E
- Status
D
Dan123
Guest
It’s worth noting that no one claiming to believe in those concepts is advocating what you describe. That suggests either a) they’re all wrong and you actually understand their positions better than them or b) perhaps you aren’t fully understanding their positions.
It would be like if someone characterized Christianity as…
Christianity - I can do anything I want and as long as I say I’m sorry before I die there’s no consequences!
See how silly that is? See how it reduces the vast and intricate set of principles that comprise faith and reduces it to absurdity by exaggerating just one element and twisting it into a caricature? It’s clearly deliberately malicious and presenting ideas in an extreme manner as if that represents the beliefs of actual adherents.
E
EndTimes
Guest
Relativism - There are no Moral Absolutes…
If every human being decides to kill every human being - so be it!
Skepticism - re: Thou Shalt Not Kill!
It’s either yes or no
I’ll sit on the fence -
(" …which ultimately equates to no ?")
I’m allowed to present this picture of these two False beliefs…
If every human being decides to kill every human being - so be it!
Skepticism - re: Thou Shalt Not Kill!
It’s either yes or no
I’ll sit on the fence -
(" …which ultimately equates to no ?")
I’m allowed to present this picture of these two False beliefs…
M
Mhkc
Guest
If I tell my girlfriend she looks nice tonight, she says “what u mean i didnt look good last night”
I just dont think life is easy, regardless of virtuous innocent kind intent
I just dont think life is easy, regardless of virtuous innocent kind intent
F
Freddy
Guest
Why post something which no-one believes and then call it false?
D
Dan_Defender
Guest
Nietzsche believed in it. I am sure he has followers.
F
Freddy
Guest
What? That if everyone decides to kill everyone then so be it? That’s not a consequence of the position that there are no moral absolutes. It doesn’t mean that morality doesn’t exist.Freddy:
Nietzsche believed in it. I am sure he has followers.
‘Killing is wrong’ is a moral absolute and it doesn’t cover any act at all unless qualified. That is, relative to the conditions. So it’s not then absolute. ‘Murder is wrong’ is not an absolute statement. It’s killing someone qualified by the conditions.
D
Dan123
Guest
I could be convinced “murder is wrong” was an absolute statement given an extremely clear definition of murder. That is one that leaves a clear objective way to identify an act of murder vs a non-murder killing. I realize this differs from a pure definition of absolutism but I’m not sure the pure definition is super useful. I mean just above in this thread it was illustrated everyone agrees on the relative nature of lying, it’s just whether it spans ‘good to bad’ or ‘less bad to more bad’, but it’s the same breadth. So the disagreement doesn’t generally seem to be whether there are moral ‘ranges’ an act can fall into given circumstances, just whether an act can be ‘good’ or just ‘less evil’.
F
Freddy
Guest
It’s the same with killing surely, Dan. From being entirely justified in some cases of self defence, through manslaughter and second and first degree murder. In each case it is relative to the conditions. If you define each in enough detail so that a moral verdict could be given, it makes nonsense of the claim that you could class each definition as an absolute moral position. It would mean that all definitions that relate to the conditions that allow us to make a determination are absolute. In other words - there would be no relative moral position. It could not exist if everying is absolute.Freddy:
I could be convinced “murder is wrong” was an absolute statement given an extremely clear definition of murder. That is one that leaves a clear objective way to identify an act of murder vs a non-murder killing. I realize this differs from a pure definition of absolutism but I’m not sure the pure definition is super useful. I mean just above in this thread it was illustrated everyone agrees on the relative nature of lying, it’s just whether it spans ‘good to bad’ or ‘less bad to more bad’, but it’s the same breadth. So the disagreement doesn’t generally seem to be whether there are moral ‘ranges’ an act can fall into given circumstances, just whether an act can be ‘good’ or just ‘less evil’.
There are absolute statements that we can make: Freddy is hosing down his yard. But to determine a moral position you need to know the circumstances: Freddy is hosing down his yard during a severe drought so he is being morally irresponsible.
Last edited:
D
Dan123
Guest
Right I agree mostly. I guess I’m just saying one could construct an absolute (or something approaching absolute so as to be indistinguishable in real life) definition of a more/immoral act, not easily.
E.g. if one wanted to say “Watering ones lawn during a drought is immoral” you’d need to have objective definitions for ‘watering’, ie, whether overturning a wheelbarrow which happened to collect rain water is watering, if using water from your own dedicated rain barrel is a problem, you’d need to objectively define drought so that one county’s definition wasn’t different from another. You’d basically need to define all the relevant circumstances and agree all others are irrelevant, and provide objective ways to determine if each has occurred. I guess all I was saying is if someone wants to do that, I’m open to at least acknowledging their definition. I may not agree with it but we could at least use their definition to determine if an act is moral or immoral (or more immoral/less immoral) under that specific definition.
Again in principle I agree with you and the onus of making that definition would be on the person feeling they can.
E
EndTimes
Guest
F
Freddy
Guest
Freddy:
E
EndTimes
Guest
I’m not saying it’s fine…
…fine is moral…
Without any Absolutes it’s an AnyThing Goes Reality
Happy Freddy thought it wrong to Fight
But Big Bad Bill who killed Fred - thought it Right
Last edited:
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
It sounds a lot to me like you’re saying that if there are no moral absolutes, then “everyone is allowed to kill each other” is a moral absolute.
F
Freddy
Guest
So without no absolute morality there is no morality. Is that the point you are trying to make? Which makes no sense. People might argue that morality is always relative as opposed to absolute. But do you really think it’s absolute or nothing…?Freddy:
I’m not saying it’s fine…
…fine is moral…
Without any Absolutes it’s an AnyThing Goes Reality
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Obviously in a mindset of “There are no Rules” – Anything Goes
Since we’re using the term Absolute
Do you believe that any absolutely Absolute - exists?
Like… Love? or … .Truth? Goodness? Evil?
)
Since we’re using the term Absolute
Do you believe that any absolutely Absolute - exists?
Like… Love? or … .Truth? Goodness? Evil?
)
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
I believe you should answer our objections before you try to change the topic.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
But I haven’t changed the topic… We’re discussing… And knowing terms is a Requisite; know ye not?
J
JapaneseKappa
Guest
You were the one who introduced the concept of “Moral absolutes” right here:
So you don’t have to ask us, just tell us what you meant.
Last edited:
F
Freddy
Guest
Obviously. By definition. But not believing that there is such a creature as absolute morality does not mean that. Where on earth are you getting this from? Can you show me anyone at any time who has said anything approaching this?
- Status