No moral absolutes, relative values, genocide ok, and biological determination

[3_Dog_Night]

It’s all a game for your friend. God won’t play. Your friend will have what she wants in this life and God will have what he wants in the next life. In each of our souls is written God’s law. We can deny it. We can ignore it. We can violate it. We can sear it. We cannot erase it. We cannot escape it. At some point in the future, we will all be judged by it.

If you are at the place you describe in your conversations with her, it won’t matter what you say by way of argument, because there is nothing that will convince her re: moral absolutes. She has created her own reality – one devoid of any truth. (And by the way, to say “there are no absolutes” is itself an absolute – that statement fails on its face.)

At some point, your friend’s version of reality will run smack into “the reality” – whether that be a secular legal reality in this world, or physical natural laws (like gravity) or a religious/ spiritual reality in the next world. Whether she accepts any of these things or not, she will be held accountable to “the reality” no matter what her personal beliefs.

If she goes “too far off the beam” (so to speak) in the creation of her own world, she will be viewed as delusional – as in a mental health diagnosis.

Proverbs speak to someone like your friend:

“The fool says in his heart that there is no God” and
“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

If it were me, I wouldn’t waste my time or breath arguing with her. You are arguing with a fool. Your friend is so very smart that she has found a way to escape any consequences or accountability by simply denying that any standard of truth exist. That will work for her until it doesn’t. When it no longer works, it will not be a good day for her.

 

[Tomdstone]

Something is absolute if it is not relative, that is, if it applies equally to everyone.

I think what most people would mean when they say that morality is absolute is that a certain action is right/wrong, regardless of your opinion on the matter. For example, murder is wrong, even if the murderer thinks that they are right.

It seems that you are talking about the definition of murder, rather than whether something is right or wrong absolutely… For example, was the firebombing of Dresden murder or not?
Some say yes, others say no.
Similarly with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. Some say it was murder of innocent people, including children; others say no. So there is no universal agreement on whether or not killing people is right or wrong. If you say it is murder, it is wrong, but if you say it was not murder, than it is right. But there is no agreement on whether or not certain given actions are murder or not.

 

[edwest2]

If “absolute” and “truth” mean nothing, then what is this thread all about?

Circular debate. Something, nothing, something, nothing… etc.

Ed

 

[SPBlitz]

It seems that you are talking about the definition of murder, rather than whether something is right or wrong absolutely… For example, was the firebombing of Dresden murder or not?
Some say yes, others say no.
Similarly with the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. Some say it was murder of innocent people, including children; others say no. So there is no universal agreement on whether or not killing people is right or wrong. If you say it is murder, it is wrong, but if you say it was not murder, than it is right. But there is no agreement on whether or not certain given actions are murder or not.

Not quite. What I mean by an absolute moral value is that it’s true regardless of anyone’s opinions. Either the firebombing of Dresden was murder or it wasn’t. If it was, then all of the people who think that it wasn’t are mistaken, and if it was, then vice versa. If it was murder, then it will remain murder even if everyone in the world believes otherwise. You could argue that it is impossible for us to know if the firebombing wasin fact murder, but that is different than saying that, since we can’t come to an agreement on if it was morally right or wrong than it was neither. Bradski commented that just because there is universally agreement on morality doesn’t necessarily make it objective. Fair enough. But it is also true that a lack of universal consensus doesn’t mean that a given action is neither right or wrong.

I think your examples prove my point. There might be disagreement on if the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was murder or not. But note that those arguing aren’t saying that murder is right in some cases. On the fact that murder is wrong, they are in agreement. Those that are saying that the bombing was okay are in fact arguing that for some reason the bombing does not count as murder. Their reasoning may be in error, and you may disagree with them, but that is not the same as saying that the bombing of Hiroshima was neither right nor wrong.

It seems to me then that much of humanity is actually in agreement about morality. It is very rare to find someone who argues that lying is good. Usually you’ll find that when someone is caught in a lie they’ll try to argue that they weren’t really lying (it was a half-truth!), or else that certain extenuating circumstances justify their actions. It is rare to find someone who says that murder is good. Usually they’ll say that their killing was in some sense justified and thus doesn’t count as murder. On the basics, we all seem to agree. It’s in the application that we differ.

 

[edwest2]

Not quite. What I mean by an absolute moral value is that it’s true regardless of anyone’s opinions. Either the firebombing of Dresden was murder or it wasn’t. If it was, then all of the people who think that it wasn’t are mistaken, and if it was, then vice versa. If it was murder, then it will remain murder even if everyone in the world believes otherwise. You could argue that it is impossible for us to know if the firebombing was in fact murder, but that is different than saying that, since we can’t come to an agreement on if it was morally right or wrong than it was neither. Bradski commented that just because there is universally agreement on morality doesn’t necessarily make it objective. Fair enough. But it is also true that a lack of universal consensus doesn’t mean that a given action is neither right or wrong.

I think your examples prove my point. There might be disagreement on if the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was murder or not. But note that those arguing aren’t saying that murder is right in some cases. On the fact that murder is wrong, they are in agreement. Those that are saying that the bombing was okay are in fact arguing that for some reason the bombing does not count as murder. Their reasoning may be in error, and you may disagree with them, but that is not the same as saying that the bombing of Hiroshima was neither right nor wrong.

It seems to me then that much of humanity is actually in agreement about morality. It is very rare to find someone who argues that lying is good. Usually you’ll find that when someone is caught in a lie they’ll try to argue that they weren’t really lying (it was a half-truth!), or else that certain extenuating circumstances justify their actions. It is rare to find someone who says that murder is good. Usually they’ll say that their killing was in some sense justified and thus doesn’t count as murder. On the basics, we all seem to agree. It’s in the application that we differ.

Which, I suspect, will not satisfy especially the non-religious who want a carved in stone list of “absolutes.”

This is worth discussing, especially on a Catholic forum, but those who do not want to hear that anything is true have made up their minds. From my point of view as someone who studies history and culture, we have been lied to repeatedly. Our trust has been abused. The West, in particular, is fragmented and has moved to tribalism or radical individualism. In the latter case, “What I say or think is true is all that maters.” Or you find others that align with the way you think, and form a tribe - officially or unofficially.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

It seems to me then that much of humanity is actually in agreement about morality. It is very rare to find someone who argues that lying is good. Usually you’ll find that when someone is caught in a lie they’ll try to argue that they weren’t really lying (it was a half-truth!), or else that certain extenuating circumstances justify their actions. It is rare to find someone who says that murder is good. Usually they’ll say that their killing was in some sense justified and thus doesn’t count as murder. On the basics, we all seem to agree. It’s in the application that we differ.

Again, just because there is universal agreement upon some moral act does not make that moral act absolute. Otherwise all we are doing is taking a vote. For example, if everyone believed that is was acceptable to keep slaves, then slavery would be absolutely morally acceptable.

An act cannot be absolutely wrong if it needs to be defined relative to the situation. So nuking Hiroshima was wrong IF x, y and z. Sticking needles into a child is wrong IF x, y and z. Killing someone is wrong IF x, y and z.

There are no moral absolutes that can be expressed without putting them in context, thereby making them relative by definition.

 

[edwest2]

Again, just because there is universal agreement upon some moral act does not make that moral act absolute. Otherwise all we are doing is taking a vote. For example, if everyone believed that is was acceptable to keep slaves, then slavery would be absolutely morally acceptable.

An act cannot be absolutely wrong if it needs to be defined relative to the situation. So nuking Hiroshima was wrong IF x, y and z. Sticking needles into a child is wrong IF x, y and z. Killing someone is wrong IF x, y and z.

There are no moral absolutes that can be expressed without putting them in context, thereby making them relative by definition.

Nice try. But I don’t believe in relativism. Moral absolutes exist. Unfortunately, some people, not referring to anyone in particular, just find it easier to believe they don’t.

Opinions don’t matter. The truth does. And on a Catholic forum, no other answer matters.

Ed

 

[Bradski]

Nice try. But I don’t believe in relativism. Moral absolutes exist. Unfortunately, some people, not referring to anyone in particular, just find it easier to believe they don’t.

Opinions don’t matter. The truth does. And on a Catholic forum, no other answer matters.

Then state a moral act that is not defined by the situation. And to head you off at the pass, certain acts that you might be inclined to propose that appear to stand alone are actually relative to the situation in themselves.

For example, committing a sexual act with another person IF that person is under the age of consent and IF that person does not agree OR would not agree IF the option was given, is wrong.

And another example: killing a person IF you are legally sane and IF it is premeditated and IF there is no legal justification, then it is wrong.

The fact that we have a single word for each of those acts does not make the act itself (causing harm in a particular way, relative to the situation) absolute. Otherwise all acts that you define as being wrong would be absolute and there would be no acts that could be described as relative.

 

[edwest2]

Then state a moral act that is not defined by the situation. And to head you off at the pass, certain acts that you might be inclined to propose that appear to stand alone are actually relative to the situation in themselves.

For example, committing a sexual act with another person IF that person is under the age of consent and IF that person does not agree OR would not agree IF the option was given, is wrong.

And another example: killing a person IF you are legally sane and IF it is premeditated and IF there is no legal justification, then it is wrong.

The fact that we have a single word for each of those acts does not make the act itself (causing harm in a particular way, relative to the situation) absolute. Otherwise all acts that you define as being wrong would be absolute and there would be no acts that could be described as relative.

Avoiding the obvious again? Relativism is bad. Commandments good.

Best,
Ed

 

[Bradski]

Avoiding the obvious again? Relativism is bad. Commandments good.

Ed

Here’s one: Honour your mother and father.

Heard of a guy called Fritzel? Now tell me that that commandment must be absolute.

 

[Tomdstone]

Not quite. What I mean by an absolute moral value is that it’s true regardless of anyone’s opinions. Either the firebombing of Dresden was murder or it wasn’t. If it was, then all of the people who think that it wasn’t are mistaken, and if it was, then vice versa. If it was murder, then it will remain murder even if everyone in the world believes otherwise. You could argue that it is impossible for us to know if the firebombing wasin fact murder, but that is different than saying that, since we can’t come to an agreement on if it was morally right or wrong than it was neither. Bradski commented that just because there is universally agreement on morality doesn’t necessarily make it objective. Fair enough. But it is also true that a lack of universal consensus doesn’t mean that a given action is neither right or wrong.

I think your examples prove my point. There might be disagreement on if the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was murder or not. But note that those arguing aren’t saying that murder is right in some cases. On the fact that murder is wrong, they are in agreement. Those that are saying that the bombing was okay are in fact arguing that for some reason the bombing does not count as murder. Their reasoning may be in error, and you may disagree with them, but that is not the same as saying that the bombing of Hiroshima was neither right nor wrong.

It seems to me then that much of humanity is actually in agreement about morality. It is very rare to find someone who argues that lying is good. Usually you’ll find that when someone is caught in a lie they’ll try to argue that they weren’t really lying (it was a half-truth!), or else that certain extenuating circumstances justify their actions. It is rare to find someone who says that murder is good. Usually they’ll say that their killing was in some sense justified and thus doesn’t count as murder. On the basics, we all seem to agree. It’s in the application that we differ.

That may be a theory, but the real world practical application is that there is serious disagreement as to whether or not the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was moral or not. This is unlike in mathematics where everyone agrees that in Euclidean geometry the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. That is an example of an absolute. But whether or not the bombing of Hiroshima was moral or not, the experts disagree. One says yes, the other says no. And you cannot convince either one that he is wrong.

 

[Rau]

Here’s one: Honour your mother and father.

Heard of a guy called Fritzel? Now tell me that that commandment must be absolute.

The positive precepts are directional not absolute. The negative precepts are absolute but:

• they have to be understood; and
• they are not about acts of a purely physical nature.

So, what you call “the situation” or “context” (and which might cause you to think of morality as relative) is really just a means to get a grip on the moral dimensions of the choice the acting party is actually making.

 

[Bradski]

The positive precepts are directional not absolute. The negative precepts are absolute but:

• they have to be understood; and
• they are not about acts of a purely physical nature.

So, what you call “the situation” or “context” (and which might cause you to think of morality as relative) is really just a means to get a grip on the moral dimensions of the choice the acting party is actually making.

You need context to decide if something is right or wrong. Nothing can be so without context.

Otherwise, answer these questions without qualifying the answer. That is, give a simple yes or no:

Killing is wrong.
Taking someone’s property is wrong.
Taking drugs is wrong.
Eating flesh is wrong.

Facts are absolute. Morality is not.

 

[tonyrey]

You need context to decide if something is right or wrong. Nothing can be so without context.

Otherwise, answer these questions without qualifying the answer. That is, give a simple yes or no:

Killing is wrong.
Taking someone’s property is wrong.
Taking drugs is wrong.
Eating flesh is wrong.

Facts are absolute. Morality is not.

Morality is a fact because integrity is an essential condition of successful personal development and social harmony. In the long run it doesn’t “pay” to be corrupt and have a criminal mentality.

 

[tonyrey]

Morality is a fact because integrity is an essential condition of successful personal development and social harmony. In the long run it doesn’t “pay” to be corrupt and have a criminal mentality.

There is also one absolute principle recognised by the Catholic Church - and by most people including atheists - that our ultimate moral authority is our conscience.

 

[tonyrey]

That may be a theory, but the real world practical application is that there is serious disagreement as to whether or not the use of the atomic bomb on Japan was moral or not. This is unlike in mathematics where everyone agrees that in Euclidean geometry the base angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. That is an example of an absolute. But whether or not the bombing of Hiroshima was moral or not, the experts disagree. One says yes, the other says no. And you cannot convince either one that he is wrong.

The fact that there is disagreement doesn’t imply that all views are equally reasonable. Otherwise criminals and psychopaths would be entitled to do what they like! The acid test is whether those who supported the bombing of Hiroshima would have had the same view if they were going to be the victims…

 

[tonyrey]

Again, just because there is universal agreement upon some moral act does not make that moral act absolute. Otherwise all we are doing is taking a vote. For example, if everyone believed that is was acceptable to keep slaves, then slavery would be absolutely morally acceptable.

An act cannot be absolutely wrong if it needs to be defined relative to the situation. So nuking Hiroshima was wrong IF x, y and z. Sticking needles into a child is wrong IF x, y and z. Killing someone is wrong IF x, y and z.

There are no moral absolutes that can be expressed without putting them in context, thereby making them relative by definition.

According to that argument nothing is true because every conclusion is relative to a specific context!

 

[tonyrey]

Not quite. What I mean by an absolute moral value is that it’s true regardless of anyone’s opinions. Either the firebombing of Dresden was murder or it wasn’t. If it was, then all of the people who think that it wasn’t are mistaken, and if it was, then vice versa. If it was murder, then it will remain murder even if everyone in the world believes otherwise. You could argue that it is impossible for us to know if the firebombing wasin fact murder, but that is different than saying that, since we can’t come to an agreement on if it was morally right or wrong than it was neither. Bradski commented that just because there is universally agreement on morality doesn’t necessarily make it objective. Fair enough. But it is also true that a lack of universal consensus doesn’t mean that a given action is neither right or wrong.

I think your examples prove my point. There might be disagreement on if the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima was murder or not. But note that those arguing aren’t saying that murder is right in some cases. On the fact that murder is wrong, they are in agreement. Those that are saying that the bombing was okay are in fact arguing that for some reason the bombing does not count as murder. Their reasoning may be in error, and you may disagree with them, but that is not the same as saying that the bombing of Hiroshima was neither right nor wrong.

It seems to me then that much of humanity is actually in agreement about morality. It is very rare to find someone who argues that lying is good. Usually you’ll find that when someone is caught in a lie they’ll try to argue that they weren’t really lying (it was a half-truth!), or else that certain extenuating circumstances justify their actions. It is rare to find someone who says that murder is good. Usually they’ll say that their killing was in some sense justified and thus doesn’t count as murder. On the basics, we all seem to agree. It’s in the application that we differ.

If there were no moral principles we would revert to the law of the jungle!

 

[Regular_Atheist]

I find it really difficult to conceive of morality as being anything but relative, in that I struggle to think there are moral absolutes that have always been true. You talk of moral absolutes throughout history, but I don’t think very many exist, and I think cultural conceptions of morality are in many ways rooted in the material basis of a society - the economy. It would be absurd to go to the Roman Empire and tell them that slavery is wrong, and I doubt you would find very many people who would understand. Similarly, if you were to go to feudal England and tell them that serfdom is wrong, people would similarly be unable to understand, even the serfs themselves. It would be impossible for those people to understand these things as being wrong because their entire life and society is based around them, but nowadays we take it for granted that those things are immoral. On top of this, I feel that the use of these practices was necessary to achieve our current society. Slavery was necessary to achieve a society without slavery, and feudal relations were necessary to achieve capitalist relations. In that sense, slavery was good in the Roman Empire, but is wrong now. Serfdom was good in feudal England, but it is wrong now. We could never have developed capitalist property relations without these prior modes of production existing. Similarly, I can conceive of some future society where people see our property relations as immoral, where wage labour is seen as being immoral much as slavery is now.

 

[Rau]

You need context to decide if something is right or wrong. Nothing can be so without context.

Otherwise, answer these questions without qualifying the answer. That is, give a simple yes or no:

Killing is wrong.
Taking someone’s property is wrong.
Taking drugs is wrong.
Eating flesh is wrong.

Facts are absolute. Morality is not.

I think I answered that question well in my previous post. I don’t know if you have much familiarity with Aquinas, but his analysis goes into depth on this issue.