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

[chrysostom]

Morality is absolute and is usually based on what is good for the whole

Situations are relative

We are often choosing between short and long term goals
I love the saying that you can pay me now or later when the price is much higher

We are always balancing

short term with long term
our rights verses those of others

Laws, traditions, and doctrine help us do that so we are not spending a lot of time thinking through everything that we do

 

[zoo22]

I'm curious. What do you think?

I'm inclined to say yes to your question, with the qualification that self-interest is not synonymous selfishness. Jesus clearly tells us that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, with the build-in assumption that we do, in fact, love ourselves.

I consider that finding love for our neighbor as ourselves is tied very closely to empathy?

Though I suppose that inevitably moves towards "what is love."

And (uh oh, probably spoken like a true moral relativist lain, "love as ourselves" also seems intrinsically relative...

 

[DocJohnson]

And I do see a lot of right/wrong as relative. As we move towards "absolute" it becomes very cloudy for me.

So, there isn't a single issue that you could point to as something which should be universally accepted as wrong?

 

[Rusha]

So, your standards cannot ever be nailed down to any universal code...

Neither can YOURS. The existence of your deity is not universally recognized as being true and factual.

For every Christian that believes *their* deity is the one and ONLY true and existing deity, there is another person who will be making the same claim about theirs.

However, if it makes you feel any better, I would tell them the same thing ... prove their existence by a standard that is universally acceptable.

Without the proof, your claims of absolute moral standards are no more relevant than standards which are humanistic, empathetic and learned.

 

[mmstroud]

As said, this is something I have a difficult time understanding clearly... In that regard, I don't see that I could be a moral relativist (certainly not a "true" one?). But yes, I do struggle with trying to understand why. I do find an emphasis towards empathy or something related regarding right/wrong. And I do see a lot of right/wrong as relative. As we move towards "absolute" it becomes very cloudy for me.

Indeed, no one, even the most ardent atheist, lives as a true moral relativist... To have empathy is to 'love your neighbor'. How can that ever be the wrong thing to do? I guess I think of it, though, as the way we react to the inevitable consequences of doing wrong vs. right. The standard doesn't change... our reaction, however, when someone falls short of what I believe in most cases is an absolute standard, should always be 'in view of God's mercies' - empathy!

 

[DocJohnson]

Neither can YOURS. The existence of your deity is not universally recognized as being true and factual.

For every Christian that believes *their* deity is the one and ONLY true and existing deity, there is another person who will be making the same claim about theirs.

However, if it makes you feel any better, I would tell them the same thing ... prove their existence by a standard that is universally acceptable.

Without the proof, your claims of absolute moral standards are no more relevant than standards which are humanistic, empathetic and learned.

Again, stuck in that religion rut. Put your religion aside... and your disdain for other people's religions aside... and think in purely unselfish terms. The world does not revolve around Rusha, thank goodness, or else lots of people would be put to death.

Universal standards can and must apply to everyone regardless of race, religion, creed, background, experience, etc.

 

[Son of Jack]

Morality is absolute and is usually based on what is good for the whole

This makes me wonder whether God is a utilitarian?

 

[Son of Jack]

I consider that finding love for our neighbor as ourselves is tied very closely to empathy?

They would be close, but not the same, as empathy strikes me as merely a state of mind, while love involves both a state and an act.

Though I suppose that inevitably moves towards "what is love."

Right, which means we might want to set out what that is. Biblically, love in the sense that Jesus spoke of in the passage I paraphrased was speaking in terms of agape, which tends to focus on self-sacrifice.

And (uh oh, probably spoken like a true moral relativist lain, "love as ourselves" also seems intrinsically relative...

In what sense?

 

[DocJohnson]

They would be close, but not the same, as empathy strikes me as merely a state of mind, while love involves both a state and an act.

Exactly.

Empathy is a feeling that can change from moment-to-moment.

Love is a verb.

 

[chrysostom]

This makes me wonder whether God is a utilitarian?

and you have to get rid of those who are not

 

[Nathon Detroit]

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

Yes. It is relative to the individual and determined by God.

There are deeds that are absolutely right no matter who you are: selflessness, generosity, mercy, kindness, truthfulness, etc. These are determined by God and do not vary. Now you might say the ancient Spartans did not value mercy - they left unfit babies out in the elements to die; that the Muslims do not value truthfulness - quite the opposite since lying is encouraged and expected. But that does not discount the unchangeable nature of these things as inherently good, because you only have to personalize them to realize their universal acceptance. The Spartans showed no mercy, but any given Spartan would welcome and praise the fellowman who came to their rescue out of mercy, and would not then decry it. Likewise the Muslim certainly doesn't like being fooled and would appreciate truthfulness in spite of not understanding its use.

We also have personal standards for what is good: I value handmade gifts above purchased ones, considering that the handmade gift is the mark of good character I personally value the ability to cook well. Good people cook well, so I teach each of my kids to cook and bake.

It's the same for the evil/bad/wrong stuff - there are absolute and personal standards there as well.

Excellent post. :up:

 

[Son of Jack]

So, there isn't a single issue that you could point to as something which should be universally accepted as wrong?

Well, he didn't say that so much as he said that it is difficult to nail down an absolute...I would tend to agree with him, as would Pascal and Kierkegaard.

 

[Punisher1984]

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?

I wouldn't call it "wrong" (or "right" for that matter) - only acknowledge that the event occured and evalutate it's impact on myself: if that girl was a part of my life (related to a close friend or relative of mine), her attacker will soon find me breathing down his neck with every gun and blade I can get my hands on.

 

[DocJohnson]

I wouldn't call it "wrong" (or "right" for that matter) - only acknowledge that the event occured and evalutate it's impact on myself: if that girl was a part of my life (related to a close friend or relative of mine), her attacker will soon find me breathing down his neck with every gun and blade I can get my hands on.

So, no universal standard of allowing law enforcement to deal with it? You're more inclined to vigilantism?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I wouldn't call it "wrong" (or "right" for that matter) - only acknowledge that the event occured and evalutate it's impact on myself: if that girl was a part of my life (related to a close friend or relative of mine), her attacker will soon find me breathing down his neck with every gun and blade I can get my hands on.

So...

You don't think it's wrong but you plan to kill the person who did it???

Do you often want to kill people for doing things that are not wrong?

 

[DocJohnson]

So...

You don't think it's wrong but you plan to kill the person who did it???

Do you often want to kill people for doing things that you don't view as wrong?

Seems to be a common theme among Atheists today. :mmph:

 

[Son of Jack]

So...

You don't think it's wrong but you plan to kill the person who did it???

Do you often want to kill people for doing things that are not wrong?

Well, he said he didn't like it...lain:

 

[Punisher1984]

So, no universal standard of allowing law enforcement to deal with it?

I distrust "law" enforcement because there is no "universal standard" for anything - all standards are just artificial constructs and I trust my own standards (that I constructed myself) over those of some power outside of me.

You're more inclined to vigilantism?

Yup.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Seems to be a common theme among Atheists today. :mmph:

Yes.... this thread is a shining example of how bankrupt atheism is. An atheist cannot even complete a sentence on this topic without making himself look unreasonable. Even a sharp person such as Rusha stumbles, mumbles, and fumbles, in a sad display of foolishness.

 

[Punisher1984]

So...

You don't think it's wrong but you plan to kill the person who did it???

Do you often want to kill people for doing things that are not wrong?

I want to kill the guy in your hypothetical because what he does violates the sovreignty of some one close to me (and by extention me) - the "right-ness" or "wrong-ness" of his actions are totally irrelevant to me.