Are There Any Moral Absolutes?

[Niflmir]

Seems to me many species of animals see nothing wrong with rape. Absolute morals should be true of all species.

The minute you say murder, you are no longer talking absolute, since by definition murder is unlawful or unjustified killing--and those two words are too vague to be absolute.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The reason for this is that morality is subjective, there is no absolute way of determining if murder or rape is good or bad. This is in contrast with physical absolutes.

Thus if anybody disputes the physical absolute I mentioned (drop a stone form a metre height and it will fall to the ground), it is very easy to prove him wrong. Or rather, challenge him to prove the absolute wrong.

He cannot do it. He cannot conceive of even one situation, where you drop a stone outdoors on earth from a meter height and it does not fall to the ground, but rises up in the air. He cannot hypothesize a stone, he cannot put conditions on it etc. He has to physically prove the absolute wrong, and it cannot be done.

In the moral sphere, however, we are dealing with hypothetical situations. So I can let my imagination run wild and conjure up a situation where the absolute is not valid. And I can do that for any absolute.

 

[Niflmir]

Actually, its very hard to prove that the laws of physics are absolute, due to the weakness of inductive reasoning. At the very least, it is trivial to disprove but has never happened.

 

[einmensch]

Might is right and has nothing to do with morality. If you want morality you need to listen to a Kant.

Off topic --Gilbert do you even know why Kuwait was attacked--I doubt it?

 

[JLM]

The forum seems to have slowed down in the last couple of days, so I thought I would see if I can liven things up by introducing a red meat topic.

So, are there any moral absolutes? My answer is an emphatic no, I think all the morals are relative; it is up to everybody to formulate their own morals.

The reason for saying that is simple; one only has to look at definition of ‘absolute’. Absolute is something that is true, at any time, at any place, no restrictions, no exceptions. There certainly are absolutes in the physical universe.

I can think of one. Go outdoors anywhere on earth, pick up a stone, drop it from the height of say, one meter. The stone will drop to the ground. Now this is true anywhere on earth, at any time (today or a million years ago), regardless of the weather conditions, who is doing the dropping etc.

So there are absolutes in the physical universe. But moral universe is a different thing. I cannot think of any moral tenets which are absolute. Lying, cheating, murder, robbery, consider any kind of vile action. I can imagine hypothetical circumstances where such a vile act is justified, where reasonable people will say that it is justified.

It is the religious conservatives who insist that there are moral absolutes (what they mean is that their morals are absolute and that the rest of the world should follow their morals). But I haven’t come across even one moral tenet that can be considered to be absolutely true.

So what do you think, are there moral absolutes? If so, what are they?

Yep, there's a few and they are not hard to understand. Understanding, tolerance and compassion, having the guts to draw a line, having two sets of expectations, one from yourself and one from others, treating others as you expect to be treated. Keeping your word. That's just a few of them but I maintain if everyone abided by them the world would be a much better place

 

[JLM]

The forum seems to have slowed down in the last couple of days, so I thought I would see if I can liven things up by introducing a red meat topic.

So, are there any moral absolutes? My answer is an emphatic no, I think all the morals are relative; it is up to everybody to formulate their own morals.

The reason for saying that is simple; one only has to look at definition of ‘absolute’. Absolute is something that is true, at any time, at any place, no restrictions, no exceptions. There certainly are absolutes in the physical universe.

I can think of one. Go outdoors anywhere on earth, pick up a stone, drop it from the height of say, one meter. The stone will drop to the ground. Now this is true anywhere on earth, at any time (today or a million years ago), regardless of the weather conditions, who is doing the dropping etc.

So there are absolutes in the physical universe. But moral universe is a different thing. I cannot think of any moral tenets which are absolute. Lying, cheating, murder, robbery, consider any kind of vile action. I can imagine hypothetical circumstances where such a vile act is justified, where reasonable people will say that it is justified.

It is the religious conservatives who insist that there are moral absolutes (what they mean is that their morals are absolute and that the rest of the world should follow their morals). But I haven’t come across even one moral tenet that can be considered to be absolutely true.

So what do you think, are there moral absolutes? If so, what are they?

Yep, there's a few and they are not hard to understand. Understanding, tolerance and compassion, having the guts to draw a line, having two sets of expectations, one from yourself and one from others, treating others as you expect to be treated. Keeping your word. That's just a few of them but I maintain if everyone abided by them the world would be a much better place.

 

[CDNBear]

So, are there any moral absolutes?

Well ya, the morality of truth...

There is fact, provable and verifiable and then there's the distortion of the truth.

Oft manifesting in the morally bankrupt.

 

[JLM]

Let us imagine that for whatever reason, human population on earth is wiped out. Except for one man. He is convinced that he is the only one left, repeated search all over the world does not uncover a single human being.

After several years of search he comes across a woman. He is happy about it, now they can repopulate the earth. He talks it over with her, and she agrees.

But there is one problem, she happens to be very religious. She absolutely refuses to have sex without getting married. There is of course, nobody to marry them, they are the only two humans left in the world.

So the question is, after repeatedly trying to convince her, after repeatedly pleading with her, is the man justified in raping her? Not only once, but repeatedly raping her over the years (and perhaps locking her up) so that they may have as many children as possible?

In my opinion, the answer is yes. Admittedly the situation is far fetched. However, that is what is meant by ‘absolute’, even if I can show up one situation, however far fetched where the principle breaks down, that means it is not an absolute.

Based upon this scenario, rape is not a moral absolute, although it comes very close.

When dealing with moral absolutes we have to deal with the current situation, there are all sorts of other scenarios we could imagine, like what if we find ourselves alone in the world and then find out later there are actually two or three others left who are trying to murder us, then I suppose murder would be acceptable for self-defense.

 

[darkbeaver]

The forum seems to have slowed down in the last couple of days, so I thought I would see if I can liven things up by introducing a red meat topic.

So, are there any moral absolutes? My answer is an emphatic no, I think all the morals are relative; it is up to everybody to formulate their own morals.

The reason for saying that is simple; one only has to look at definition of ‘absolute’. Absolute is something that is true, at any time, at any place, no restrictions, no exceptions. There certainly are absolutes in the physical universe.

I can think of one. Go outdoors anywhere on earth, pick up a stone, drop it from the height of say, one meter. The stone will drop to the ground. Now this is true anywhere on earth, at any time (today or a million years ago), regardless of the weather conditions, who is doing the dropping etc.

So there are absolutes in the physical universe. But moral universe is a different thing. I cannot think of any moral tenets which are absolute. Lying, cheating, murder, robbery, consider any kind of vile action. I can imagine hypothetical circumstances where such a vile act is justified, where reasonable people will say that it is justified.

It is the religious conservatives who insist that there are moral absolutes (what they mean is that their morals are absolute and that the rest of the world should follow their morals). But I haven’t come across even one moral tenet that can be considered to be absolutely true.

So what do you think, are there moral absolutes? If so, what are they?

"I can think of one. Go outdoors anywhere on earth, pick up a stone, drop it from the height of say, one meter. The stone will drop to the ground. Now this is true anywhere on earth, at any time (today or a million years ago), regardless of the weather conditions, who is doing the dropping etc."

The stone may drop to the ground, it certainly dosen't have to, it certainly isn't a physical constant. The weight of the stone determines weather it goes up down or sideways Joe. The weight varies from local to local. Stone can go up pretty easily in the right conditions. nitpicking I know but there are children here and we don't want to be to free with absolutisms do we?

 

[Said1]

Yep, there's a few and they are not hard to understand. Understanding, tolerance and compassion, having the guts to draw a line, having two sets of expectations, one from yourself and one from others, treating others as you expect to be treated. Keeping your word. That's just a few of them but I maintain if everyone abided by them the world would be a much better place

Those are more like moral yard sticks to measure our behavior - maxims. They provide a wider ranger of preponderance in (subjective) decision making. Maxims motivate our actions.

 

[Niflmir]

The stone may drop to the ground, it certainly dosen't have to, it certainly isn't a physical constant. The weight of the stone determines weather it goes up down or sideways Joe. The weight varies from local to local. Stone can go up pretty easily in the right conditions. nitpicking I know but there are children here and we don't want to be to free with absolutisms do we?

Um, no? The universality of free fall is what led to the development of general relativity. All objects follow the same path under the influence of gravity, irrespective of mass and composition.

Even the truth is not an absolute moral. I am pretty sure the person keeping Anne Frank was doing the right thing when she lied about keeping Jews. When the truth will be abused, you are morally obligated to lie.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

When dealing with moral absolutes we have to deal with the current situation, there are all sorts of other scenarios we could imagine, like what if we find ourselves alone in the world and then find out later there are actually two or three others left who are trying to murder us, then I suppose murder would be acceptable for self-defense.

Depends upon what one means by an absolute, JLM. By my definition, an absolute is true in all the places at all the times, no exceptions. And those who claim that there are moral absolutes do indeed define absolutes this way, that an absolute is true in all places, at all times, under all conditions.

You define an absolute as something that is true in all the places, but not necessarily all the times. If you define an absolute that way, perhaps there may be moral absolutes (Such as rape).

But then the whole argument for moral absolutes crumbles to the ground. Christians claim that moral absolutes are given in the Bible. But if an absolute is valid in all the places but not all the times, then by definition, the morality described in Biblical days may not be valid today.

That means that moral absolutes cannot be based upon Bible, Koran or whatever. Then what is the basis for moral absolutes?

Saying that an absolute may not be valid at all the times weaken the case for absolutes considerably.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

When dealing with moral absolutes we have to deal with the current situation, there are all sorts of other scenarios we could imagine, like what if we find ourselves alone in the world and then find out later there are actually two or three others left who are trying to murder us, then I suppose murder would be acceptable for self-defense.

JLM, one doesn’t have to go to hypothetical, imagine scenarios to find instances where murder may be justified. There are plenty of real life cases where it is justified.

Thus there were several attempts to murder Hitler (I define murder as cold blooded, pre planned killing of a human being, though I suppose that word can only be used loosely in reference to Hitler). Most people will agree that those attempts were justified. So murder was clearly justified in this instance.

Or consider any brutal, vicious dictator in the world, living or dead. I don’t think most people would condemn attempts to murder Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot etc.

It is easy to imagine instances where murder may be justified.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The stone may drop to the ground, it certainly dosen't have to, it certainly isn't a physical constant.

It certainly has to, darkbeaver. Gravitational pull of the earth is a physical constant; there is nothing metaphysical about gravitation (as you will easily find out if you try to walk out of a window on tenth floor).

The weight of the stone determines weather it goes up down or sideways Joe.

It is not the weight which determines that, it is the density. Take a gravel particle weighing one gram, and a sheet of paper weighing ten grams. Gravel will drop to the ground; sheet of paper will float on the air, due to the wind. It is not the weight, but density (and surface area) that is important.

And density of stone is always much more than anything that can be carried away by the wind. We don’t have wind fast enough on earth, to carry away a stone.

And suppose there actually arose a wind of that proportions (hundreds or thousands of miles per hour, I don’t know), then the experiment of going outdoors and dropping the stone will be totally impossible to carry out anyway. So the question does not arise.

The weight varies from local to local. Stone can go up pretty easily in the right conditions

Sure weight can vary, but as I said, it is the density that is important, density of stone does not vary much, it is always much higher than that of water. And no, the stone can never go up, not on earth, not anywhere else (though it may come down very slowly on some of the smaller asteroids).

No, I don’t’ think you can find even one instance of violation of the absolute. Go outdoors anywhere on earth, pick up a stone from the ground, drop it from one meter height, it will drop to the ground. I cannot conceive of any exception to this.

 

[JLM]

JLM, one doesn’t have to go to hypothetical, imagine scenarios to find instances where murder may be justified. There are plenty of real life cases where it is justified.

Thus there were several attempts to murder Hitler (I define murder as cold blooded, pre planned killing of a human being, though I suppose that word can only be used loosely in reference to Hitler). Most people will agree that those attempts were justified. So murder was clearly justified in this instance.

Or consider any brutal, vicious dictator in the world, living or dead. I don’t think most people would condemn attempts to murder Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot etc.

It is easy to imagine instances where murder may be justified.

That brings you right back to what I said at the outset, "treat others as you wish to be treated"- when everyone can just do that, that would just remove the necessity for murder and the condonement of it.

 

[Niflmir]

Typically, those that believe in absolute moral values posit that it is immoral to cause suffering wantonly.

 

[Colpy]

I couldn't believe anyone could possibly be so devoid of common sense as to pose such a question; then I looked at the author....(rolls eyes so far back in head they fall out and plop into his rum and coke)

OF COURSE there are moral absolutes..........

 

[Niflmir]

If there are, they are unknowable, which makes them false, since one cannot be morally obliged to do something when one doesn't know what it is.

Either they are self-evidently true, and therefore useless, or one would have to know the moral absolutes before hand in order to judge their truth. Making them unknowable.

 

[Colpy]

If there are, they are unknowable, which makes them false, since one cannot be morally obliged to do something when one doesn't know what it is.

Either they are self-evidently true, and therefore useless, or one would have to know the moral absolutes before hand in order to judge their truth. Making them unknowable.

Philosophy makes the simple impossible, as evidenced in your reply.

You are over-thinking it.

Thou shalt not murder. A moral absolute.

Simple, isn't it????

 

[Niflmir]

Philosophy makes the simple impossible, as evidenced in your reply.

You are over-thinking it.

Thou shalt not murder. A moral absolute.

Simple, isn't it????

You should finish reading this thread. I already explained how ambiguous this is.