toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours

Status
Not open for further replies.

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for November 5th, 2009 09:48 AM


toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ourself? Or is right and wrong determined by God?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
 

Poly

Blessed beyond measure
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ourself?

It seems to me that claiming to have your own personal standard of right and wrong is rather arrogant. Why is yours better than somebody else's? How do you go about deciding what yours will be? What gives you the right to even form your own opinion and make your own personal checklist of the rights and wrongs of your choosing?
 

Dark Radiance

New member
I would say that reason which is informed by faith is the way in which we discover objective morality. It is also of vital importance that we realize that objective morality is not some abstract and remote concept, but something which is firmly rooted in the dignity of the person adequately considered"(i.e. holistically and relationally).
 

elohiym

Well-known member
toldailytopic said:
Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ourself? Or is right and wrong determined by God?

Why can't it be both?

I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
 

DocJohnson

New member
mor⋅al [adjective]

1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical.

2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing.

3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom.

mor⋅al [noun]

1. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.

2. the embodiment or type of something.

3. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

...

stand⋅ard [noun]

1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.

2. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment.

3. standards, those morals, ethics, habits, etc., established by authority, custom, or an individual as acceptable.

...

If we allow the absence of a universal moral standard, we invite total chaos and anarchy. As was pointed out on another thread, all you have to do is look at the news to see that the world we live in is not subjected to a universal standard of morality.

To develop a universal moral standard, however, would require an entity that understands every aspect of human psyche, has the ability to calculate and consider infinite outcomes, and is essentially atemporal. Since that does not describe humans, is it possible to develop such a standard?

Who or what should be the ultimate authority?

The reason why Atheism exists is because they do not want to be bound by an outside influence. They would rather be bound to the influence of self. Atheists have no problem with the status quo... the lack of moral standards... because it leaves their options open to justify any action under the sun. They are incapable of defining specific standards.

Society in general contains several differing sects and cultures, each with their own sets of values and standards. To expect them to unify those standards is absurd since it will most certainly lead to war and further chaos.

What standard does that leave us, and how do we get everyone to follow it?
 

Flipper

New member
Well in practice we don't just have our own standards of right and wrong because humans are, by necessity, social creatures and for a society to function - whether it be a clan or a nation state, there have to be certain rules.

Therefore, almost all societies have proscriptions against incest. A society that allowed for a war of all-against-all could not be considered a society and would fail. Therefore, there are rules regarding unlawful killing, but what is considered unlawful and the penalties for such have varied wildly throughout human history.

Attitudes to personal property have also been very different throughout the world and there are small groups where the concept scarcely exists, therefore there's no theft as we would consider it.

Another major variable is how the rules are applied and enforced within a society, and what rules apply in regards to the treatment of outside groups. There is often an officially sanctioned divergence regarding how a group treats its members and how it treats outsiders.

So we don't really get to practice what is moral for ourselves; in practice our attitude towards morality is shaped by the society we live in. Typically, human morality appears to be formed by practical contingency - i.e. what 'works' to keep the group cohesive, the empathy we share for members within our group, the religious taboos that in practice both reinforce that morality and also acts as a hierarchical capstone creating a sacred tradition and working as an external referent for the source of those rules. That makes it harder for the individual to subvert the rule set for selfish reasons.
 

Flipper

New member
The reason why Atheism exists is because they do not want to be bound by an outside influence. They would rather be bound to the influence of self. Atheists have no problem with the status quo... the lack of moral standards... because it leaves their options open to justify any action under the sun. They are incapable of defining specific standards.

I don't think that's the reason atheism exists at all. I doubt there's an atheist out there who finds the prospect of a Hobbesian state of nature at all enticing.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Why can't it be both?

I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
Assuming absolute morality exists then we can also assume that relative morals could exist as well (social, cultural, etc.).

Therefore we can guarantee that morality exists, one way or another.

The real question is... are there some things that are absolutely wrong and not simply relative to ourselves?
 

Persephone66

BANNED
Banned
Well unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that your god exists, I would be left to say that morality is not only relative, but totally man-made.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Why can't it be both?

I don't see them as mutually exclusive.
Maybe the question would have been better stated...

Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ourself? Or are some right and wrongs determined by God?

Nahh.... that sounds dorky.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Well unless you can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that your god exists, I would be left to say that morality is not only relative, but totally man-made.
OK, so you believe that when a grown man rapes and murders an 8 year old girl for no other motivation than sexual gratification, it's not necessarily wrong. Is that what you believe?
 

chatmaggot

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Not that I am aware of.

If I am not aware that the speed limit on a certain road is 55 mph and I travel 95 mph, will me not being aware of the speed limit sway the officer who pulled me over for violating the standard speed limit?

In other words, does knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of something determine the truthfulness (or existence) of that "something"?
 

Flipper

New member
OK, so you believe that when a grown man rapes and murders an 8 year old girl for no other motivation than sexual gratification, it's not necessarily wrong. Is that what you believe?

No, I could never conceive of such a case and I doubt any society that approved of such actions within its own group would thrive. Maybe it would be different if I was raised in such a society.

On the other hand, I think it's wrong to betroth 10-year-old girls to marry adults or to commit multiple genocides, but that was not only acceptable but was religiously sanctioned in Hebrew society.
 

antiknight

New member
If I am not aware that the speed limit on a certain road is 55 mph and I travel 95 mph, will me not being aware of the speed limit sway the officer who pulled me over for violating the standard speed limit?
No.

In other words, does knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of something determine the truthfulness (or existence) of that "something"?
Could your knowledge of the speed limit be wrong? Could the speed limit have been set at some other amount? Is it theoretically possible that the local government could repeal the speed limit altogether?

In other words unless you are arguing that speeding is absolutely wrong your point fails to compel me.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
No, I could never conceive of such a case and I doubt any society that approved of such actions within its own group would thrive. Maybe it would be different if I was raised in such a society.

On the other hand, I think it's wrong to betroth 10-year-old girls to marry adults or to commit multiple genocides, but that was not only acceptable but was religiously sanctioned in Hebrew society.
Do you believe those things are absolutely wrong?

A yes or no would be awesome.
 

DocJohnson

New member
On the other hand, I think it's wrong to betroth 10-year-old girls to marry adults or to commit multiple genocides, but that was not only acceptable but was religiously sanctioned in Hebrew society.

Religiously sanctioned? Flipper is being flippant with facts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top