do it entirely on our own. In other words we need God himself to spell it out for us. Given enough help, we are capable of discerning good from evil, but we must have sufficient guidelines.

I did not intend to imply that discerning good from evil was impossible and therefore hopeless. Sorry about that.

Good and evil is not defined based specifically upon what offends God or what pleases God. This is what defines something as a sin or not.

And the difference between sin and evil is?

However, even if there is no God as we concieve Him moral quality of an action is absolute apart from God.

I’m not sure I buy this. Do you have a Cathechism reference?

Relativism is not so much that we are making ourselves the final judge of what is right and what is wrong, but rather it is that each individual decides for himself what is right and what is wrong apart from the intrinsic goodness or evilness of the action. It is coined by the axiom “What is good for you is good for you and what is good for me is good for me.” This is different then the axiom that is closly related to objective morality which is “What is good for the goose is good for the gander.”

I don’t see how what I posted and what you just posted differ. Working, for the time being, under my understanding of what evil is - that which offends God (or a god), I essentially said the same thing as what you just posted. Each person, now being a separate god, is capable of “knowing good and evil”. I do not imply that moral relativism is directly putting oneself at the top of the moral order. Often moral relativists like to think we are co-equals.

Perhaps if you can explain the difference between sin and evil I’ll understand better where you’re coming from.

 

[Ham1]

It seems this thread is trying to discuss two different but related topics of moral theology. The first is whether there are certain acts that can NEVER be morally chosen. The second is when does an individual commit serious sin.

I think the OP was asking if there are certain acts that can never be done. Indeed there are certain objects (of acts) that can never be morally chosen. The Church terms these acts intrisincally evil meaning they are always wrong. Numerous posters above have used the example of “stealing” as intrinsically evil. This is correct. The Church teaches that stealing is always wrong. However, taking food to feed one’s family is NOT stealing. Stealing is taking that which one has no right to take. Clearly, when starving, one has a right to food. Therefore, the act of taking that food is not stealing at all. These may seem like minute distinctions but they are quite necessary in order to maintain a consistent moral framework under which it is never permissible to do evil so that good may come of it. The end does not justify the means. The teaching of the Church on these matters is extraordinarily well developed and is based substantially on the works of St. Thomas Aquinas.

For a perfect explanation of moral acts and their objectivity, I highly recommend reading Veritatis Splendor. It has detailed passages that make these distinctions very clear.

Hope some of this helps…it is a very interesting topic!

 

[AndyF]

Hitetlen:

How do you define absolute morality? Something that is always good (or evil) regardless of the circumstances?

And relative would mean that the deed is sometimes moral, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances?

Are these definitions correct? And what do you think, is morality absolute or relative? (Hehe, dumb question, since I already know the answer to this last one.)

Ans: Relative.
Ex: It was morally correct for a child to turn in his parents in WW2 Germany.
Class: Failible Human Morality

Absolute Reliable Morality: Catholic Dogma

 

[volzcpa]

Hitetlen:

How do you define absolute morality? Something that is always good (or evil) regardless of the circumstances?

And relative would mean that the deed is sometimes moral, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances?

Are these definitions correct? And what do you think, is morality absolute or relative? (Hehe, dumb question, since I already know the answer to this last one.)

My perception of absolute morality is that is a standard of perfection. A standard we need to compare against and to make judgments whether something is good or evil. If there are no absolute morals then there are no standards of comparison and everyone becomes his own judge of what is right or wrong (relativism), basing his judgment only upon his own feelings, experiences, etc. For example, if we say something is round, we base that judgment on our experience of seeing a perfect circle. If there was no perfect circle, we each could have our own definition of what is round because there is no absolute standard. That would be result in relative roundness, since each of us would have our own definition of what a circle is.

So relative morality would not mean that the judgment of an act being right or wrong is based only upon circumstances, but also on each person’s individual judgment of what is moral e.g. each follows his own conscience regardless of the state of the person’s conscience. The Catholic Church teaches that there is absolute morality and also teaches that we are each responsible to form in ourselves a “good” moral conscience. A moral conscience allows us to weigh the circumstances in a given situation to determine what is the right thing to do, using our knowledge of moral absolutes to make the judgment.

As an example, an absolute moral is that it is wrong to steal. That is our standard. Let’s assume that someone, who has not formed a good conscience, steals a radio from K-Mart and he does not think that it is wrong because he has not formed a good conscience, but rather a relativistic conscience. He has convinced himself that there is nothing wrong with stealing from a big store because they have lots of money and they won’t even miss one radio. And besides, he needs the radio and he lost his paycheck and doesn’t have any money. If he gets caught stealing, he will not be found innocent just because of the circumstances or his “belief’ that he did nothing wrong. He has committed a crime against civil law and God’s law and he will have to suffer the consequences of both.

 

[Digger71]

Hitetlen:

How do you define absolute morality? Something that is always good (or evil) regardless of the circumstances?

And relative would mean that the deed is sometimes moral, and sometimes not, depending on the circumstances?

I think your question has been answered. What is wrong is always wrong (absolute) and what is right is always right.

Relative morality is that circumstances define right and wrong.

The interesting point is that absolute morality is based on language which changes in meaning over time (e.g. gay used to mean homosexual, but these days means ‘a bit lame’, in the UK at least).

The definition of absolute morality depands on meaning remaining unchanged.

For example, “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not murder” are two very different things. The first implies all killing [of people] is wrong, while the second implies that death penalties and self-defense are OK.

The Catholic Church gets around this by not having a literal interpretation of the bible. Protestants get around this by claiming innerancy in the bible.

But I consider both positions disingenuous. Both are relative propositions because they do not deal with the original text and meanings, and thus use a ‘close enough’ argument. ‘Close enough’ for whom?

But this does lead the liberal wings of the churches to say “hold on! That’s not what it says!” and thus the splits.

So, though you did not ask the question, I think both conservative protestantism and Caotholocism are both morally relative orthodoxies (with outdated knowledge), while liberal interpretations which are focussed on the message, and not legalism, hold much truer to The Message.

 

[Digger71]

volzcpa:

If he gets caught stealing, he will not be found innocent just because of the circumstances or his “belief’ that he did nothing wrong. He has committed a crime against civil law and God’s law and he will have to suffer the consequences of both.

First degree murder, second degree murder, and manslaughter, culpable homicide and negligent homocide. The law recognises circumstances.

 

[Digger71]

While I am at it: Romans 14:1-20

check it out.