Are There Any Moral Absolutes?

[JLM]

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????

Right on - Anyone who thinks the Ten Commandments should be over turned puts his credibility at risk right off the bat. I'm personally NOT convinced that ALL ten are fully valid, but I'm also not convinced that they aren't. At least six of them are rock solid- in my books.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Right on - Anyone who thinks the Ten Commandments should be over turned puts his credibility at risk right off the bat. I'm personally NOT convinced that ALL ten are fully valid, but I'm also not convinced that they aren't. At least six of them are rock solid- in my books.

I am glad you reduced it to six from ten, JLM. The first four Commandments are nonsense as far as non Christians are concerned.

As to other six, some of them do make sense (thou shalt not kill, steal etc.). However, none of them can really be regarded as absolutes. One can easily imagine many situations where reasonable people may differ as to whether lying, cheating or stealing was justified in a particular case.

None of the Commandments are fully valid in the sense that one can easily imagine situations where the right thing to do would be to break the Commandments. I don’t know if you have come across the saying by Asimov.

Never let you sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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

Those who believe in absolute moral values claim that their own moral values are absolute (because who decides what is an absolute? There are no objective criteria for it) and they want others to live according to absolutes formulated by the moral police(though they themselves many times don’t live by them, they only preach them).

 

[JLM]

I am glad you reduced it to six from ten, JLM. The first four Commandments are nonsense as far as non Christians are concerned.

As to other six, some of them do make sense (thou shalt not kill, steal etc.). However, none of them can really be regarded as absolutes. One can easily imagine many situations where reasonable people may differ as to whether lying, cheating or stealing was justified in a particular case.

None of the Commandments are fully valid in the sense that one can easily imagine situations where the right thing to do would be to break the Commandments. I don’t know if you have come across the saying by Asimov.

Never let you sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

There's "lying" and there's "lying". For instance I think it's better if you are visiting a person in hospital who looks dreadful (and probably feels dreadful) to tell them they are looking much better today, than to tell them the truth.

 

[Colpy]

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

Ahhh, if it is justified, as in defence of oneself or another, then it is NOT murder.....thus the absolute.......

 

[SirJosephPorter]

There's "lying" and there's "lying". For instance I think it's better if you are visiting a person in hospital who looks dreadful (and probably feels dreadful) to tell them they are looking much better today, than to tell them the truth.

I quite agree, JLM, sometimes the right thing to do is to tell a little white lie (like when the wife asks if the new dress she is wearing makes her look fat).

 

[wulfie68]

I can imagine hypothetical circumstances where such a vile act is justified, where reasonable people will say that it is justified.

I used that statement of yours, SirJoseph in framing my opinion about rape being an absolute. I don't think that the rationalization of religion justifying it equates to an action that would be accepted by reasonable people, nor in your sci-fi/Adam&Eve scenario (two people likely wouldn't provide enough diversity to sustain the gene pool).

Additionally how about ritualistic human sacrifice? I'm not talking euthanasia but something akin to the Aztec practice of cutting out the hearts of people for no reason but observance to some warped religious custom. Again not something I see as acceptable by anyone even remotely approaching reasonable, in this day and age.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

...something akin to the Aztec practice of cutting out the hearts of people for no reason but observance to some warped religious custom. Again not something I see as acceptable by anyone even remotely approaching reasonable, in this day and age.

Again, that's the point. To the Aztecs in their day and age it was acceptable and reasonable behaviour. I've no doubt there are things we're doing now that some later age will view as warped, just as we view certain behaviours of previous ages as warped. In fact there are things some people do that others view as warped right now, but the practitioners would claim it has a high moral and spiritual purpose. What if I told you, for instance, that there's a religious sect that decorates its temples with statues of a man being tortured to death and practices symbolic (some people believe it's literal) ritual cannibalism specifically of him? Sounds pretty warped put that way, but it's just the Christian church.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I don't think that the rationalization of religion justifying it equates to an action that would be accepted by reasonable people, nor in your sci-fi/Adam&Eve scenario (two people likely wouldn't provide enough diversity to sustain the gene pool).

Wulfie, religion does not come into the scenario described by me (where rape would be justified, in my opinion). Nowhere did I mention religion in my scenario.

As to there not being enough of a gene pool, you are right. However, reproducing, having plenty of children at least gives the human race a chance, limited gene pool or no. If there is no rape and they don’t reproduce, there is zero chance of human race reviving again.

Besides, what if after 15 or 20 years they find another pair somewhere in the world, which also has produced many children? Then all of a sudden we have genetic diversity, and future of human race is almost assured (which it wouldn’t be if there was no rape and no children were produced).

So limited gene pool argument won’t hold water, a limited gene pool is better than no gene pool at all. And religion does not come into it at all; I think many reasonable people would say that rape is justified in the scenario that I outlined.

 

[JLM]

I don't think that the rationalization of religion justifying it equates to an action that would be accepted by reasonable people, nor in your sci-fi/Adam&Eve scenario (two people likely wouldn't provide enough diversity to sustain the gene pool).

Wulfie, religion does not come into the scenario described by me (where rape would be justified, in my opinion). Nowhere did I mention religion in my scenario.

As to there not being enough of a gene pool, you are right. However, reproducing, having plenty of children at least gives the human race a chance, limited gene pool or no. If there is no rape and they don’t reproduce, there is zero chance of human race reviving again.

Besides, what if after 15 or 20 years they find another pair somewhere in the world, which also has produced many children? Then all of a sudden we have genetic diversity, and future of human race is almost assured (which it wouldn’t be if there was no rape and no children were produced).

So limited gene pool argument won’t hold water, a limited gene pool is better than no gene pool at all. And religion does not come into it at all; I think many reasonable people would say that rape is justified in the scenario that I outlined.

Which raises another question - if there is no one to arrest you, charge you, try you, convict you, punish you, has a crime actually been committed????:lol::lol:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Additionally how about ritualistic human sacrifice? I'm not talking euthanasia but something akin to the Aztec practice of cutting out the hearts of people for no reason but observance to some warped religious custom.

Wulfie, what about human sacrifice? Is it always wrong, always to be condemned? Are you saying it is an absolute? Let us look at a plausible scenario.

Let us say that there is a society which practices death penalty (we know of one or two, don’t we?). Let us further say that the way they administer death penalty is not by hanging or by eclectic chair, but by human sacrifice.

So that the criminal who is sentenced to die is offered up as a sacrifice to their God. Is human sacrifice wrong in that case? I think it is wrong, because I think death penalty is wrong.

But reasonable people disagree on death penalty; it is not a moral absolute. If a society practices death penalty, I don’t see anything wrong if they offer the condemned criminal as a sacrifice to their God. Gruesome and primitive, perhaps. But it cannot be considered wrong; it is just a different method of killing.

So human sacrifice is not always wrong (unless one considers that death penalty is always wrong). It is not a moral absolute.

In fact, we don’t know much about Aztecs, but what if Aztecs were doing the same thing? What if they were sacrificing criminals sentenced to death as sacrifices to their God? That puts the whole idea of human sacrifice in a much different light.

 

[JLM]

Okay here's one for you S.J. Give me ONE instance where the molestation of a child would be justified. Bet my pension cheque you can't.

 

[JLM]

Second thought, forget the pension cheque- you'll think of something I'm sure, but it will be ridiculous like some pervert holding a gun to one's head to make him do it.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Pederasty in ancient Greece - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Been thinking hard about this, and studying the posts in this thread, for about an hour, because I think the OP raises a very important question that deserves that kind of attention. Seems to me that the people posting in this thread who are claiming that there *are* moral absolutes are using their own morality as the absolute standard, and in effect trying to argue that past cultures that did not have the same standard were somehow perverted or warped or unreasonable. Part of me wants to buy those arguments, because I'm a product of this culture and have certain moral standards that reflect where I come from.

Yet the fact remains: there have been cultures in which incest, sexual relationships with what we would consider under-age children, ritual murder, and a variety of other behaviours contemporary morality would consider to be thoroughly reprehensible, have been viewed as normal. Morality is very much relative to culture, it seems to me, just as religion is. And it's wrong to look to religion for absolute values. Even the much vaunted Ten Commandments, properly understood, are not absolutes. The "Thou shalt not kill" prohibition, for instance, is in the context of the Old Testament obviously not true in the broadest sense, much of the OT that follows it is a tale of invasion and slaughter approved of and abetted by the deity. All it really means is that thou shalt not kill members of your own tribe, other people are fair game.

And I come back to my original point: there are no moral absolutes, morality is culturally defined and varies widely across cultures.

 

[Niflmir]

Right on - Anyone who thinks the Ten Commandments should be over turned puts his credibility at risk right off the bat. I'm personally NOT convinced that ALL ten are fully valid, but I'm also not convinced that they aren't. At least six of them are rock solid- in my books.

I would argue the converse, that you insisting on them causes you to lose credibility. Since your suggestion implies, amongst other things, that the son of a criminal not honoring his father and continuing the tradition would be immoral; you state unequivocally that to suggest otherwise is to risk one's credibility. There are only three commandments which even come close to making sense, the ones dealing with murder, theft, and perjury--and these are easy to counter as absolute even though I would say they are sound ethically.

Heck, two commandments even define thought crimes, if you weren't convinced enough about their ludicrous nature.

 

[YukonJack]

For one with no morals, there are moral absolutes.

For one with morals, there are.

Could it be simpler?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

For one with no morals, there are moral absolutes.

For one with morals, there are.

Could it be simpler?

That doesn’t make sense, Yukon Jack. Why not just say that moral absolutes are for everybody and be done with it? Why say it in such a long winded manner? You would be wrong, but at least you would make sense.

 

[YukonJack]

You caught me, SirJosephPorter.

What I meant to, say was that for those with no morals, there are NO moral absolutes.

In my eagerness, I forgot to punch in the most important word "NO" of my message.
You know it and I know it.

Your sarcasm is well appreciated.

Awaiting your rebuttal to my original message thus CORRECTED.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Okay here's one for you S.J. Give me ONE instance where the molestation of a child would be justified. Bet my pension cheque you can't.

Don’t bet your pension check, JLM. I have no particular desire to deprive you of your monthly stipend (nor do I need it).

Abuse of children (both physical and sexual) doesn’t even come close to being a moral absolute; it misses it by a mile.

Dexter has already explained it quite well, but let me add another angle that he missed. Marriage between an underage girl and an old man are quite common in many Islamic countries today. There was a news feature a while ago about such marriages in Afghanistan (I think it described marriage of 8 year old girl with a 45 year old man). There also was the news item that Islamic court granted divorce to an 8 year old girl from her 45 year old husband in Egypt (only after worldwide outcry).

Such marriages also were quite common in India, until 100 years ago. Even today, while they are officially abolished, who knows what goes on in villages, away from the eyes of the law?

These religions also consider wife to be the property of her husband. So it follows that when a 45 year old man marries 8 year old girl, he is free to abuse her any way he wants, sexually, physically etc.

So child abuse is not a moral absolute (much as you and I would like it to be). Child abuse is officially sanctioned in many societies (Afghanistan, Egypt, Somalia and no doubt several others) even today.

However, this is one area which I wish were a moral absolute, in my opinion, child abuse is always wrong, whether occurring within a marriage or without a marriage.

Unfortunately it is not. Many societies, currently and in the past approved child abuse (in the form of child brides). And there were of course reasonable, rational, thinking people in these societies, who did not raise any particular outcry against it.

So one has to conclude that rational, reasonable people disagree about child abuse (though I haven’t heard any arguments on the other side, and I don’t see any arguments on the other side convincing me).

No, child abuse is unfortunately not a moral absolute, though I would like it to be. Indeed, this is the only instance that I wish for the presence of moral absolutes. I cannot conceive of even one circumstance, however far fetched, where child abuse would be acceptable.

Anyway, so don’t worry about your pension check; I wasn’t interested in it anyway.