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

[Aloysium]

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.

The ultimate moral authority for ourselves is our conscience, because it is our connection with God who as the loving and compassionate Source of our existence, all merciful and knowing all about us and our circumstances, is the only true judge.
It is important to inform our conscience, that is to build our relationship with God.
People agree or disagree because now we see things “through a glass darkly”. As there are varying degrees of knowledge about the physical universe, so too are there different views of moral and ethical behaviour. Some people may still think the world is flat. Some have no concept of such things. Reality is what it is and is not determined by our thoughts and feelings.

 

[3_Dog_Night]

Bradski:

**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. **

The questions are framed in such a way as to make it appear that that morality is relative and that there are no absolutes. To be fair, I get where “context” matters. I get that the factual scenario can transform something that would otherwise be evil into something that would be justifiable, defensible and/or even acceptable. The risk of “there is no morality; there are only facts” is a slippery slope that can be used to “justify” practically anything.

Look at what we (the USA) is doing/ has done to justify the torture of what we are calling enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay Cuba! Geneva Convention be damned! The ends justify the means. Water board, mock execute, sexually humiliate, psychologically torture – and the list goes on. Drone strike – kill one terrorist and kill and maim many innocent bystanders. Soccer matches. Funerals. Weddings. Hospitals.

There are those who think this is perfectly moral and reasonable. What are the results: we degrade and diminish ourselves as a nation and as a society and what we do to others comes back to be done to ourselves (i.e., witness the increase in terror attacks).

And facts may not be absolute. I claim that I shot and killed my neighbor in self-defense, thinking he was a burglar in the middle of the night, breaking into my home. Is that automatically going to make it a “justifiable homicide”? The “facts” may not be clear or may be such that it would be difficult to determine if “I killed him” or if “I murdered him.”

Definitions matter. As above, “killing” is not the same thing as “murder.” “Theft” is not the same thing as “breaking into a remote cabin in a snowstorm searching for food and shelter and using whatever one finds there to survive.” “Drugs” are not the same thing as “poison”. And “eating human flesh” is not the same thing as “eating fish or chicken.”

I could give you another list that could easily be answered, “yes” or “no” and to answer “no” would make the person who answers either mentally ill or downright evil.

Let’s try this:

It is wrong to rape.
But it’s okay during wartime to humiliate and demoralize a population
But it’s okay if the victim dressed and acted in a sexually suggestive manner.
It is wrong to murder.
But it’s okay if the victim is of a non-preferred nationality, race or ethnic class.
But it’s okay if the victim dishonored the family name (honor killing).
It is wrong to poison.
But it’s okay if the person wants to die and you are helping them commit suicide.
But it’s okay if the person is elderly, infirm, disabled, retarded as they cost too much.
It is wrong to torture.
But it’s okay if it’s the government or the military who is doing it.
But it’s okay if it is determined that “the ends justify the means”.

If there is nothing that is “sacred” or “absolute” (no moral wrong) in our world today – as individuals, as families, as communities and as nations – then God help us all.

 

[Tomdstone]

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…

So do you say that it is only criminals and psychopaths who say that the dropping of the atomic bomb on japan was morally justified? If not, then how are criminals and psychopaths relevant to the description of those who believe that the use of the atomic bomb was justified?

 

[Tomdstone]

Bradski:

**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. **

The questions are framed in such a way as to make it appear that that morality is relative and that there are no absolutes. To be fair, I get where “context” matters. I get that the factual scenario can transform something that would otherwise be evil into something that would be justifiable, defensible and/or even acceptable. The risk of “there is no morality; there are only facts” is a slippery slope that can be used to “justify” practically anything.

Look at what we (the USA) is doing/ has done to justify the torture of what we are calling enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay Cuba! Geneva Convention be damned! The ends justify the means. Water board, mock execute, sexually humiliate, psychologically torture – and the list goes on. Drone strike – kill one terrorist and kill and maim many innocent bystanders. Soccer matches. Funerals. Weddings. Hospitals.

There are those who think this is perfectly moral and reasonable. What are the results: we degrade and diminish ourselves as a nation and as a society and what we do to others comes back to be done to ourselves (i.e., witness the increase in terror attacks).

And facts may not be absolute. I claim that I shot and killed my neighbor in self-defense, thinking he was a burglar in the middle of the night, breaking into my home. Is that automatically going to make it a “justifiable homicide”? The “facts” may not be clear or may be such that it would be difficult to determine if “I killed him” or if “I murdered him.”

Definitions matter. As above, “killing” is not the same thing as “murder.” “Theft” is not the same thing as “breaking into a remote cabin in a snowstorm searching for food and shelter and using whatever one finds there to survive.” “Drugs” are not the same thing as “poison”. And “eating human flesh” is not the same thing as “eating fish or chicken.”

I could give you another list that could easily be answered, “yes” or “no” and to answer “no” would make the person who answers either mentally ill or downright evil.

Let’s try this:

It is wrong to rape.
But it’s okay during wartime to humiliate and demoralize a population
But it’s okay if the victim dressed and acted in a sexually suggestive manner.
It is wrong to murder.
But it’s okay if the victim is of a non-preferred nationality, race or ethnic class.
But it’s okay if the victim dishonored the family name (honor killing).
It is wrong to poison.
But it’s okay if the person wants to die and you are helping them commit suicide.
But it’s okay if the person is elderly, infirm, disabled, retarded as they cost too much.
It is wrong to torture.
But it’s okay if it’s the government or the military who is doing it.
But it’s okay if it is determined that “the ends justify the means”.

If there is nothing that is “sacred” or “absolute” (no moral wrong) in our world today – as individuals, as families, as communities and as nations – then God help us all.

What do you mean by the word “absolute”?

 

[Tomdstone]

The negative precepts are absolute

Can you give an example of a negative precept which is “absolute”? Does absolute mean that there are no counterexamples, and that it is always and everywhere true under all circumstances?
here is a negative precept:
thou shalt not kill.
But it is not absolute, so I don;t believe that the negative precepts are absolute.

 

[Bradski]

Facts are absolute. Morality The questions are framed in such a way as to make it appear that that morality is relative and that there are no absolutes. To be fair, I get where “context” matters. I get that the factual scenario can transform something that would otherwise be evil into something that would be justifiable, defensible and/or even acceptable. The risk of “there is no morality; there are only facts” is a slippery slope that can be used to “justify” practically anything.

Yes, facts are absolute. We use them to determine the morality of an act. Otherwise it only becomes personal opinion.

Hang on, everyone says. Isn’t that what you are arguing? That morality, being relative, is just personal opinion?

Let me try once again…

There seems to be a misunderstanding in regard to the word ‘absolutely’. It’s a common enough word and used colloquially to mean ‘definite’ or ‘no doubt about it’. As in:

‘Are you going to the cricket later’
‘Absolutely’

It specifically means ‘not qualified’ and ‘not in relation to other things - not relative’. So if I say ‘It is wrong to harm someone by sticking needles into them for no other reason than enjoying seeing them in pain’ I am qualifying the harm. It is relative to the conditions I have described. The statement is not and never could be described as an absolute statement, by the very definition of the word itself.

Causing harm by sticking needles into someone might well be considered a good thing. If I qualify the harm in a different way (and an absolute statement is one that is not qualified) then we might agree it would be a good thing.

But we cannot make a decision until we qualify the harm, thus making the statement relative. Are we agreed on that?

Now, if you want to ask me if honour killing is unacceptable, I might well use the colloquial term ‘absolutely’. But honour killings are a particular and very specific example of causing harm. What you are actually asking me is: ‘Is punishing your daughter by killing her if she has been raped acceptable?’ You are qualifying the harm. You are describing the conditions under which it might take place. The harm is relative to those conditions.

If harm is done or attempted to be done either physically or emotionally, to a person or a concept, then it is not sufficient to then simply say that the act was immoral. We need to know the conditions relative to the act. We need the facts. We can then discuss whether, based on those facts, the act was moral or not.

There are no absolute moral statements. They are all qualified in some way as they relate to the possibility of harm.

 

[Rau]

Can you give an example of a negative precept which is “absolute”? Does absolute mean that there are no counterexamples, and that it is always and everywhere true under all circumstances?
here is a negative precept:
thou shalt not kill.
But it is not absolute, so I don;t believe that the negative precepts are absolute.

See my earlier post Tom where, in response to Bradski, I remarked that the precepts need to be understood. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ does not proscribe every act that may (or will) cause death. We can learn more of its meaning from Scripture. Now, you and I have “litigated” this point many times before, so I won’t be repeating that process here, sorry. But I can refer you to paragraph 50 and beyond in the following for the Catholic perspective:
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor.html

 

[Aloysium]

Can you give an example of a negative precept which is “absolute”? Does absolute mean that there are no counterexamples, and that it is always and everywhere true under all circumstances?
here is a negative precept:
thou shalt not kill.
But it is not absolute, so I don;t believe that the negative precepts are absolute.

“Absolute” has to do with being final, unlimited, complete.

God is the absolute judge in that by His love, He is infinitely merciful, compassionately aware of everything about the internal and external circumstances and motivations that form any act.

Thou shalt not kill includes anger actually.

You may think such commandments are not absolute.
But, I think if you kill someone, you will have to answer for it.

Sure, we will have our excuses, but the truth that contains everything that the act would involve is known.
In communion God, one’s guilt in these matters will be obvious, but may be accepted and repented or denied.