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

[chatmaggot]

No.

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.

That's the problem with analogies...they never work perfectly. However, in response to:

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?

Yes. The local government could repeal the speed limit altogether. However, dropping the analogy and moving on to the topic directly, ignorance of an absolute morality is not an excuse of being judged by it.

In regards to the government. If such a thing as absolute morality exists...and the government does something that allows for the violation of that morality, am I then freed from that standard just because the government says so?

Or should I still adhere to that standard despite what the government says I am allowed to do?

 

[Gurucam]

Society is managed under judicial laws of their land.

Everyone must uphold them.

After that there is religions and spirituality.

These are for the two types of people on earth, one for each type.

One set do not have God given freedom, liberty and justification. They are under religions (i.e. under physically delivered dogma, ideals and laws) for their righteousness.

The other has God given freedom, liberty and justification. They are under direct communion with the Holy Spirit for their guidance.

There are those who are not in Christ. They do not have God given freedom, liberty and justification. Then there are those who are in Christ. They have God given freedom, liberty and justification.

Those who not in Christ are at best Moses-ians like the Jews and other who were given Moses laws. The Jews, because they had 'vails' over their hearts and had no land, were divinely given, instead of judicial laws, Moses' laws for guiding and managing their physical and social behavior until it was given by God for them to know Truth. Later Jesus reaffirmed Moses laws for all others who had 'vails' over their heart.

Jesus did not reaffirm Moses laws for Christians. Christians are not under law but under grace.

Those who have 'vails' over their hearts cannot be in Christ. Those who are not in Christ are still under laws and do not have God given freedom, liberty and justification.

Those who no longer have 'vails' over their heart can be in Christ. They are given by God to know Truth. Those who are in Christ differs in no way from Jesus Christ as He was when he walked on earth. They, like Jesus, have God given freedom, liberty and justification. They are led directly and precisely by God, the Father, through His Spirit from within their own hearts. They are not under laws nor are they led by laws.

Those who are not in Christ are different from those who are in Christ. They are different people. The later because they do not have 'vails' over their heart, can see lots more, they can see 'the unseen' and they have a totally different outlook.

 

[Flipper]

Do you believe those things are absolutely wrong?

A yes or no would be awesome.

Yes. But the Hebrews would no doubt disagree.

 

[elohiym]

Assuming absolute morality exists then we can also assume that relative morals could exist as well (social, cultural, etc.).

When I say morality can be relative to ourselves, I am thinking about Bible verses that appear to indicate right and wrong can be relative to ourselves. James 4:17 and Romans 14:23 come to mind.

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

I believe so. A pervert cannot molest a child in faith and have it be something other than vile sin.

Some things are obvious, but other things are not so obvious and require keen discernment to judge righteously. For example, there was the incident with David when he ate the holy bread forbidden to eat according to the law; yet David was blameless in that matter, as Jesus pointed out.

Interesting topic.

 

[DocJohnson]

Yes. But the Hebrews would no doubt disagree.

Ah, we have an anti-Semite among us.

 

[DocJohnson]

When I say morality can be relative to ourselves, I am thinking about Bible verses that appear to indicate right and wrong can be relative to ourselves. James 4:17 and Romans 14:23 come to mind.

But the difference is, those people know right and wrong because they already follow a universal standard.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Yes. But the Hebrews would no doubt disagree.

If yes, where does that standard of morality come from (since it cannot be man).

 

[elohiym]

Yes. But the Hebrews would no doubt disagree.

I agree with DocJohnson that you are being flippant with your facts. For starters, perhaps you can show us where betrothal of 10 year old girls was religiously sanctioned. Follow that by telling us at what age it is absolutely immoral to betroth a girl and at what age it becomes absolutely moral; and be sure to provide an answer that can apply to any historical context and life expectancy.

As for the alleged sanctioned genocide, are you saying it has always been immoral to destroy your enemies before they destroy you. Can you think of no circumstances that would justify the eradication of another nation through preemptive attack?

 

[Persephone66]

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.

If your god told you to do that, would you do it? Is your god the only thing keeping you from committing such an act?

You sick pervert.

 

[elohiym]

But the difference is, those people know right and wrong because they already follow a universal standard.

Romans 14:23 seems to be making a different point, one that suggests morality in some instances is subjective based on faith. In that sense, my answer to the original question has to be both. However, I have clarified my position based on Knight's restatement of the question.

 

[elohiym]

You sick pervert.

Asking you a question, and then you putting words in his mouth, qualifies him as a "sick pervert"?

Your reasoning is sick and perverted. :down:

Lighten up.

 

[Rusha]

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.

I simply cannot imagine rape being conceived as alright in ANY society. Let me explain further: A child or woman (or guy in some cases) would in no way find being raped pleasant. By their own experience, they would conclude that it is wrong. I consider empathy and personal experience as being part of what determines our standards of R vs W.

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.

I believe the same simply because I don't consider any child as being mentally or physically capable of consenting.

 

[Persephone66]

Asking you a question, and then you putting words in his mouth, qualifies him as a "sick pervert"?

Your reasoning is sick and perverted. :down:

Lighten up.

I put no more words in his mouth than he put in mine.

 

[fool]

Ethics are a human construct.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

No.

That's good! You believe in absolute morality. Now.... where do you suppose that standard comes from? (since it can't be from man)

If your god told you to do that, would you do it? Is your god the only thing keeping you from committing such an act?

You sick pervert.

Our entire reality exists because a righteous God exists and created reality for us, it's very difficult to even ponder or imagine what a reality would look like if it weren't a righteous God who created it.

I put no more words in his mouth than he put in mine.

I didn't put any words in your mouth at all. I merely asked you a question. :idunno:

 

[elohiym]

Ethics are a human construct.

And what is the source of the construct that tells us molesting a child is absolutely wrong?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I simply cannot imagine rape being conceived as alright in ANY society. Let me explain further: A child or woman (or guy in some cases) would in no way find being raped pleasant. By their own experience, they would conclude that it is wrong. I consider empathy and personal experience as being part of what determines our standards of R vs W.

That being the case how could you possibly argue that rape is absolutely wrong?

You are merely arguing that it's wrong because your own empathy says it's wrong. That isn't very compelling for the rapist, he doesn't care about your empathy.

 

[Flipper]

I would say that it does come from man. I am a product of a society from which I don't think that it can ever be right to marry a 10-year-old, No doubt I would be equally convicted of the opposite view if I had been raised in ancient Israel. Whether we like it or not, the absolute standard is set within a society. I may find the excesses of the past and present to be horrific and I could never conceive of them ever being acceptable practice to me, but I am not a product of that group.

I notice that almost every group externalizes the source of its law to a supernatural source which makes sense if you believe in such forces. But those sources are not always the Christian God. The Declaration of Independence externalizes the basic rights of man to a God who never said anything of the sort in the Koran or the Bible. The Ogalala ascribe their moral proscriptions to the living ancestors and Wakantanka.

In the case of Ancient Israel, I think we can agree that the OT approves of the the genocide of competing tribes because it was sanctioned by God. This is something I find appalling. Presumably, a Christian would not find it so because there's a biblical justification for it.

I consider my morality (it's not really mine, I should point out, but rather a confluence of reason and societal factors including the influence of Christianity) to be absolute because I consider that it would be better to die than to violate certain aspects of it. And it's not purely out of fear of societal sanction, also would be based on my inability to live with myself if I were to violate it. That seems pretty absolute to me and doesn't require any appeal to a higher supernatural authority.

Higher supernatural authorities seem quite willing to sanction all sorts of things I find reprehensible. That's why Islamic fundamentalists yell "Allah akbar" before blowing themselves up on crowded buses.

 

[DocJohnson]

Romans 14:23 seems to be making a different point, one that suggests morality in some instances is subjective based on faith. In that sense, my answer to the original question has to be both. However, I have clarified my position based on Knight's restatement of the question.

But they still have to believe to have faith... which means they are using the same standards.

 

[bybee]

Is there anything inherently wrong with arrogance?

YES!