NationStates Jolt Archive


Are There Moral Absolutes?

Mauiwowee
02-12-2004, 08:32
Are there such things as Moral Absolutes? Is rape always rape? Murder always Murder? Etc. or are all moral dictates dependent upon societal norms that change from society to society and time to time - i.e. is moral relatavism "correct" and the idea of moral absolutes "flawed?"
Al-Assyr
02-12-2004, 08:35
yes, morality is relative.

the neohide laws tend to be the basis of a society, since total anarchy (lack of order, not chaos for those who don't know its true meaning) isnt beneficial to a peaceful society. so in that case, some values will remain constant.
Evil Woody Thoughts
02-12-2004, 08:37
Are there such things as Moral Absolutes? Is rape always rape? Murder always Murder? Etc. or are all moral dictates dependent upon societal norms that change from society to society and time to time - i.e. is moral relatavism "correct" and the idea of moral absolutes "flawed?"

Well, I do know this: to say "There are no moral absolutes" is an absolute statement regarding moral absolutes, and therefore self-contradictory. :D
Scouserlande
02-12-2004, 08:37
according to moral relativism no.
In things like utalitarinism, egoism and even situation eithics, a situation could arise where its ok.
Thats why John S Mill wrote On liberty (great essay) where he outlines rule ultalitrianism, where there certain limits, and its what most counties well the good ones use for a moral code today.
Mauiwowee
02-12-2004, 08:37
yes, morality is relative.

the neohide laws tend to be the basis of a society, since total anarchy (lack of order, not chaos for those who don't know its true meaning) isnt beneficial to a peaceful society. so in that case, some values will remain constant.

Wow, my first reply is intelligent, thanks. :)
Armed Bookworms
02-12-2004, 09:06
Certain things are never moral, sometimes a couple could be considered necessary but that would in no way, shape, or form moral.
Los Banditos
02-12-2004, 09:08
Well, I do know this: to say "There are no moral absolutes" is an absolute statement regarding moral absolutes, and therefore self-contradictory. :D

The statement is an absolute but not a moral absolute.

As for the subject at hand, it has to be recognized that in some nations euthanasia is accepted. In some nations, adultery is wrong but it is accepteable in the US. I still question moral relatism though.

I like to believe in an utilitarian system of ethics. I.E. whatever makes the greatest happiness is what makes a decision moral or not.
Evil Woody Thoughts
02-12-2004, 09:13
The statement is an absolute but not a moral absolute.


Damn, did I just fail Philosophy 101?

Seriously, most, if not all cultures seem to have some variation of the Golden Rule, so I would say "treat people as you wish to be treated" would come very close to a moral absolute, even by relativistic standards.
Corbata
02-12-2004, 09:18
I am not a believer of moral absolutes... deontology is not the way I'd choose to structure morality. I prefer consiqeuncialism myself. However, it is my belief that morality is subjective — not to situations, but to the perceptions of the individual. People have different beliefs of what is right and wrong. Even "fundamentals" such as don't kill can seem absurd to someone who sacrifices people for religious beliefs... many would say that is immoral, but he wouldn't see it as immoral at all, but on the contrary, as his duty.

Take that, Kant.
Dobbs Town
02-12-2004, 09:19
Everything is relative, not just morality. Immorality is relative, too. No - wait - they're just two different ways of expressing the same thing...and..now - my - head feels like Louis Del Grande's head in the movie 'Scanners'...

*pops*
Mauiwowee
02-12-2004, 09:32
This is exactly the type of discussion I wanted when I posted this poll, thanks guys. Hopefully more will join. Corbata, I understand your point, but I believe that your could classify "perception" as a "circumstance" under which a decision that is either moral or immoral is made. Someone who engages in human sacrifice because that is what he "percieves" is the correct thing to do is acting under the circumstances present at the time and one of those circumstances is his perception of how things are. However, I will agree with the broad general concept that "perception is reality."

How's that Carlos Castaneda?
Violets and Kitties
02-12-2004, 13:44
Damn, did I just fail Philosophy 101?

Seriously, most, if not all cultures seem to have some variation of the Golden Rule, so I would say "treat people as you wish to be treated" would come very close to a moral absolute, even by relativistic standards.

The Golden Rule is a matter of practicality, not morality. In order to exist with others, then it becomes necessary to form a framework where some degree of trust can be ensured. It works best on a personal or community level where we can see and easily understand the consequences. Share your toys, and it is more likely than not the other children will share as well. Try applying the Golden Rule to business or Wall Street, however, and total chaos and collapse will ensue. Some places only operate because of the fact they are dog-eat-dog.
Torching Witches
02-12-2004, 13:47
The answer is yes, there are moral absolutes.

But there are also grey areas.
Legless Pirates
02-12-2004, 13:48
The question isn't is murder murder? It is are you okay with murder? Or rape?
Eutrusca
02-12-2004, 13:52
Are there such things as Moral Absolutes? Is rape always rape? Murder always Murder? Etc. or are all moral dictates dependent upon societal norms that change from society to society and time to time - i.e. is moral relatavism "correct" and the idea of moral absolutes "flawed?"
Interesting that you set the responder up with an either/or conundrum. I refuse to choose either one.

There are things which are always wrong, such as taking life without necessity, but these aren't "moral absolutes" since logic can demonstrate the need for them. [ film at eleven ]
The God King Eru-sama
02-12-2004, 13:54
Seriously, most, if not all cultures seem to have some variation of the Golden Rule, so I would say "treat people as you wish to be treated" would come very close to a moral absolute, even by relativistic standards.

Evolutionary altruism? Don't tell Ayn Rand.

The answer is yes, there are moral absolutes.
But there are also grey areas.

You know we can't get let you get by contradicting a significant number of people with just a one-liner.

The question isn't is murder murder? It is are you okay with murder? Or rape?

Using terms like "murder" and "rape" is misleading because those are the terms for the unlawful killing of a person and unlawful sexual contact. They are "bad" by definition. The problem is determining if something is rape or murder.
Bowen64
02-12-2004, 13:54
If a woman (or man) says no then it is rape....all other "moral" subjects are circumstantial. :sniper:
Feight
02-12-2004, 15:03
as with EVERYTHING in life there are no actual absolutes, reactions don't go only one way in chemistry (all reactions are bi directional, its just how much in one direction they can go [research chemical equilibrium for proof]), love is not just an in-out thing, or a white knight on a horse.

Everything is GREY nothing is black, nothing is white, just which end of the spectrum do you sit.

I believe everything is relative, morals especially since they are as individual as our own personalities, they are born from our own sense of right and wrong, and while some people don't believe in say, hitting a woman, others would do so if she asked.
Styvonia
02-12-2004, 15:19
If a woman (or man) says no then it is rape....all other "moral" subjects are circumstantial. :sniper:

rape is a bad example, a better question may be

although rape is morally wrong, does being a rapist automatically make you evil?

Please note that I do not condone rape nor the people that do it, etc etc...
Crabcake Baba Ganoush
02-12-2004, 15:31
I haven’t heard of any absolutes in terms of morality. Things that one person deems to be immoral, yet another person may find to be perfectly acceptable, or at least partially acceptable.
Styvonia
02-12-2004, 15:35
I haven’t heard of any absolutes in terms of morality. Things that one person deems to be immoral, yet another person may find to be perfectly acceptable, or at least partially acceptable.

Most people that do believe in moral absolutes can change their mind after hearing a single good example.
Jeldred
02-12-2004, 16:22
There is no objective measure of "morality". It is not a physical property like "volume" or "mass". As such, it only exists within the brains of individuals. Therefore, although an individual may have something that they would describe at a given point in time as being a "moral absolute", this is a purely personal and subjective opinion, and can be subject to change.

For example, I regard killing people as morally wrong -- killing any people, for any reason. My personal morality means that I think it is wrong to kill even in self-defence. That, of course, may be subject to change, if push ever comes to shove. Am I prepared to be a martyr to my own morality? With luck I'll never have to find out.

I also think rape is immoral, and -- as far as I can know -- I would never commit rape. However, the definition of "rape" has changed over time: until relatively recently it was regarded as impossible for a husband to rape his wife, as consent was deemed to have been given in perpetuity on marriage. I think that such legally-sanctioned rape is still rape, and is still immoral; but some other people, particularly from a couple of hundred years ago, would have no moral problems with it. They'd probably be more likely to see the wife as "immoral", for refusing to do her marital duties.
Farthingsworth
02-12-2004, 16:26
I believe in moral absolutes.

I believe that, while cultures may be at odds concerning property rights, and even what can be considered property, no one can take something that belongs to another simply because he or she wants it.

I believe that, while communities may haggle over sexual roles and responsibilities, all consider it wrong to take anyone, at any time, just because you are unable to control your passions.

Capital punishment is debatable, but killing another person on a whim, or for selfish purposes, such as a desire for their property, status, or spouse, has been wrong through the ages.

One may argue the merits of socialized medicine or welfare in any given society, but attending the needs of widows and orphans has been considered Good from the beginning.
Hakartopia
02-12-2004, 16:48
'Moral absolutes' and a convenient excuse for people who don't like to think about a subject and/or cannot deal with the idea their views might not be justified.
Anglolia
02-12-2004, 16:51
Wow, what a coincidence. I just finished reading a whole chapter on moral relativism and my head's thrumming with ideas :D

I would like to believe in moral relativism but, as with all philosophical theories, there are criticisms. And with moral relativism the criticisms are pretty damning. These criticisms fall around three main arguments:

1) relativists are inconsistent

moral relativists claim all moral judgements are relative but at the same time want us to believe that the theory of moral relativism is absolutely true. They also believe that all moral judgements are relative to society and that societies shouldn't interfere with each other - yet this second belief is surely an example of an absolute moral judgement!

2) what counts as a society?

within each society there are subcultures that commit what is deemed immoral acts by society at large (e.g. use of recreational drugs). At what point is a subculture deemed a seperate entity from the larger society and therefore any attempt to morally change this culture becomes an immoral act?

3) no moral criticism of a society's values

if moral judgements are defined in terms of that society's central values, no critic of these central values can use moral judgements against tham e.g. if a society's central value is that women can't vote, then any attempt by an individual to enfranchise women would be an immoral act

all of the above is a kinda explanation as to why I'm holding out til I can either create my own ethical theory or til a suitable one is created which I can adopt :D
Joey P
02-12-2004, 17:00
I think there are some moral absolutes. They are hard-wired into us by evolution. Why I think this is true is because you find in most every culture some of the same taboos. Incest, murder of others within the culture (outsiders are fair game), rape, etc.
Ysjerond
02-12-2004, 17:04
I like to believe in an utilitarian system of ethics. I.E. whatever makes the greatest happiness is what makes a decision moral or not.
How do you quantify happiness? Is completely destroying one innocent person's happiness worth marginally increasing the happiness of everyone else in the world? How do you predict which actions will generate the most happiness without performing them? That philosophy sounds good until you think about it, but it brings up moral conundrums, as well as being totally impossible to actually act upon.

I believe in moral absolutes.

I believe that, while cultures may be at odds concerning property rights, and even what can be considered property, no one can take something that belongs to another simply because he or she wants it.
Except the government can tax us and exercize imminent domain... And in some societies, there may not be any real property rights at all.

I believe that, while communities may haggle over sexual roles and responsibilities, all consider it wrong to take anyone, at any time, just because you are unable to control your passions.
Rape isn't about passion. It's about power. I can't think of any time when nonconsensual sex is appropriate, but there are societies geared toward exercizing the same or a greater degree of power over some segment of the population.

Capital punishment is debatable, but killing another person on a whim, or for selfish purposes, such as a desire for their property, status, or spouse, has been wrong through the ages.
Just how far do "selfish purposes" extend? Does it include human sacrifice to appease whatever supernatural forces govern harvests? Does it include formal duels over personal honor?

One may argue the merits of socialized medicine or welfare in any given society, but attending the needs of widows and orphans has been considered Good from the beginning.
Unless your culture lives in an area with a resource crunch, where it's hard to keep yourself and your own children fed and safe. In such a case, trying to support extra children without parents could wind up starving the entire community.

Of course, even with all these variations from one society to another, I have yet to encounter a single argument in favor of total moral relativism that is not demonstrably fallacious. Most of them, with sufficient logical investigation, come around and bite their own heads off.
Demented Hamsters
02-12-2004, 17:07
I guess the thing to do here is to think of some scenarios that have Moral Absolutes and see if anyone can argue otherwise. And I realise and accept that this doesn't mean of course that by doing so, you're endorsing such actions - it is just a philisophical discusion.

I'll start the ball rolling:

Having sex with a corpse.

I don't know of any culture that tolerates this practise, so do we therefore accept that it is a Moral Absolute or not?
Texan Hotrodders
02-12-2004, 17:17
The Golden Rule is a matter of practicality, not morality.

One does not exclude the other. Moral systems can be based entirely on practicality. See Utilitarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism).
Jeldred
02-12-2004, 17:19
Wow, what a coincidence. I just finished reading a whole chapter on moral relativism and my head's thrumming with ideas :D

I would like to believe in moral relativism but, as with all philosophical theories, there are criticisms. And with moral relativism the criticisms are pretty damning. These criticisms fall around three main arguments:

1) relativists are inconsistent

moral relativists claim all moral judgements are relative but at the same time want us to believe that the theory of moral relativism is absolutely true. They also believe that all moral judgements are relative to society and that societies shouldn't interfere with each other - yet this second belief is surely an example of an absolute moral judgement!

A statement can be true AND morally neutral. Saying that "all moral judgements are relative" (or, better, "there is no objective measure of morality; therefore there is no moral scale; and therefore the positioning of any action on any moral scale is purely subjective and therefore relative") is not in itself a moral judgement -- unless you want to get theological, and claim that an absolute moral scale DOES exist and is contained in one or other Big Book o' Bullshit. Although then I would have to regard your choice of BBoB as subjective and we'd get nowhere. :)

EDIT: I admit that the second argument -- that societies shouldn't interfere with each other -- IS morally weighted. Personally, I disagree. If I see something I feel is morally reprehensible, I'd like to change it.

2) what counts as a society?

within each society there are subcultures that commit what is deemed immoral acts by society at large (e.g. use of recreational drugs). At what point is a subculture deemed a seperate entity from the larger society and therefore any attempt to morally change this culture becomes an immoral act?

The definition of a "society" is also subjective, therefore any conclusions drawn will be subjective.

3) no moral criticism of a society's values

if moral judgements are defined in terms of that society's central values, no critic of these central values can use moral judgements against tham e.g. if a society's central value is that women can't vote, then any attempt by an individual to enfranchise women would be an immoral act

all of the above is a kinda explanation as to why I'm holding out til I can either create my own ethical theory or til a suitable one is created which I can adopt :D

Morality is personal. It is acquired partly through education (socially derived), partly through experience (also mediated by society), and partly through introspection and personal consideration (still, to an extent, socially derived. I don't believe in God, for example, but I freely admit that my personal morality is influenced by Judeo-Christian values -- which are themselves influenced by neoPlatonism, Persian mysticism and a whole bunch of other stuff stretching as far back as you care to go).

Because morality is both personal and influenced by society, it is possible for individuals to find their own morality at odds with that of their society. Gradually, for various complex, interconnected and interdependent reasons, social norms can change and something can go from being largely regarded as moral to largely regarded as immoral in the space of a few generations. For example, hitting your children: it hasn't taken us long to get from "spare the rod and spoil the child" to "drop that stick you inhuman monster". And a bloody good thing too, IMO -- but then that of course has been mediated by the society, and family, I was brought up in.
Jeldred
02-12-2004, 17:40
I guess the thing to do here is to think of some scenarios that have Moral Absolutes and see if anyone can argue otherwise. And I realise and accept that this doesn't mean of course that by doing so, you're endorsing such actions - it is just a philisophical discusion.

I'll start the ball rolling:

Having sex with a corpse.

I don't know of any culture that tolerates this practise, so do we therefore accept that it is a Moral Absolute or not?

Offhand, I can't think of one, although that doesn't mean it is a moral absolute. Come to think of it, though, a central aspect of one of the Egyptian creation myths involved Isis having sex with the corpse of her brother Osiris. Admittedly this is legendary, not actual, necrophiliac incest, but since it was central to the creation of mankind it was presumably deemed to be a moral act by the Egyptians.

The problem with trying to find if anyone objects to a list of, to say the least, unusual activities is that, no matter how extreme, it's still subjective. Take coprophagia: it's unlikely to be "tolerated" in any cultures, although, speaking personally, what people do to themselves behind closed doors is their own affair. So I have no objection to it, as long as I don't have to see it, hear it, smell it, or know about it. I suppose the same would apply to necrophilia.
Quorm
02-12-2004, 18:12
Morality is, I think, quite generally relative since any act can be justified under the right circumstances. I tried to find counter examples, and realized that even something as extreme as killing everyone on earth could be justified if it was done to prevent everyone from being tortured and then killed, and there was no alternative.

Basically, unless you can come up with a worst possible act, anything could be justified to prevent something worse.

And before anyone jumps on me, I don't believe everything is relative, but some things are, and I believe morality is one of them.

However, there are a number of things that for all intents and purposes we should treat as moral absolutes. For instance, killing someone is an irrevocable act, and the decision to do it is inevitably based on error prone human reasoning. Your average human being is unlikely to go wrong with the absolute rule "do not kill", and it's better to treat it as an absolute, than to depend on good judgement.
Quorm
02-12-2004, 18:47
Offhand, I can't think of one, although that doesn't mean it is a moral absolute. Come to think of it, though, a central aspect of one of the Egyptian creation myths involved Isis having sex with the corpse of her brother Osiris. Admittedly this is legendary, not actual, necrophiliac incest, but since it was central to the creation of mankind it was presumably deemed to be a moral act by the Egyptians.

The problem with trying to find if anyone objects to a list of, to say the least, unusual activities is that, no matter how extreme, it's still subjective. Take coprophagia: it's unlikely to be "tolerated" in any cultures, although, speaking personally, what people do to themselves behind closed doors is their own affair. So I have no objection to it, as long as I don't have to see it, hear it, smell it, or know about it. I suppose the same would apply to necrophilia.

You just wanted to use the word coprophagia :D. And that's not something I needed to think about around lunch time :P.
Communist Opressors
02-12-2004, 19:23
I think there are moral absolutes, mostly becuase they are just practical to have. Incest for example is seen as immoral in all the cultures i know of most likely becuase it produces deformed children. Although there are no negitive ramifacations to it(that i know) i still think beastalence is to far, expsecial if they marry the animal. I Hope you agree. :D
Portu Cale
02-12-2004, 19:28
I believe in moral absolutes.

I believe that, while cultures may be at odds concerning property rights, and even what can be considered property, no one can take something that belongs to another simply because he or she wants it.

I believe that, while communities may haggle over sexual roles and responsibilities, all consider it wrong to take anyone, at any time, just because you are unable to control your passions.

Capital punishment is debatable, but killing another person on a whim, or for selfish purposes, such as a desire for their property, status, or spouse, has been wrong through the ages.

One may argue the merits of socialized medicine or welfare in any given society, but attending the needs of widows and orphans has been considered Good from the beginning.

a) Many cultures, especially primitive ones, don't have a concept of property. Even in our days, some primitive brazillian indian tribes do not even have the word for property. It is theoretically acceptable that if you end scarcity (in all forms) the concept of property will become (somewhat) void (this is what communists want, but that's a philosofical supersticion).

b) "taking anyone at a time" Well, that is a matter of phisycal strengh, i can grab a woman and take her as my own, just because im stronger, if no one comes to help her. (i don't follow your reasoning)

c) About this, to give an example: In Aztec Culture, being sacrificed was an honor. Curiously, the aztecs would bestow the honor of being sacrificed to slaves and war prisioners, but this was out of religious faith, like if they were "saving their souls", as it his known that noble aztecs, princes, having returned victorious from battle, would request, as reward, to be sacrificed.

d) I can say that im medieval cultures, orphans would have to do for their own lives. Hell, even today, in many countries, this is what happens, and no one cares. About widows, many have to fend off by themselves, even in our societies.
Portu Cale
02-12-2004, 19:29
I think there are moral absolutes, mostly becuase they are just practical to have. Incest for example is seen as immoral in all the cultures i know of most likely becuase it produces deformed children. Although there are no negitive ramifacations to it(that i know) i still think beastalence is to far, expsecial if they marry the animal. I Hope you agree. :D


Wasnt it the Habsburg dinasty that had lots of inbreeding?
Armed Bookworms
02-12-2004, 19:47
No moral absolutes eh? What would the "moral" justification be exactly for raping a completely innocent 6 year old girl repeatedly?
Portu Cale
02-12-2004, 19:51
No moral absolutes eh? What would the "moral" justification be exactly for raping a completely innocent 6 year old girl repeatedly?


Rituals, pleasure out of an inhuman being (should you consider a 6 year old girl inhuman. The nazis considered the Jews inhuman).
Terra - Domina
02-12-2004, 19:55
No moral absolutes eh? What would the "moral" justification be exactly for raping a completely innocent 6 year old girl repeatedly?

lol

first off, for something to be a moral absolute, it must be true, in all cases, and not just subject to humanity.

Rape is a compleatly sociatal concept. My guinea pig raped the other and now there are (ever so cute) babies. The female would run from him, but i guess he enentually just overpowered her. Is this rape? or is this procreation?

so, unless you are saying that a creature engaging in intercourse with a child of their (or any) species is immoral, it is impossible to make this claim

law does not equal morality

OH, what if a man had sex with a puppy? is that child molestation? what if the dog wanted it?
Rasados
02-12-2004, 19:57
yes.there is one moral absolute.
it is wrong to harm another except in the defense of the extended self.
every single law if it truly is intended to help people falls under that ONE rule.

see how simple morality is?
Taka
02-12-2004, 19:58
Morality is dictated by Culture and society, to say that there is moral absolutism is naievity. There are many cultures, the American culture for one, where murder is an acceptable form of punishment. In some ancient cultures and a few newer cultures, rape was acceptable under cetain cirucmstances. The romans saw nothing wrong with homosexuality, the Arabs had a form of legitimate pedophilia (taking the young boys of thier captives and using them for sex to keep themselves from commiting adultry), canabalism was practiced in many cultures, and recreation drug use is seen by many peoples to be a spiritual experience. The circumstances and the culture dictate wether something is moraly wrong, not the act itself. A couple who engage in roleplaying rape is performing the same act as a man who abducts and rapes a woman off the street. . . the difference is the social context, in this case, concent.
Bottle
02-12-2004, 20:00
Are there such things as Moral Absolutes? Is rape always rape? Murder always Murder? Etc. or are all moral dictates dependent upon societal norms that change from society to society and time to time - i.e. is moral relatavism "correct" and the idea of moral absolutes "flawed?"
no, there are no moral absolutes. yes, there is an act which is called "rape," meaning to have sexual relations with a person who is not consenting, and there is an act called "murder" which is the unlawful taking of a human life. whether or not these acts are immoral is subjective, but their definitions (as terms) are fixed bits of language.

morality is a human construct, and will vary as humanity does. what is moral to one culture is immoral to another, and none can claim any objective "rightness" because to do so would require them to first agree on a standard by which rightness is judged...and obviously they never will do that.
Armed Bookworms
02-12-2004, 20:04
lol

first off, for something to be a moral absolute, it must be true, in all cases, and not just subject to humanity.

Rape is a compleatly sociatal concept. My guinea pig raped the other and now there are (ever so cute) babies. The female would run from him, but i guess he enentually just overpowered her. Is this rape? or is this procreation?

so, unless you are saying that a creature engaging in intercourse with a child of their (or any) species is immoral, it is impossible to make this claim

law does not equal morality

OH, what if a man had sex with a puppy? is that child molestation? what if the dog wanted it?Sooo, the female guinea pig cringes away from the male anytime he approaches then? Interesting. I have yet to see a justification for it.
Armed Bookworms
02-12-2004, 20:05
Morality is dictated by Culture and society, to say that there is moral absolutism is naievity. There are many cultures, the American culture for one, where murder is an acceptable form of punishment. In some ancient cultures and a few newer cultures, rape was acceptable under cetain cirucmstances. The romans saw nothing wrong with homosexuality, the Arabs had a form of legitimate pedophilia (taking the young boys of thier captives and using them for sex to keep themselves from commiting adultry), canabalism was practiced in many cultures, and recreation drug use is seen by many peoples to be a spiritual experience. The circumstances and the culture dictate wether something is moraly wrong, not the act itself. A couple who engage in roleplaying rape is performing the same act as a man who abducts and rapes a woman off the street. . . the difference is the social context, in this case, concent.
No, it's not, one can assume that the female in the first act will be traumatized like the female in the second act. Or would you care to dispute that?
Portu Cale
02-12-2004, 20:20
No, it's not, one can assume that the female in the first act will be traumatized like the female in the second act. Or would you care to dispute that?

Likely the second female will be traumatized. But put her in a society were rape is common, and she will accept it as "tough luck", just as many muslim women, in the most backward muslim countries (oopsy, me being a moralist), accept the ill treatment given to them by men.
Portu Cale
02-12-2004, 20:22
Sooo, the female guinea pig cringes away from the male anytime he approaches then? Interesting. I have yet to see a justification for it.

Running away from pain is a natural instinct. And breeding, mating, whatever, sometimes hurts :p
UNCW Seahawk
02-12-2004, 20:47
I am going to interchange the words moral absolutes and absolute truth here, but there is one thing that does not make sense to anyone who claims that there is no absolute truth or morality. In making that statement you have created an absolute truth, that there are no absolutes is an absolute .
Armed Bookworms
02-12-2004, 20:51
Likely the second female will be traumatized. But put her in a society were rape is common, and she will accept it as "tough luck", just as many muslim women, in the most backward muslim countries (oopsy, me being a moralist), accept the ill treatment given to them by men.
Many do, but some see the alternatives in the world, no matter how faint, and strive to reach them.
Portu Cale
02-12-2004, 20:51
I am going to interchange the words moral absolutes and absolute truth here, but there is one thing that does not make sense to anyone who claims that there is no absolute truth or morality. In making that statement you have created an absolute truth, that there are no absolutes is an absolute .


A truth is applied to a fact.
Morals are opinions on facts, not truths themselves.

i.e.

I kill you. This his a fact, this is true.
Killing you was either right or wrong. That is an opinion, than doesnt change the truth that i killed you.
Portu Cale
02-12-2004, 20:54
Many do, but some see the alternatives in the world, no matter how faint, and strive to reach them.


And I hope that many more see such alternatives, i.e., that many more accept MY moral view. But this does not change the fact that there are other sets of morals, that may disagree with mine, i.e. that have other moral views, and there is nothing i can do about it. Well, I can either tolerate or not, but that is another longggg discussion.
Terra - Domina
02-12-2004, 20:55
Sooo, the female guinea pig cringes away from the male anytime he approaches then? Interesting. I have yet to see a justification for it.

lol, not really

they would play sometimes and not others (they are seperate now, im not farming them)

they are guinea pigs, their consious and brain probably arent that developed to hold these humanistic relationship and sexual stigmas that humans do. Its more like "you havent tried to rape me in my consious memory, so now we play"

then again, im not a guinea pig behavioural psychologist
Pikistan
02-12-2004, 21:09
Morality is not absolute. The definition of right and wrong changes as society evolves. What one group of people consider to be acceptible may be abhorred (I just love that word) in others. Take cannibalism for example. Western society is mortified by the prospect of eating other people, but until recently it was somewhat common in certain indiginous South American and Pacific cultures.

It also changes with time, because society changes with time. Something we forbid or allow now may be allowed or forbidden in the future. Some ancient cultures had vastly different definitions of right and wrong than we do today. The Aztecs with their human sacrifices would be one example.

The definition of morality fluctuates depending on time period and the culture in question.
Personal responsibilit
02-12-2004, 21:13
Moral absolutes are difficult to know, given that we are all flawed human beings that have in someway or another seperated ourselves from the author of all true knowledge. God has given at least 10 moral absolutes that are, essentially, subsets subsets of "love God with your whole heart, mind, body and soul" and "love others as you love yourself". Our capacity to even understand every neuance of these absolutes is severely limited, but that is a flaw on our part, not on the part of the absolutes. As we grow closer to God in relationship our understand of these absolutes grows and becomes more like His perfect knowledge.
Violets and Kitties
02-12-2004, 21:30
No moral absolutes eh? What would the "moral" justification be exactly for raping a completely innocent 6 year old girl repeatedly?

Suppose a situation (hostage or something like that) where repeatedly raping one 6 year old girl would spare ten other 6 year old girls from getting raped repeatedly.

I am going to interchange the words moral absolutes and absolute truth here, but there is one thing that does not make sense to anyone who claims that there is no absolute truth or morality. In making that statement you have created an absolute truth, that there are no absolutes is an absolute .

The fallacy lies in saying that morality and truth are of the same quality. Truth is objective reality. Morals are subjective.
Armed Bookworms
02-12-2004, 21:34
Suppose a situation (hostage or something like that) where repeatedly raping one 6 year old girl would spare ten other 6 year old girls from getting raped repeatedly.



The fallacy lies in saying that morality and truth are of the same quality. Truth is objective reality. Morals are subjective.
Heh, no. If such a situation were to pass, I would stop all the rapes or die trying, and I would expect any other adult to do the same. Please note, I did mention that some might be necessary, but just because something is necessary does not grant it morality.

That and truth is just as subjective as morality, for if truth were just the facts, we wouldn't heve the word truth. In fact, truth is the facts processed through a person's lens of morality when you get right down to it.
Personal responsibilit
02-12-2004, 21:36
Suppose a situation (hostage or something like that) where repeatedly raping one 6 year old girl would spare ten other 6 year old girls from getting raped repeatedly.



The fallacy lies in saying that morality and truth are of the same quality. Truth is objective reality. Morals are subjective.


I guess I'd have to say that the truth of the situation would be that both behaviors are violations of the moral absolute and you are simply making a choice between one violation or another.
Alexithagoras
02-12-2004, 21:38
As a secular humanist, some may find it strange that I voted "yes" on the above poll.

I absolutely believe that there are certain aspects of human morality that are universal, even if not everyone follows those beliefs - this code can be sumed up as the Social Contract. In short, this view means that all morality comes from a necessity of co-operation for survival and happiness that all human societies must necessarily be founded upon. The specifics of what makes human societies work and its members happy may vary, but the desire for prosperity, security and the pursuit of happiness are universal.

Of course not everyone believes as I do. As a secular humanist, certain divine laws mean exactly jack-shit to me, but those same laws are universal moral codes to some more religious groups.

C'est la vie
Taka
02-12-2004, 22:11
No, it's not, one can assume that the female in the first act will be traumatized like the female in the second act. Or would you care to dispute that?

Not nessisarly, if the couple concents then the act is the same but the ramifications are not the same. If I go out and grope the first good looking girl I see, the ramification (me getting the crap kicked out of me) is different than if I were to grope my girlfriend (me getting looked at strangly) because of the social context that the action took place in. If you make the argument that morality is absolute, then that same morality is always right or alway wrong no matter the circumstance. To state that Rape is always wrong is to apply your social context on every other culture to define rape. In many countries in the middle east, rape between husband and wife is considered normal, in America, it's considered unaccpetable. In Japan for a while, there was a ceramony known as Bukkake, where unfaithful women were essential raped by the entire village. To them, this was not immoral, rather it was considered the moral thing to do. . . to Americans, this practice would elicit federal sexual abuse charges.

Finaly, Absolute Truth and Absolute morality are compeltly different things. Morality is dictated by society, ergo you can not dictat morality for anyone outside your society, to do so is ethnocentrism at it's worst. Absolute truth on the other hand is based in fact and while open and free to scrutinize, it has no debatable points. To state that Murder is wrong is a moral statement, open to interpritation based on circumstance and social surroundings. To state that murder ends a life and damages American society by breaking its closly knit mores and norms is an undisputable fact no matter where you are, and thus is an Absolute Truth.
BastardSword
02-12-2004, 22:28
Yes there are moral absolutes. There are also a few grey imperfect duties that are not supposed to be regulated by morals but are anyway.

Rape is always wrong. I'd like to see the argument for this procedure.

Murder is wrong. Not killing, but murder. Heavenly Father meant Thou shall not murder if you know the history of Jewish words and their translations.

Morally you should not blasphymy your own religion. Example a Christian who wants to stay a Christian saying stuff about Jesus. An Aethists saying it would not truly be blasphymy in this context but people think otherwise sadly.

To state that murder ends a life and damages American society by breaking its closly knit mores and norms is an undisputable fact no matter where you are, and thus is an Absolute Truth.

Because you said America... that only works about people favorable to America. Those like Osama Bin Laden is all for murder in America. So he would not agree.
Slaytanicca
02-12-2004, 22:38
There's no point to anything. Good and evil are fairytales.
Evil Woody Thoughts
02-12-2004, 23:01
Morally you should not blasphymy your own religion. Example a Christian who wants to stay a Christian saying stuff about Jesus. An Aethists saying it would not truly be blasphymy in this context but people think otherwise sadly.

And what 'stuff about Jesus' are you talking about here? Are you saying that if I'm a Christian and I quote the Sermon on the Mount, that that is blasphemy, because I am repeating His sermon? Please clarify...
:confused:
Armed Bookworms
02-12-2004, 23:05
There's no point to anything. Good and evil are fairytales.
We are the magic makers, we are the dreamers of dreams.
Slaytanicca
02-12-2004, 23:22
We are the magic makers, we are the dreamers of dreams.
A little nonsense now and then is relished by the wisest men :)
Quorm
02-12-2004, 23:25
Yes there are moral absolutes. There are also a few grey imperfect duties that are not supposed to be regulated by morals but are anyway.

Rape is always wrong. I'd like to see the argument for this procedure.

Murder is wrong. Not killing, but murder. Heavenly Father meant Thou shall not murder if you know the history of Jewish words and their translations.


You can always imagine a situation where an act, however despicable in iteself, prevents something worse. If some madman wanted a girl raped, and would kill her if you didn't do it, what would the moral choice be? (assuming you don't have the power to stop him some other way)

Obviously this example is contrived, but in principle it is still valid, and if you're claiming rape is wrong as an absolute, that means that it must be wrong in all conceivable situations.

If by murder you mean unjustified killing, then of course it's never justified, but this isn't much of an absolute since it depends heavily on circumstance.

Morality really has to be relative to make sense. It can seem very close to absolute, and I'm not arguing that anything can be viewed as moral; there are certainly acts that are absolutely immoral, just not whole classes of acts. The only absolutes you'll run into in morality are on a case by case basis (i.e. it was absolutely wrong to kill the kitten for no reason at all).

Of course, having to judge case by case is what makes morality such a difficult problem. You have to take into account all the possible consequences of your action, and it isn't really possible to be sure in many cases, that's why we have moral 'absolutes'. They act as rules to stick to when we're not sure.
Mauiwowee
03-12-2004, 04:11
Morality is, I think, quite generally relative since any act can be justified under the right circumstances. . . anything could be justified to prevent something worse.

The question then becomes, just because it is justified, is it morally right? Maybe I should have posed the question "are their absolute rights and wrongs?" For example, taking a man and strapping him to a table and injecting a lethal dose of sodium pentathol into him is murder, it is planned, pre-meditated and calculated. But if that man is being punished because he raped and murdered 7 small girls, then his murder by society will be justified as "payback" or "vengence" or "punishment" for what he did to the children. However, just becuase it is justified, does not make it morally right.

Likewise, If presented with the choice: I either forcibly sodomize one 6 year old boy or 50 six year old boys will be forcibly sodomized by others, my sodomization of the boy is still morally wrong. However, as the result of my options in the matter, my choice will be justified. Choosing the lesser of two evils does not make the one chosen any less evil, it is just the "lesser" of the evils, it is still morally wrong.

Finally, people keep trying to come up with examples of moral abolutes, but they talk about rape, murder, etc. What about this: I'm walking on the river bank and I see a small child drowing in the river and I have the ability to save the child. Wouldn't I be acting immorally if I did not save the child? Can you give me a situation where it would be moral to let the child drown?
Slaytanicca
03-12-2004, 04:42
If you were tethered to a pram..
Mauiwowee
03-12-2004, 05:01
If you were tethered to a pram..

No, I disagree, in that situation, again I have to choose between the lesser of two evils, both are still evil though. Also, I could take the baby out of the pram and lay it on the ground and go rescue the drowing child and come back to the baby and put it back in the pram (sorry, my practical side got in the way of my philosophical side).
Slaytanicca
03-12-2004, 05:52
Sorry, I was being facetious.
I guess the standard "OMGZ what if that kid was Hitlar" response won't work.
Power of Brunette
03-12-2004, 05:58
Absolutes are unobtainable, but it's certainly worthwhile to set high standards and work toward a pro-survival goal. Ethical standards do have to be set pretty high though.
Slaytanicca
03-12-2004, 05:58
Oh, I think I see what you mean now.. you're asking if it can ever be totally moral, not just a lesser of two evils? No, I believe it can't. We all do it every day. Life's shit.
Slaytanicca
03-12-2004, 06:44
Guess it depends.. there are a few discrete catagories - screwing someone over for no forseeable gain for yourself, screwing someone over for benefit for yourself, screwing someone over for greater overall gain (even if it's yourself, Benthamic utilitarianism) and so-on. Maybe I'll make an exhaustive list, probably there's a few about. Then you look at game-theory and shit, and worry about tallies of profit and so-forth, I guess in terms of happiness and basically passing on genes (which I reckon our happiness is hardwired to mirror, in potential at least pretty much, and remembering that any fellow human being shares an ungodly high percentage of genes with yourself, and that this crap is hardwired..) and wonder if we've evolved to the stage where protection and proliferation of concepts are as important to us as genetic material, or if that's just a function of the latter (probably). Than, after charting up this scorecard for everyone remember they just chuck it in the bin on leaving this mortal coil, because it only matters because we percieve it, and when we stop percieving it it really doesn't matter..

There. I'm not on crack, honestly :)
Zincite
03-12-2004, 06:47
I'm not entirely sure. On the one hand, I am inclined to say yes on the basis that my own moral code, whatever its specific details, is based on one or two key principles that are nearly, if not entirely, universal. On the other hand, these principles wouldn't necessarily have to be present in all cultures - and other people do interpret them differently. So in this sense even this universality is relative.

It reminds me of the Ender's Game series. It raises questions in the first book with the Buggers/Formics in that, since they have no individual consciousness, is it murder to kill all of the bodies if you leave the queen? It also raises questions in the latter three books with the piggy-creatures, don't remember their name, that eat their way out of the mother and when killed, morph into trees. So are either of those acts murder either?

....
Overt Flatulence
03-12-2004, 07:01
Ah agree wi' th' prevailin' view 'at thaur ur nae moral feckin' absolutes. Morality is aye viewed in th' context ay a society. Thus, it is possible tae make a moral argument in favur ay pedophilia, slavery, incest an' other sic' things.

Havin' feckin' said thes, lit it be knoon 'at in th' Free Lain ay Overt Flatulence th' moral lines ur aye drawn by th' viewpoint ay its fowk an' we Flatulencians fully reject pedophilia an' slavery. We ur feckin' indifferent abit incest.



Phineas Flogg
Formal God Almighty
Free Lain ay Overt Flatulence
The Resurgent Dream
03-12-2004, 07:25
Damn, did I just fail Philosophy 101?

Seriously, most, if not all cultures seem to have some variation of the Golden Rule, so I would say "treat people as you wish to be treated" would come very close to a moral absolute, even by relativistic standards.

Kind of but that's very subjective. I mean, how you want to be treated might well not be where their life is going. What if I were a masochist? I'm not, but hypothetically, if I were, should I go around whipping people because I would want to be whipped? Of course not. A similar, but I think better and more precise way of saying that, is to say "Act only in such a way that you treat other persons as ends in themselves and never as means to an end." Yeah, I'm a Kantian.
Mauiwowee
04-12-2004, 06:54
bump
Rhellis
04-12-2004, 08:22
As a (admittedly) self-described Utilitarian, it might be interesting to note that I said "yes" to the question. Then again, it might not; be that as it may, there is one absolute moral truth that all actions should strive for: the Greater Good, elusive, shifty, and hard to determine though it may be. In instances where it can be demonstrated that at least one action leads to a greater amount of happiness than all others, then any action taken other than that one is immoral. Admittedly, though, such clear-cut cases where the Greater Good can be demonstrated are very few. In all other cases, we must guess and hope for the best.
AnarchyeL
04-12-2004, 08:23
I am not a believer of moral absolutes... deontology is not the way I'd choose to structure morality. I prefer consiqeuncialism myself. However, it is my belief that morality is subjective — not to situations, but to the perceptions of the individual. People have different beliefs of what is right and wrong. Even "fundamentals" such as don't kill can seem absurd to someone who sacrifices people for religious beliefs... many would say that is immoral, but he wouldn't see it as immoral at all, but on the contrary, as his duty.

Take that, Kant.

Not so fast. While it is true that some cultures may find it acceptable to sacrifice human beings, but we do not, there is still a shared absolute rule against killing outside of certain formal exceptions. We believe that killing is okay in cases of self-defense, law enforcement, and war. Other societies may have other excusable killings as well, such as duels, games, or simple revenge. The point is, all societies share a basic prohibition against murder. What varies are the exceptions--the exceptions, that is, to the rule.
The God King Eru-sama
04-12-2004, 14:23
Not so fast. While it is true that some cultures may find it acceptable to sacrifice human beings, but we do not, there is still a shared absolute rule against killing outside of certain formal exceptions. We believe that killing is okay in cases of self-defense, law enforcement, and war. Other societies may have other excusable killings as well, such as duels, games, or simple revenge. The point is, all societies share a basic prohibition against murder. What varies are the exceptions--the exceptions, that is, to the rule.

Not really. The problem is determining what exactly is murder.
Hebrew Heartthrobs
04-12-2004, 14:39
For an individual being, there is only a moral absolute, but for a "society" at large, moral absolutes are impossible to achieve due to differing moral absolutes among the constituency.
Mauiwowee
05-12-2004, 01:32
My question is though, just because a society accepts it as justified, does that make it morally "right" or just acceptable, even though morally it is wrong? Legally right and wrong and morally right and wrong do not equal each other (Look at the O.J. Simpson case if you want proof of that).