Are There Any Moral Absolutes?

[JLM]

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.

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, part of which is "I'm personally NOT convinced that ALL ten are fully valid,", before you condemn me.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

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.

There is no rebuttal, if some people want to think that there are moral absolutes (and wish to live by them, though they rarely do, they only preach), that is their business. The problem comes when they try to impose those moral absolutes on others, and expect others to live by those moral absolutes (even though they themselves may or may not live by them).

Thus social conservatives claim that there are plenty of moral absolutes. Abortion is wrong, premarital sex is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, all these are supposed to be moral absolutes.

If conservatives want to live by those rules, fine. The problem comes when they try to impose these absolutes on the rest of the society (by trying to ban abortion, trying to discourage premarital sex, by trying to deny equal rights to gays etc.).

 

[YukonJack]

SirJosephPorter, you attribute far more power to me than I deserve.

What I think or believe in will hardly ever be a deciding factor in what direction the world will take. You kow it and I know it.

But since you offer no rebuttal I rest my case.

 

[JLM]

There is no rebuttal, if some people want to think that there are moral absolutes (and wish to live by them, though they rarely do, they only preach), that is their business. The problem comes when they try to impose those moral absolutes on others, and expect others to live by those moral absolutes (even though they themselves may or may not live by them).

Thus social conservatives claim that there are plenty of moral absolutes. Abortion is wrong, premarital sex is wrong, homosexuality is wrong, all these are supposed to be moral absolutes.

If conservatives want to live by those rules, fine. The problem comes when they try to impose these absolutes on the rest of the society (by trying to ban abortion, trying to discourage premarital sex, by trying to deny equal rights to gays etc.).

Your last paragraph says a lot. I agree with Y.J. to a point, the point being he has every right to determine what is moral (for himself). There's things I don't do because I couldn't live with myself if I did them, but at the same time I'm not going to spend my life stewing over other people doing them. Let's face it, the Kennedys were adulterers and old Joe was a ***** monger and these people are highly accepted in society, but for me that kind of behaviour isn't right. (which is my right to determine).

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your last paragraph says a lot. I agree with Y.J. to a point, the point being he has every right to determine what is moral (for him).

Sure they do, JLM, people are free to believe what they want. If somebody wants to believe in moral absolutes, nobody is stopping them. But as I have said it before, it is for everybody to decide on his or her morality, and just because somebody says that there are moral absolutes, doesn’t mean that there are any.

 

[captain morgan]

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).

You speak authoritatively about absolutes, yet I did not notice that you (or anyone) offered their definition of 'morals'.

Stretch back to your university days and think about how on defines morals and ethics. That should be the starting point of this debate.

 

[JLM]

Your last paragraph says a lot. I agree with Y.J. to a point, the point being he has every right to determine what is moral (for him).

Sure they do, JLM, people are free to believe what they want. If somebody wants to believe in moral absolutes, nobody is stopping them. But as I have said it before, it is for everybody to decide on his or her morality, and just because somebody says that there are moral absolutes, doesn’t mean that there are any.

Right on S.J. People have a right to believe what they want and the ones who get it wrong land in jail. That's probably the way it should be.

 

[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.

Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, part of which is "I'm personally NOT convinced that ALL ten are fully valid,", before you condemn me.

Maybe you should read what you wrote.

You state unequivocably that suggesting the ten commandments are wrong is evidence enough to question ones credibility. That you yourself are not convinced of their validity in no way negates your prior assertion, which is patently absurd. You state that six are rock solid, of which I assume you mean the last six, since the first six are Christian/Judaism only and utter crock. Whereby one must conclude that you think it is as morally repugnant to desire something somebody else has (covet) as to kill that person, which is what the last six imply. From this I easily form my previous conclusions.

 

[JLM]

Maybe you should read what you wrote.

You state unequivocably that suggesting the ten commandments are wrong is evidence enough to question ones credibility. That you yourself are not convinced of their validity in no way negates your prior assertion, which is patently absurd. You state that six are rock solid, of which I assume you mean the last six, since the first six are Christian/Judaism only and utter crock. Whereby one must conclude that you think it is as morally repugnant to desire something somebody else has (covet) as to kill that person, which is what the last six imply. From this I easily form my previous conclusions.

Maybe you should do some more reading there, Bub. Where does it say that if you covet someone you have to kill him? Thou shalt not covet covers things like keeping your cotton picking hands off the neighbour's wife- something wrong with that? I'm not sure which six they are, I don't think it's morally sinful to work Sundays, I don't think you should honour parents who abuse you. I guess the majority of people commit adultery these days, but that doesn't make it right. Stealing and murder are definitely out in my books (under ordinary circumstances). Bearing false witness (perjury) is definitely wrong. So what's your argument there, Bub?

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You speak authoritatively about absolutes, yet I did not notice that you (or anyone) offered their definition of 'morals'.

Stretch back to your university days and think about how on defines morals and ethics. That should be the starting point of this debate.

Now Captain, why would I offer a definition of morals? Morals is a pretty loose, nebulous term, many times it means what a person wants it to mean (e.g. to one person, abortion is an issue of morals, to another abortions is murder, no morality about it). All the more reason to think that there are no moral absolutes. After all, if the term itself is nebulous, how can there be absolutes in it?

 

[JLM]

Now Captain, why would I offer a definition of morals? Morals is a pretty loose, nebulous term, many times it means what a person wants it to mean (e.g. to one person, abortion is an issue of morals, to another abortions is murder, no morality about it). All the more reason to think that there are no moral absolutes. After all, if the term itself is nebulous, how can there be absolutes in it?

Yep, nebulous to say the least. Is there a difference bewteen morals and ethics? My take on it would be when you are acting morally/ethically you are doing nothing to unnecessarily diminish the finances, well being, happiness, mental state or physical condition of another human being, born or unborn. (Never mind S.J.):lol::lol:

 

[YukonJack]

Is killing an unborn baby a moral absolute?

Ask Dr. Henry Mengelethaler or his soul-mate, SirJosephPorter.

 

[L Gilbert]

lol
I just prefer to think of myself as completely without morals. Then I don't worry about morals. I do have principl4es, though, and an important one for me is "live and let live", which I follow as much as I can. (Sticking to a principle come hell-or-high-water is simply foolish because life can be complex at times). So, I don't worry about morals, I only apply my principles.
BTW, "To lay aside all prejudice is to lay aside all principles. He who is destitute of principles is governed, theoretically and practically, by whims."
- Hermann Jacobi
"Everyone is a prisoner of his own experience. No one can eliminate prejudices--just recognize them." Edward R Murrowhttp://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/hermann_jacobi_a001.htm

 

[JLM]

Is killing an unborn baby a moral absolute?

Ask Dr. Henry Mengelethaler or his soul-mate, SirJosephPorter.

You're getting on a "slippery slope" there Y.J. Personally I see Henry Morgantaler as the embodiment of evil but that is just my opinion and has nothing to do with anything. Actually once we personalize morals then the entire argument becomes moot. Adolf Hitler thought it was perfectly moral to euthanize 6 million Jews and god knows how many millions of others including homosexuals. (Actually Hitler's own sexuality has been questioned, so he may be a hypocrite to boot)

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Is killing an unborn baby a moral absolute?

Ask Dr. Henry Mengelethaler or his soul-mate, SirJosephPorter.

I was referring to abortion, Yukon, not killing unborn babies. One has nothing to do with the other. What is an unborn baby anyway? Sounds like something from a horror movie (unborn sounds similar to undead).

 

[JLM]

I was referring to abortion, Yukon, not killing unborn babies. One has nothing to do with the other. What is an unborn baby anyway? Sounds like something from a horror movie (unborn sounds similar to undead).

Of course they are exactly the same thing, one has everything to do with the other.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Of course they are exactly the same thing, one has everything to do with the other.

That is only the conservative (and religious conservative at that) opinion, JLM, we don’t know that for a fact. There is no evidence that it is a live, human baby that is destroyed in an abortion. Abortion is very much a moral issue, the opposition is largely based upon religion.

 

[YukonJack]

"There is no evidence that it is a live, human baby that is destroyed in an abortion."

That sentence should be quoted in all classes, everywhere as the typical example of either gross stupidity or total denial of reality.

 

[captain morgan]

Now Captain, why would I offer a definition of morals? Morals is a pretty loose, nebulous term, many times it means what a person wants it to mean (e.g. to one person, abortion is an issue of morals, to another abortions is murder, no morality about it). All the more reason to think that there are no moral absolutes. After all, if the term itself is nebulous, how can there be absolutes in it?

If you are unable to establish an understanding of what are morals/ethics, then opining about possible absolutes is meaningless.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

If you are unable to establish an understanding of what are morals/ethics, then opining about possible absolutes is meaningless.

Opining about possible absolutes may be meaningless, but saying that they don’t exist is not.

Since morals are a fuzzy concept, you have something when you say that expressing opinion about something that is fuzzy and nebulous is meaningless. However, to say that something is so fuzzy and nebulous that it is doubtful that it exists makes perfect sense (at least to me).