toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
That statement wraps this one up nicely.
Scott Roeder would seem to agree with that.
That might be a good last post for yesterdays "meaning of life" thread.
4string
New member
I'm a utilitarian, It's wrong because it's consequences are undesirable... to put it 'clinically'.
I see.
The apperence of new users around these daily topics leads me to believe that this MO is working.
Even though today's was an old wagon track it was fun to knock the weeds down for the edification of those that weren't here the last time we drew knives over this.
Which means?
That's an appeal to consequence.
You know that's a logical fallacy right?
See what?
Do you hear anything?
Tico
New member
Who gets to decide if the consequences are desirable? The rapist or the victim?
I think that's basically what everybody here is arguing about... the consequences, not the concept. The fact that there are moral absolutes isn't difficult to discern. An issue arises because laws are enacted to punish those who violate a moral absolute. Now we can argue all day about which laws should exist and which should go - and argue, we should. We can even argue about the severity of the punishment, if any, that should be delivered. Morality, however, is not neutral.
WizardofOz
New member
It's not obfuscating. The point was made by you and others about atheism being the genesis of sorts of moral relativism. It certainly is not.
In my opinion, moral relativism was born out of "in the name of God". Throughout history, morals seem to often be relative to revelation.
I can only repeat (as a theist) is it absolutely wrong to dash infants against rocks, or is there a certain degree of relativism involved? It certainly seems so to me. Holy scriptures the world over are filled with moral relativism. Confront it and discuss it; don't claim I'm muddying the waters.
Of course and already addressed, albeit indirectly.
Now will you kindly answer mine? Don't ask the tough questions unless you're ready to answer some yourself.
So if it's absolutely wrong to rape an 8 year old girl where does this absolute standard originate from?
4string
New member
The morality of an act comes from it's effects not any inherent 'good' or 'bad'.
Only when used as an argument for truth of a statement "If this were true then the consequences are bad, therefore it cannot be true". I say the only way to tell if an act is actually morally good or bad is to see it's overall consequences not just locally but socially. Violating human rights is wrong because it's detrimental to the human race as a whole, without basic human rights cooperation towards the advancement of the human race as a whole breaks down.
I see what he's saying, no I don't hear anything his post wasn't auditory... are you damaged?
WizardofOz
New member
Me or you saying any given action is absolutely wrong may or may not mean a thing to the next person, hence relativism.
This is how the insanity plea works. If someone didn't know what they were doing was wrong due to mental defect, they are treated differently than someone who was aware their actions were wrong. Wrong in these cases are deemed by the laws a given society makes for itself. Again, those laws are relative to the collective values of a society. The guilt of the accused is relative to their understanding of their actions. This a similar point to one Eloyhim made earlier if I remember correctly.
No matter how you word it, morals are most certainly relative to the collective values of each society and the knowledge possessed by the individual. That is why I asked about the golden calf or the infant killing. Are they absolutely wrong or relative to the circumstance and societal values?
Is cannibalism absolutely wrong? Ask the 1972 Uruguayan rugby team. They might have a different perspective than most about absolutes in that regard.
If a man was about to destroy the entire world and the only way to prevent this was to murder him, is it absolutely wrong to do so? It's a tough question and one you kind of addressed with the "do right and risk the consequence" line, but is it "right" to allow a man to do such an extreme evil?
AMR used a similar example once about lying. Is it absolutely wrong to lie? He countered with an example about Nazi's asking for the whereabouts of Jews hiding in your house (although he worded it much better). So no, it is not absolutely wrong to lie.
Do you agree or disagree? I am sure we could come up with hypothetical situations all day.
That's why this conversation is so backwards to me. The theist should be arguing for the relativism as God's will is not always understood by the logic of men and often contradicts what humans may percieve as moral or immoral.
4string
New member
Society to a degree...
Though there is a degree of positive feedback for moral 'correctness'. If a society has horrible moral standards the consequences will be horrible in turn and it'll be a less stable society, to revert to a cliche look at Nazi-Germany.
nicholsmom
New member
I really want an answer, Punisher.
So in your view, my daughter, who has Down syndrome, deserves Hell on Earth simply because she'll never be the sharpest knife in the drawer?
It seems that the only wrongs in your perspective are being disabled in some way - being less than perfectly capable of protecting your own "sovereignty."
You must live in abject fear of injury then.
So in your view, my daughter, who has Down syndrome, deserves Hell on Earth simply because she'll never be the sharpest knife in the drawer?
It seems that the only wrongs in your perspective are being disabled in some way - being less than perfectly capable of protecting your own "sovereignty."
You must live in abject fear of injury then.
Last edited:
nicholsmom
New member
So is chocolate :chew:
The cocoa bean was there, dull and bitter, but man came along and used it to invent chocolate
Doncha just love human invention?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
It is absolutely wrong to lie. Lying is not God's device; it is the device of the creature, not the Creator.
Very wrong conclusion.
It is absolutely always wrong for the creature to lie, but is right to believe that God brings good out of human deceptions and lies.
God's grace always exceeds the motives and moral limitations of men under the Law.
Rahab lied when she hid the men of God. She was wrong to lie, but God protected His elect whom she was given to protect, forgiving her for resorting to lies on their behalf; reading her heart and rewarding her faith that the men were God's elect (according to His grace), rather than condemning her according to the restrictions of the Law, which she indeed violated.
(Situational ethics should never be practiced at home, or assumed acceptable by Holy God!!)
Nang
WizardofOz
New member
easy on the yellow
easy on the yellow
Rehab was rewarded for lying. Another example of moral relativism.
When the Nazi's came looking for Ann Frank, it was absolutely immoral to lie to them about her whereabouts?
Very wrong conclusion.
easy on the yellow
Rehab was rewarded for lying. Another example of moral relativism.
When the Nazi's came looking for Ann Frank, it was absolutely immoral to lie to them about her whereabouts?
Very wrong conclusion.
elohiym
Well-known member
If a person lies to save an agent of God, it's wrong? :squint:
Good thing you weren't the harlot the spies of Israel were relying on.
elohiym
Well-known member
Nang
TOL Subscriber
- Status