Do you believe that there is a moral absolute that governs all men? If not, why? If so, also why?

If not, how do you determine what "morality" is, and how do we as a society determine what is socially acceptable and what is not?

Here's my take on the subject:

How do you determine what is right and wrong? What makes something socially acceptable? How do you punish someone for something that YOU believe is wrong (ie, murder, rape, stealing a candy bar) when that person may believe that it's not wrong to do said activity? What happens when we, as a society, shrink to the lowest common denominator to make sure that every single person's own personal view of morality is taken into consideration?

This principle applies to everything in life. From your work ethic to the way you interact with others. It goes from the smallest child all the way up to the highest Supreme Court justice.

Without a moral absolute to guide us, we are as the song goes, dust in the wind. We sway to and fro with the shifting of the tides with nary an oar. We are lost.

Let me warn you guys - ToB will pwn you on this subject.

I believe morals are guidelines, or unwritten laws, which society have accepted. Basically, morality is a person's sense of right and wrong. I don't believe there is one set of morals which can be universally accepted. What is moral to one person may be ridiculous to another; likewise, what is immoral to one person may be OK to another. I believe morals exist in society for the common good of everyone. Through years of socializing, people learn what is hurtful to others and to the society, and what is not, and that's where the set of morals are built from. Since the dawn of mankind, people have formed societies, and each society will develop its own set of morals based on its culture and religion, and what they as a society believe is right, or wrong. A person's sense of right and wrong (morality) is what is taught to that person and what that person sees around himself. That's why different people in different societies have such different morals; and also why people within a society accept the same set of morals. So given the great diversity of the world's culture and societies, no, I don't believe there is a moral absolute that governs all of mankind.


(ToB pwns me in every debate topic I've participated in! I can live with him making an ass out of me again. :p)

Ive debated this with myself, and with GTA: Vice City.
A southern hick pastor beleives he can CONTROL and TEACH people to be moral- and thinks he can make people moral.

WEll, I sorta have a question... Do people wanna be moral? I mean, PEOPLE are stupid. People is a single-acting unit, that acts by 'morals', unwritten laws, and what is popular. An individual, with no people/influences, acts on their own and sort of decides their own morals, if any. No one wants to be taught how to be moral, or what is 'accepted' or not, in my opinion.

That may have made no sense...but maybe I just cant put it into words right...

Do people wanna be moral? I mean, PEOPLE are stupid...
Never start a debate with a rash generalization. Ruins your credibility from the get go.

Well, no large GROUP of people act on their own. They all act on one idea- because with seperate ideas, they would then be just a mass of individuals. I think societies and groups only function well if they follow the same general idea/actions/thoughts. I think little groups at school are an example of this. An individual person acts on individual and original thoughts and ideas. A group/people follow the same general ideas to do one thing- so they can sort of remain a group/society, and not split apart into individuals... And when I refer to a group as PEOPLE- I consider them as one unit- because, like I said, the only way they can stay as their own group or society is by following the same general uh...'morals' or ideas. So I don't think a group of people wanna be taught morality and what is acceptable- while an individual person might.

So I don't think a group of people wanna be taught morality and what is acceptable.
Thousands of years of organized religions with millions of followers will beg to differ with your theory.

How do you determine what is right and wrong? What makes something socially acceptable? How do you punish someone for something that YOU believe is wrong (ie, murder, rape, stealing a candy bar) when that person may believe that it's not wrong to do said activity? What happens when we, as a society, shrink to the lowest common denominator to make sure that every single person's own personal view of morality is taken into consideration?

This principle applies to everything in life. From your work ethic to the way you interact with others. It goes from the smallest child all the way up to the highest Supreme Court justice.

Without a moral absolute to guide us, we are as the song goes, dust in the wind. We sway to and fro with the shifting of the tides with nary an oar. We are lost.
True. But I dont believe that everyone will accept an absolute set of morals. Laws are not always based on morals, but a law should be one particular moral issue that is universally accepted, and therefore made into a law which people will be punished for breaking. In my post, I meant that people won't have the exact same set of morals, and won't accept the exact same morals. But there are some that are universally accepted - including murder, stealing, rape, etc.

Look at the laws of different countries, they are not the exact same are they? Murder and rape etc. are universally considered "wrong" and against all morals, which is why every country has a law against murder. But the smaller (is that the right word to use here?) laws, they are not the same from country to country. Because people choose to accept different morals (and because some laws are plain stupid, but that's not the issue in this debate). Anyways, my point is different countries or societies will adapt a different set of morals, but there is no absolute set of morals for all of mankind, unless all of mankid can live in harmony with each other, and accept each other's culture, which I highly doubt will ever happen.

Thousands of years of organized religions with millions of followers will beg to differ with your theory.

Well, how can they be taught what is moral/acceptable when it changes every 20 years? I mean, uh... the show I Love Lucy was a bit contraversial for its time- it showed husband and wife in a bedroom (gasp). But now, there is ass shaking as far as the eye can see- on public TV, and I dont see a deal over that. By my personal morals, I think that is unacceptable, to me. I wouldnt allow that around me, near me, etc. So how can morals be taught to such a big group of people when they change? What is accepted in society changes. Or did I miss your point?

And even then, if they are taught morals, and want to be taught what is acceptable: The religions, you say, have millions of followers- I cant see why they would want to 'follow' some more, and always have someone take charge and sorta 'govern' them some more.

Well, how can they be taught what is moral/acceptable when it changes every 20 years? I mean, uh... the show I Love Lucy was a bit contraversial for its time- it showed husband and wife in a bedroom (gasp). But now, there is ass shaking as far as the eye can see- on public TV, and I dont see a deal over that. By my personal morals, I think that is unacceptable, to me. I wouldnt allow that around me, near me, etc. So how can morals be taught to such a big group of people when they change? What is accepted in society changes. Or did I miss your point?

And even then, if they are taught morals, and want to be taught what is acceptable: The religions, you say, have millions of followers- I cant see why they would want to 'follow' some more, and always have someone take charge and sorta 'govern' them some more.
Morals change over time, but if you look at a specific culture at a specifc time, you'll find the majority of the people accept a single set of morals. Nowadays, there are no "pure" cultures. Every culture mixes with every other. Which is not a bad thing, but now if you look at one specific country, you'll find much "diverse" sets of morals. People in each country do not share the same background and culture, and probably grew up living by a different set of morals. But if there were "pure" societies that do not mix with any other society, each member should share the same set of morals.

Well, okay, in that case- since there is really a set of widely accepted morals:
What if the minority that thinks rape isn't bad suddenly becomes the majority? (this is far fetched, but just my little scenario) Then, do accepted morals eventually change? Does whatever the majority beleive turn into standard morals? And then, what if the present minority becomes the majority in the future...

Well, okay, in that case- since there is really a set of widely accepted morals:
What if the minority that thinks rape isn't bad suddenly becomes the majority? (this is far fetched, but just my little scenario) Then, do accepted morals eventually change? Does whatever the majority beleive turn into standard morals? And then, what if the present minority becomes the majority in the future...
That's precisely why we can't let the proverbial inmates run the asylum.

Well, okay, in that case- since there is really a set of widely accepted morals:
What if the minority that thinks rape isn't bad suddenly becomes the majority? (this is far fetched, but just my little scenario) Then, do accepted morals eventually change? Does whatever the majority beleive turn into standard morals? And then, what if the present minority becomes the majority in the future...
Well, although I highly doubt our morals will change like that, I do believe moral changes are the result from the minority being accepted as the standard. Just look at how our morals have changed from a few decades ago. Sex used to be only between married people, and nothing sexual was on TV. Now, well, need I say more?

Fweedie...totally summed it up for me...moral relativism gets my vote. there are laws that are universally accepted as they are viewed as moralistically wrong, no matter what culture, society, race, you come from, but depending on country or state, laws can be harsher (for example the u.s. - in texas, you will receive the death penalty for rape and in the middle east, people are stoned to death for things like adultery, usually the women mind you, as the men kinda govern over there). but also, laws generally are a reflection of an ever evolving society we live in, and that's why there are laws now with condoning gay marriages and euthanasia for example, as seen in the netheralands and a few states in the u.s...but getting bills passed can take some time, so current laws are not an eaxct representation of what is going on.

Well, although I highly doubt our morals will change like that, I do believe moral changes are the result from the minority being accepted as the standard. Just look at how our morals have changed from a few decades ago. Sex used to be only between married people, and nothing sexual was on TV. Now, well, need I say more?

I think our morals are declining because it is in human nature to take the path of least resistance if it is available. Lots of people are lazy and selfish and having a high moral code puts extra restrictions and hardships on a person, and as time goes on, the envelope gets pushed farther and farther outward. What was once bad devolved into acceptable. Some people have their heads stuck up the idea that all change and progression from what is to what will be is a good thing, thus a subculture of society forms that values a much lower set of morals than ever before. What's to stop this downward progression?

So yes, I believe there is an absolute truth about certain things out there, but some people would argue with me to the death over it. Trying to describe where that moral line lies on every issue isn't something I feel I should be trying to do however. I know where it stands for me, and everyone has their different idea of where it is, but I just happen to think some of those people are wrong and misguided. If I thought their moral line was right for them, then it wouldn't be absolute anymore. I don't let someone being below my moral standards keep me from knowing them or learning from them, and sometimes being friends with them however. I believe that I fall below my own idea of what the absolute line is on many occassions. But I know that I am not perfect. So that is my struggle. For the record, I think the standard is a lot higher than what popular society would accept these days.

I think our morals are declining because it is in human nature to take the path of least resistance if it is available. Lots of people are lazy and selfish and having a high moral code puts extra restrictions and hardships on a person, and as time goes on, the envelope gets pushed farther and farther outward. What was once bad devolved into acceptable. Some people have their heads stuck up the idea that all change and progression from what is to what will be is a good thing, thus a subculture of society forms that values a much lower set of morals than ever before. What's to stop this downward progression?

So yes, I believe there is an absolute truth about certain things out there, but some people would argue with me to the death over it. Trying to describe where that moral line lies on every issue isn't something I feel I should be trying to do however. I know where it stands for me, and everyone has their different idea of where it is, but I just happen to think some of those people are wrong and misguided. If I thought their moral line was right for them, then it wouldn't be absolute anymore. I don't let someone being below my moral standards keep me from knowing them or learning from them, and sometimes being friends with them however. I believe that I fall below my own idea of what the absolute line is on many occassions. But I know that I am not perfect. So that is my struggle. For the record, I think the standard is a lot higher than what popular society would accept these days.
But you believe there is a "universal standard"? I believe that the standard is whatever people accept it to be, because morals is basically one's sense of right an wrong. If everyone accepts something to be right, then that thing's right. If everyone accepts something to be wrong, then it's wrong. I don't believe there's a supreme being deciding for us what is right and what is wrong. Yes, people have different standards, which is why I don't believe in absolute morals. You can compare other people's standards to your own, but you can't compare them to a universal standard, because there really isn't one.

I say murder and rape are universally considered wrong only because everyone accepts the fact that they're wrong, and not because they're truly "universally wrong" Ex: rape was once not considered immoral. Soldiers were often ordered by their commanders to rape women in the countries they fight in. They did not accept rape to be a wrong thing to do, so at the time rape was not universally wrong. Now it is, only because everyone now accepts it to be wrong, not because it is "actually wrong"

But you believe there is a "universal standard"? I believe that the standard is whatever people accept it to be, because morals is basically one's sense of right an wrong. If everyone accepts something to be right, then that thing's right. If everyone accepts something to be wrong, then it's wrong. I don't believe there's a supreme being deciding for us what is right and what is wrong. Yes, people have different standards, which is why I don't believe in absolute morals. You can compare other people's standards to your own, but you can't compare them to a universal standard, because there really isn't one.

If the standard is what everyone accepts it to be, then we can all decide where our standards are and we can act in obviously negative manners while not violating our morals. Deciding where your own morals are and that they apply only to you is a really good way of clearing your conscience and getting away with whatever you please. I think it's rather selfish in a way.

It's hard to separate morals from religion sometimes, and mine are certainly related. I just believe there's a base truth out there that doesn't necessarily regulate EVERY aspect of life, but more than a lot of people would like.

If everyone accepts something to be right, then that thing's right.

Think about this in the context of Germany about 60 to 70 years ago. That kind of thinking can get you into a lot of trouble.

Think about this in the context of Germany about 60 to 70 years ago. That kind of thinking can get you into a lot of trouble.
As grim as it may sound, it's reality. Many people were mislead to believe that the extermination of a certain race or religion is "the right thing to do" and not against morals; many Nazis (and other groups, cults, etc) genuinely believe what they did was right. And while I'm completely against those ideas, that's how they're formed - people accept something to be right, and suddenly the most horrific things imaginable are not considered morally wrong.

I'm not talking about whether the rest of the world thought the Nazis were right or not, but the Nazis at the time most like believed what they did to be the right thing to do. Hence, morals change, quite fast and drastically sometimes, from society to society.


Here's another example which many people on here can personally relate to: Bob was the top student in his school - smart, handsome, polite, and generally a nice guy. Suddenly, Bob makes friends with a group of drug dealers, and he is introduced to casual drug usage, and casual sex. At first, Bob rejects, but as he sees those things more and more, they don't seem so wrong anymore. Bob becomes a horny drugee that knocked up the girl next door. Grim? Yes. Reality? Also yes. Drastic changes in morals are not only seen in entire societies, but individuals as well.

I have a complicated view on this...I believe a little bit of both.

I believe there are absolute laws, such as murdering someone.

But I also believe in relativism of certain types of morality. Anything one does for their or a loved one's survival is not immoral, short of murder.

For example, stealing because there is no other way for you to eat is not immoral.

And before some of you point out instances where it is moral to kill someone I just have one thing to say to that: those instances arent murder.

Murder is the killing of a person that does not improve a person's situation or circumstance, and in most cases hinders anothers.

Therefore murder is one of the absolute morality, but there are many relative morality situations as well.

Fweddie, I agree with your Germany and Bob example that that's exactly how things happen, but that doesn't make it right. The slow changing of their standards is what happens, but they slowly slip farther beneath a certain point that they shouldn't have gone under. It doesn't matter that the Nazi's may have thought at the time that they were doing the right thing. It was the wrong thing. Just because your threshold of what's acceptable and what isn't can be shifted around by your environment doesn't mean that they are now the new set of rules that it's okay to go by.

Fweddie, I agree with your Germany and Bob example that that's exactly how things happen, but that doesn't make it right. The slow changing of their standards is what happens, but they slowly slip farther beneath a certain point that they shouldn't have gone under. It doesn't matter that the Nazi's may have thought at the time that they were doing the right thing. It was the wrong thing. Just because your threshold of what's acceptable and what isn't can be shifted around by your environment doesn't mean that they are now the new set of rules that it's okay to go by.
Morals changes do not usually happen on a worldly level - which is what most people refer to as the "universal standard." But if everyone in the entire world accepts something to be right, or wrong, than that is now the new stadard. The Nazis are viewed as being wrong, because the rest of the world did not accept their ideals. But if the rest of the world did, the Nazis would be right not just to Germany, but to everyone. Now I don't believe that will ever happen. Morals usually change on smaller levels: individual, society, country, but not the entire world. However, the "universal standard" basically is just what the world accepts, and will change if (BIG if) the world decides to accept a new standard.

So back to the original question, is there a set of morals that governs every human being? Yes, but we set it ourselves, so it is relative, not absolute.

Morals changes do not usually happen on a worldly level - which is what most people refer to as the "universal standard." But if everyone in the entire world accepts something to be right, or wrong, than that is now the new stadard. The Nazis are viewed as being wrong, because the rest of the world did not accept their ideals. But if the rest of the world did, the Nazis would be right not just to Germany, but to everyone. Now I don't believe that will ever happen. Morals usually change on smaller levels: individual, society, country, but not the entire world. However, the "universal standard" basically is just what the world accepts, and will change if (BIG if) the world decides to accept a new standard.

So back to the original question, is there a set of morals that governs every human being? Yes, but we set it ourselves, so it is relative, not absolute.


but as you know, not everyone agrees about anything. and if you remember, at one point the majority of the world was engaged in slavery....does that mean slavery is moral?

but as you know, not everyone agrees about anything. and if you remember, at one point the majority of the world was engaged in slavery....does that mean slavery is moral?
Compared to our moral standards, yes. Compared to the slaver's standards, no.

And you're probably all sick of me saying this in every post, but again, this is another example of how morals are relative, not absolute.

How do you determine what is right and wrong? What makes something socially acceptable? How do you punish someone for something that YOU believe is wrong (ie, murder, rape, stealing a candy bar) when that person may believe that it's not wrong to do said activity? What happens when we, as a society, shrink to the lowest common denominator to make sure that every single person's own personal view of morality is taken into consideration?

This principle applies to everything in life. From your work ethic to the way you interact with others. It goes from the smallest child all the way up to the highest Supreme Court justice.


I would say that determining whether something is good or bad involves two things: 1. the intention and 2. whether or not the result causes suffering. On that basis, any action can be taken into account as "right" or "wrong." What we label as "wrong" is because its intention is harmful and its result is detrimental to sentient beings, namley humans.

Compared to our moral standards, yes. Compared to the slaver's standards, no.

Something tells me you meant that the other way around... right?

My whole point here is that some people's standards are just wrong. The slaver is wrong. The Germans were wrong. It was moral to them, but it was still wrong. The absolute that made slavery and genocide immoral was there, whether the participating parties thought it was or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's perfectly okay. You can still feel fine and okay while actually commiting an immoral action.

Something tells me you meant that the other way around... right?

My whole point here is that some people's standards are just wrong. The slaver is wrong. The Germans were wrong. It was moral to them, but it was still wrong. The absolute that made slavery and genocide immoral was there, whether the participating parties thought it was or not. It doesn't matter if you think it's perfectly okay. You can still feel fine and okay while actually commiting an immoral action.
Oops, yea that's what I meant. =P

Well, what do you compare the "wrong" people's standards to? Yes some people's standars are whacked, but you can only compare them to your own, or the standards of other people. So their standards are wrong compared to other standards, but not to an "absolute right" There isn't a specific set of standards to compare eveyrone's morals to. If there is, what is it?

Compared to our moral standards, yes. Compared to the slaver's standards, no.

And you're probably all sick of me saying this in every post, but again, this is another example of how morals are relative, not absolute.

Morals are not relative. THey are completely absolute. They can be compared to others and the change or difference be considered to be a relative assumption. Morals are a standard of human living. We seek to enjoy a life free of harm and dishonesty. Would you not agree? Do you want to live a life of constant hurt and continued mistrust? Relative is used when you take a trait or purpose and compare it to those who exsist on this earth and they form an opinion thus makig it 'relative' to thier surroundings. Morals are something that is felt by those who are good and want good. Even the most immoral person, will have a flight of morality. They will see things differently when it is placed upon them but they will still choose the 'right' thing to do. We will always choose that way. One can't place morals into the cupboard and pull them out when they see fit. Relative is not meant to be subjective. It is meant to be a constant. Something that is felt without prejudice by each. We all agree that we want a peaceful life and want good for our families. Thus working towards that, we must have a moral exsistance. Morals are not relative but yet expected.

tMR

Morals are not relative. THey are completely absolute. They can be compared to others and the change or difference be considered to be a relative assumption. Morals are a standard of human living. We seek to enjoy a life free of harm and dishonesty. Would you not agree? Do you want to live a life of constant hurt and continued mistrust? Relative is used when you take a trait or purpose and compare it to those who exsist on this earth and they form an opinion thus makig it 'relative' to thier surroundings. Morals are something that is felt by those who are good and want good. Even the most immoral person, will have a flight of morality. They will see things differently when it is placed upon them but they will still choose the 'right' thing to do. We will always choose that way. One can't place morals into the cupboard and pull them out when they see fit. Relative is not meant to be subjective. It is meant to be a constant. Something that is felt without prejudice by each. We all agree that we want a peaceful life and want good for our families. Thus working towards that, we must have a moral exsistance. Morals are not relative but yet expected.

tMR

I agree.

After reading your post I believe morals to be that pit in your stomach..your concious if you will. The ideals of what is right and wrong is morals.

To put it another way. Morals are NOT subjective.

BEING moral is. Furtermore, the arguments of certain actions being moral at different times, is trying to find justification for acting immorally.

Now I propose a different theory, the acts of immorality are not equal; meaning, for instance theft should not be placed on the same level of immorality as murder.

Also, doing an immoral act does not mean a person is immoral; that would be generalizing. And on a theological level, doing an immoral act does not automatically condemn someone.

Morals are not relative. THey are completely absolute. They can be compared to others and the change or difference be considered to be a relative assumption. Morals are a standard of human living. We seek to enjoy a life free of harm and dishonesty. Would you not agree? Do you want to live a life of constant hurt and continued mistrust? Relative is used when you take a trait or purpose and compare it to those who exsist on this earth and they form an opinion thus makig it 'relative' to thier surroundings. Morals are something that is felt by those who are good and want good. Even the most immoral person, will have a flight of morality. They will see things differently when it is placed upon them but they will still choose the 'right' thing to do. We will always choose that way. One can't place morals into the cupboard and pull them out when they see fit. Relative is not meant to be subjective. It is meant to be a constant. Something that is felt without prejudice by each. We all agree that we want a peaceful life and want good for our families. Thus working towards that, we must have a moral exsistance. Morals are not relative but yet expected.

tMR
But when the whites enslaved the blacks prior to the Civil War, many believe what they did to be right. They did not consider slavery to be immoral. Compared to our own morals, slavery is immoral, but how can you compare their morals to an absolute set of morals? What is the absolute set? Is it not what we accept it to be?

Here's an example: Slaughtering millions of cows and eating them is not considered immoral. Killing a dog is, and is against the law. Why? Because we accept that to be morally correct; not because there is a absolute set of morals that state cows are inferior to dogs, and can be killed and eaten while dogs cannot.

If you truly believe there is an absolute set of morals, what is it then? And how did it come to be?

But when the whites enslaved the blacks prior to the Civil War, many believe what they did to be right. They did not consider slavery to be immoral. Compared to our own morals, slavery is immoral, but how can you compare their morals to an absolute set of morals? What is the absolute set? Is it not what we accept it to be?

Here's an example: Slaughtering millions of cows and eating them is not considered immoral. Killing a dog is, and is against the law. Why? Because we accept that to be morally correct; not because there is a absolute set of morals that state cows are inferior to dogs, and can be killed and eaten while dogs cannot.

If you truly believe there is an absolute set of morals, what is it then? And how did it come to be?

Morlas are set and lived upon. If you question them, that is why they become 'relative.' Slavery was not right, by any means, and it was immoral but you can't judge the entire world on morality by those who owned slaves in the south. What the slave owners did, they knew to be wrong. If they didn't think so, they would have not fought for it. They wanted to keep a certain way of life that didn't exsist elsewhere. It was different. It was immoral. They knew that. It wasn't moral to them it was a decision. Maintain a profitable farming business or go under and lose everything. They chose to enslave humans. They were only looking out for themselves and they knew that it was wrong. Just because an entire region decides to control a certain race doesn't make it right or moral. Even in the eyes of those who choose to enslave.

Morals are not subjective to 'can I eat them or not'. We, as a socitey, have choosen not to consume dog based on a social level. Killing a dog isn't immoral. Hurting another human is when morality can be played. Cows are animals and so are dogs. If you choose to eat one then you have the right to eat the other. Our society has choosen to outlaw the right to eat domestic animals. We as a society have chosen to view domestic animals as pets. If you were to eat someones domestic cow, then you would be fined accordingly but not subjected to a trial against 'morality'. Just breaking the law. Which is imparticial. At least last time I checked.

tMR

tMR

Morlas are set and lived upon. If you question them, that is why they become 'relative.' Slavery was not right, by any means, and it was immoral but you can't judge the entire world of morality by those who owned slaves in the south. What the slave owners did, they knew to be wrong. If they didn't think so, they would have not fought for it. They wanted to keep a certain way of life that didn't exsist elsewhere. It was different. It was immoral. They knew that. It wasn't moral to them it was a decision. Maintain a profitable farming business or go under and lose everything. They chose to enslave humans. They were only looking out for themselves and they knew that it was wrong. Just because an entire region decides to control a certain race doesn't make it right or moral. Even in the eyes of those who choose to enslave.

tMR
Okay, you win on this example. I chose one where I cannot porve the facts - I don't have proof that the slavers thought what they did was morally correct, or if they knew it was wrong, but did it anyways for their own benefit.

But what about the cow example? Did we, as humans, not accept the fact that certain animals can be killed for food, while others are considered "superior"? What exactly makes it right to kill a cow or a pig for food, but not a dog or a cat or a swan? An absolute set or morals that dictates which animals can be killed for food and which can't? I dont' think so.

And what about the Middle Ages, when men were considered superior? Now we accept that to be wrong, but at the time, EVERYONE accepted it to be right, women included. The idea of feminism didn't even exist until much later. So at the time, inequality between sexes was basically considered "right" Is it right to our moral standards? No. But to theirs? Yes.

And yes, there is a "standard" set of morals that all people should live by, but that standard is set by ourselves, and evolve as we evolve. And that standard will continue to change as time progresses. If you say the morals of people in the Middle Ages were wrong, perhaps in 1000 years, the future humans will look at our morals and say the same thing that we say about the morals of people from 1000 years ago.

So, what exactly is the absolute "right" set of morals? It's definition is what we accept it to be, otherwise it has no definition.

Fweddie, I'd be happy to explain to you what the absolute set of morals is, but it'd take me writing a book. Literally. I think I could reasonably fill 100 pages with that if I went into it with the intention of explaining myself fully across the spectrum. I just can't do that here.

Sure, each individual society may have a set of morals that can seem absolute--I doubt any [sane] American would argue against murdering people being wrong--but in the grand scheme of things, it is all arbitrary.

Think about the people who honestly believe suicide bombing police officers at the embassy will get them into Heaven. -- This isn't just some crackpot lone gunman we're talking about; entire societies actually believe blowing up their enemies is an ideal way to serve their god and the "right" thing to do.

I'd like to think it's because they're illogical and fanatical nutbags, but who's to say they aren't going to whatever form of Heaven they believe in if the intention is there?

To the people who believe in Absolutism, let me ask: where did you get your "absolute set of morals" from? I didn't see anyone answering Fweddie's cows vs. dogs question. I thought it was a very good example. :)

Morals are a million miles from absolute. Here's why...

To be "universally absolute", people must develop them regardless of their upbringing or social background, yes? They must grow in our consciousness in the same way hair grows on our heads and nails from our fingers. We cannot have any control over them if they are absolute. This is clearly not true.

if it were true, we wouldn't need input from parents, teachers, priests et al on how we should behave. Everybody would instinctively know what was the right thing to do and what is wrong. And you would do what is instinctive, because that's what living things do. It's programmed.. it's in the blood. You eat, you sleep, you screw, you stay warm, you run from or fight danger... these things are instinctive.

Morals are learned and self taught from experience. We do what makes us feel good... and in today's civilised Western society, we've decided that certain things are wrong, because if they were allowable then we;d all be at risk from them. Which is fine... Personally, I believe in "doing unto other what I'd have others do unto me". That small code seems to keep me happy and out of trouble. But it was my decision to arrive at that code as an axiom... I wasn't born with it.

Children are greedy and selfish things. They have to be taught to share and to be polite and to take only what they need... that's what tantrums are all about. The terrible twos? Every parent out there knows what I'm talking about. Children seek boundaries so they know what they can get away with. If you never taught your child it was wrong to steal, they'd happily take whatever they wanted from whomever.

Of course, it's different for things like rape and murder, because the perpetrator can see immediately how much damage (s)he has caused to another person. If they had any kind of decent upbringing, that should be enough to make them stop behaving in that way.

But the interesting flipside to that is... what if the child wasn't taught that violence and sexual abuse were wrong? Sociopaths have children too, you know. Courts are regularly told that abusers were themselves abused and it's accepted that this is a major factor with Paedophiles in particular. So, if it's accepted that there is such a thing as a 'Cycle of Abuse', doesn't that automatically suggest that the behaviour is a result (at least in part) of social conditioning?

Also, if morals are Universal and Absolute, then everyone has them. That means there is no such thing as an Amoral person - just someone who chooses to act against his moral programming. That means that no-one can ever be ignorant of the fact that they're doing wrong. You would never be able to describe someone as "Morally Bankrupt"... because morality is not a choice according to the proposal.

Therefore, I submit that morals are NOT absolute and DEFINTELY not universal. The simple fact that people exist with a moral code which differs from our own proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Even if relativists are right that cultures differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truth is a fiction.

Observations about the practices of groups of people, even if accurate, don't translate into valid conclusions about the true nature of morality. How does it follow that because each group thinks it's right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality doesn't lead to the conclusion there is no moral truth. This confuses the accurate knowledge of objective values, with the existence of objective values.

Currently there are conflicting views on many things. The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct. The same is true with differences of opinion on morality, isn't it?

Morality as dictated by a society is inherently subjective. Each society has its own ideals about what it deems to be right and wrong. The Incas saw nothing wrong human sacrifice. The Babylonians believed that consorting with prostitutes helped them get closer to their gods. The Western culture 1000 years ago considered it immoral to have premarital or extramarital sex. Today, these activities are so common as to be cliché. It is because different cultures at different times had different values that any judgments we make today about those culture's values and ethics are irrelevant.

How does a society create morality? It seems that many philosophers have spent a great amount of time philosophizing to arrive at the conclusion that all morals are relative. It is when they reach this conclusion, however, that the quest to validate any of their arguments truly begins. Many have tried to use reason and logic to do so. I give you Rene Descartes. Many have tried to assert that there is a “Natural Law.” Ignoring the fact that this is a thinly veiled attempt to agree to the possibility that there is a God who brought order to the chaos, this attempt is flawed. Any attempt to create a set of morals based on logic and reason, id est "Natural Law" is inherently flawed because one man's logic is not necessarily the same as another's. We are all biased in our reasoning because our thought processes are shaped by our experiences. No man can have the same experiences. Even if we all agree to follow a specified path of logic, that path of logic is biased towards the beliefs of the person who created it and so taints the conclusion that we arrive at. We can see that reasoning alone is not enough, as evidenced by the work of Aristotle and the theory of abiogenesis. The Greeks believed that the human mind could unravel the mysteries of the universe without ever testing the hypotheses. As history has shown, this technique has its flaws.

Can there actually be any solid base for morals? By virtue of the fact that it is up to each society to devise a code of ethics, there is a prevailing tendency for these codes to be conducive to the preservation of said society. It can be shown that many societies have many laws in common. If one is to agree to live in a society, it can be shown that certain morals and laws will inherently be a part of the system. This may be evidence for the possibility of at least a limited set of objective morals.

How then do we arrive at that base for morals? We know that it must be created and agreed to by each society and culture. How does one find that base? It can be shown that the most common and most effective basis for moral and ethical truths has been derived from religion. To have a set of morals implies that the society has agreed to believe in a certain amount of absolute truth. Otherwise, any code of law or ethics is meaningless. To quote a favorite author of mine, "Assumptions based on understanding contain belief in an absolute ground out of which all things spring like plants growing from seed." The society agrees to believe in truths. Religion is the easiest vehicle to arrive to that agreement as it is inherently based upon belief in absolutes. Once society finds its absolutes, a code of laws and ethics can be created. Even in secular societies such as the United States, the foundations were laid by religious men, who gave the nation certain values which they believed in. By becoming a citizen of the United States, you inherently accept some of these principles.

I personally believe that there are absolute truths out there and definite bases of moral and ethical truth. As a religious person, I believe that God has given and is the basis for our morality. From this standpoint, morals are still relative. They depend on what God tells us is right or wrong. God could have decided to not make lust a sin. God gives us our moral compasses. He provides us a magnetic field to help guide us. It is up to us find our way home with them. Even though God has given an absolute basis for morality and ethics, it is still up to each society and each person to agree to live by these. Even though God has given us the morals which we should live by, we are still free to choose what our morals are. Society can and does create ethical situations which conflict with God’s law. As such, morality is inherently subjective upon whether or not you agree to live under God’s Law.

Even if relativists are right that cultures differ radically in their basic moral values, so what? The observation in itself proves nothing, because no conclusion about morality follows. Just because cultures differ on moral viewpoints doesn't mean that objective moral truth is a fiction.

Observations about the practices of groups of people, even if accurate, don't translate into valid conclusions about the true nature of morality. How does it follow that because each group thinks it's right, therefore no group is correct? The simple fact of disagreement on morality doesn't lead to the conclusion there is no moral truth. This confuses the accurate knowledge of objective values, with the existence of objective values.

Currently there are conflicting views on many things. The fact that there is disagreement, however, doesn't mean that no view could be correct. The same is true with differences of opinion on morality, isn't it?

Sorry, Gil, but no. What you're saying is that your morals are "correct" and others whos differ are wrong. That may well be true - the people arguing for absolutism seem to have their heads on straight as far as I can see... but that's not the argument.

The proposition was that Morals are universal and Absolute. The very fact that people can exist and live to a different moral code than ours proves that statement to be incorrect. See what I mean?

MutantQuasar takes us down an interesting path with the use of religion as the ultimate truth from which all else flows. Clearly, that's got to be the case - if you have a strong faith, you are unshakeably of the belief that the tenets and customs of your religion are absolute. Fair enough - but like he said, we then go on to create a set of ethics based upon the religion. If we don't have the religious belief (or a different one), then the ethical code we create will be different. So again, it's the religion that is absolute, not the morality.

I know that most people would say that religion and morality are so closely bound as to be of little difference, but there are many people who have been involved in religion throughout the ages who certainly wouldn't be on my Christmas card list... Didn't the Borgia family produce 2 Popes, for example?

Anyway - I'm getting off point. The fact is that the belief in the religion may be unshakable, but themorals were CREATED to fit the religion. They were not Absolute or it'd be the other way around... and they sure weren't Universal, or there'd only be one religion.

Anyway - I'm getting off point. The fact is that the belief in the religion may be unshakable, but themorals were CREATED to fit the religion. They were not Absolute or it'd be the other way around... and they sure weren't Universal, or there'd only be one religion.


I will disagree with you there. Even if there are absolute morals, people would still not necessarily follow the same religion because religion also serves to explain the unexplainable.

If absolute morality exists, we would eventually agree on the morals, but that doesnt necessarily mean we would believe in the same God or how the universe was created, etc.

And if you look at most of the world's religions today, they all have the same basic set of morals(killing, theft, being faithful to your spouse and your God, etc).

I will disagree with you there. Even if there are absolute morals, people would still not necessarily follow the same religion because religion also serves to explain the unexplainable.

If absolute morality exists, we would eventually agree on the morals, but that doesnt necessarily mean we would believe in the same God or how the universe was created, etc.

And if you look at most of the world's religions today, they all have the same basic set of morals(killing, theft, being faithful to your spouse and your God, etc).

Fair point, but maybe I wasn't being clear - I meant that if Religion is the absolute bedrock from which the morality comes (as MQ said), then it's the religion that is absolute and not the morality.

If the moral code was absolute, then the religion would have to change to fit the morals... see? And if that were the case, there'd only be one religion... and although many of them are similar (being as they are Monotheistic) there are many more which are not.

Does that make sense?

Fair point, but maybe I wasn't being clear - I meant that if Religion is the absolute bedrock from which the morality comes (as MQ said), then it's the religion that is absolute and not the morality.

If the moral code was absolute, then the religion would have to change to fit the morals... see? And if that were the case, there'd only be one religion... and although many of them are similar (being as they are Monotheistic) there are many more which are not.

Does that make sense?


Yeah I see what you are saying. But I just dont buy that because there are different religions, then morality must be relative. Couldnt it be that there is one religion and the rest are just wrong?

Do you believe that there is a moral absolute that governs all men? If not, why?

Assuming by "absolute" you mean morals that ought never to be questioned or doubted, no. While I base my actions on moral principles, I do not leave these principles completely outside the realm of criticism. I accept that they can be improved upon.

If not, how do you determine what "morality" is, and how do we as a society determine what is socially acceptable and what is not?

I think the non-aggression principle serves as an effective guideline for acceptable behavior. Any action which does not aggress against another person is acceptable. I think people should be allowed to live their lives as they please as long as they refrain from interfering in the rights of others to do the same. While this doesn't answer every single moral dilemma, it's the closest principle I have found to a universal foundation of morality.

Now, ToB, I'd like to turn the question around to you. :) If there exists a moral absolute, how do we determine what it is?

Now, ToB, I'd like to turn the question around to you. :) If there exists a moral absolute, how do we determine what it is?
Humans, by their very nature, are fallen beings, prone to doing evil. Some might dispute this fact, and say that humans are inherently good, but they would be incorrect.

That said, every human knows the difference between right and wrong. Some of that might be social, some may be a product of their environment, but I say it goes deeper than that. Everybody has a consciense, and when you do wrong, or think about doing wrong, that kicks in. I personally believe that the Bible gives us a moral truth and compass to guide us. Our laws give us direction as well, and most of our current laws in America and other civilized nations are based on the very principles found in the Bible.

In my estimation, a society MUST have a moral absolute or else said society will devolve into chaos with every individual doing what they see fit with no absolutes to judge against. This certainly explains why our society is the way it is today, and degrading VERY quickly day by day.

Humans, by their very nature, are fallen beings, prone to doing evil. Some might dispute this fact, and say that humans are inherently good, but they would be incorrect . . .

. . . Everybody has a consciense, and when you do wrong, or think about doing wrong, that kicks in . . .
If humans are inherently evil, then how/why does everybody have a conscience?


. . . I personally believe that the Bible gives us a moral truth and compass to guide us. Our laws give us direction as well, and most of our current laws in America and other civilized nations are based on the very principles found in the Bible.
ToB, please don't take this as an attack on your faith, but since you bring up the Bible...do you follow the Bible to every word, or do you attribute some parts of it as being irrelevant and/or inaccurate because they were penned by man? If the latter, how do you decide which parts are "absolute" and which are not? Doesn't that go against the entire idea of Absolutism and fall more into Moral Relativism?

If you do follow it to every word, I would love to see your response to Syd's favorite letter to Dr. Laura. :)

ToB, please don't take this as an attack on your faith, but since you bring up the Bible...do you follow the Bible to every word, or do you attribute some parts of it as being irrelevant and/or inaccurate because they were penned by man? If the latter, how do you decide which parts are "absolute" and which are not? Doesn't that go against the entire idea of Absolutism and fall more into Moral Relativism?

If you do follow it to every word, I would love to see your response to Syd's favorite letter to Dr. Laura. :)

Dammit, don't modify your post after I've replied! :D

I said humans are fallen beings, not inherently evil. :) What I meant by that is that humans know right from wrong, but it is much easier for a human to do wrong than it is to do right.

How can you possibly follow every word? Like I said in my previous post, humans are fallible. I am of the belief that the Bible is infallible; inspired by God. This is the subject of a completely other debate altogether, and I would love to discuss that somewhere else.

In order to believe in the Bible, you have to believe it in it's entirety; it is not a piecemeal deal.

do you attribute some parts of it as being irrelevant and/or inaccurate because they were penned by man?

Just for quick info, a lot of bible skeptics seem to get hung up on that, but in actuality a lot of what the bible says in the beginning is later made invalid by its own statements. The oldest trick in the book is for people to bring up all the nit-pickyness in Leviticus. Well, if you read all of what is said later in the new testament, then you see why we now ignore lots of the old rules. It wasn't that we were just selectively ignoring that part.

Humans, by their very nature, are fallen beings, prone to doing evil. Some might dispute this fact, and say that humans are inherently good, but they would be incorrect.

I disagree. People are "prone to doing evil" since we have free will, but people are basically good. When I came in to work today, my co-workers and I greeted each other with "Good morning", not "Fuck off". On the road, I see most cars driving at reasonable speeds within their lanes, albeit with a minority of inconsiderate drivers. I don't see a string of accidents or everyone trying to run each other off the road. At the grocery store, I usually see people quietly picking items off shelves and patiently waiting in line to purchase them. I don't see a constant gunfight between employees and people trying to steal things or rob the place, nor do I see everyone shoving each other out of the way. Generally, people only notice the bad things that people do, and neglect the fact that most of their lives are spent in peaceful interactions with others. Our very existence depends on the fact that people are basically good, because each of us relies on others for our own survival and for the survival of the species.

That said, every human knows the difference between right and wrong. Some of that might be social, some may be a product of their environment, but I say it goes deeper than that. Everybody has a consciense, and when you do wrong, or think about doing wrong, that kicks in. I personally believe that the Bible gives us a moral truth and compass to guide us. Our laws give us direction as well, and most of our current laws in America and other civilized nations are based on the very principles found in the Bible.

This begs the question of why you choose the Bible as the source for absolute morals instead of something else. If you want to discuss this in a separate thread, we'll go from there.

In my estimation, a society MUST have a moral absolute or else said society will devolve into chaos with every individual doing what they see fit with no absolutes to judge against. This certainly explains why our society is the way it is today, and degrading VERY quickly day by day.

People have said the same thing for millenia, yet society continues to survive and adapt to changing conditions. Why? Most people want to live in a stable society.

People have said the same thing for millenia, yet society continues to survive and adapt to changing conditions.
Not true. Society operates in a circular nature. A society grows from a strong organization where the people are concerned about a common good to one where each person does what they believe is best for themselves, and later: destruction. Look at the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, etc and you will see this happen over and over again.

Well, how can they be taught what is moral/acceptable when it changes every 20 years? I mean, uh... the show I Love Lucy was a bit contraversial for its time- it showed husband and wife in a bedroom (gasp). But now, there is ass shaking as far as the eye can see- on public TV, and I dont see a deal over that. By my personal morals, I think that is unacceptable, to me. I wouldnt allow that around me, near me, etc. So how can morals be taught to such a big group of people when they change? What is accepted in society changes. Or did I miss your point?

Very specialized specifics of ethics and morality can change rapidly, but the base moral foundations of a society either take a very long time to change through a very slow process of assimilation and degredation or they can change very rapidly through times of serious cultural crisis. Whether or not a television show can show a couple in bed is insignifigant when compared to whether or not murder is acceptable and when you think about it, having morals against murder is much more important to the maintanence of the fabric of society than what Lucille Ball does on her show.

I think our morals are declining because it is in human nature to take the path of least resistance if it is available.

I would argue that our culture is declining because it was too successful. A degredation of morals is only a symptom of a much larger problem. We see repeditively throughout history that most cultures collapse because they were too successful and rotted in the ashes of their own complacency. The precise thing which makes a society successful is what is destroyed even as the society achieve success.

it's the religion that is absolute, not the morality.

Not quite. What I would say is that as a matter of cosmic truth, there is an absolute morality but that it is still left to a society to agree to that absolute morality. Morals as dictated by society are not necessarily and in fact rarely are absolute.

The thing about religion is only that religion is the easiest vehicle for a society to proclaim its own view of morality as absolute and infallable.

Just for quick info, a lot of bible skeptics seem to get hung up on that, but in actuality a lot of what the bible says in the beginning is later made invalid by its own statements. The oldest trick in the book is for people to bring up all the nit-pickyness in Leviticus. Well, if you read all of what is said later in the new testament, then you see why we now ignore lots of the old rules. It wasn't that we were just selectively ignoring that part.

The thing about Christianity is that it is based upon the teachings of Christ. Christ's teaching changed the focus of scriptural law from one of legalism to one of love and to some degree intent.

Morals are absolute if you believe in God.
Morals are relative if you don't believe in God.
So the moral of the story is faithless beings that wonder the earth are all relative to exsistance and those who are consumed with faith are of an absolute exsistance. Sounds good to me. I would rather be absolute than relative.

John Kerry seems relative to me. He is never absolute about anything. WOW, I am gald that was resolved.

tMR

Not true. Society operates in a circular nature. A society grows from a strong organization where the people are concerned about a common good to one where each person does what they believe is best for themselves, and later: destruction. Look at the Greeks, Romans, Babylonians, etc and you will see this happen over and over again.

Well, I agree somewhat with this point, when you put it in those terms. I do see a cyclical process in societies. However, I don't see people doing "what they believe as best for themselves" as the point where the society begins to decline. When people find themselves oppressed, they distrust government, and they work towards change. When they find themselves more prosperous, they trust government, and are more apathetic towards the power-hungry who work to slowly erode the society and make it more dependent on government. (Think Boiled Frog Syndrome). So I don't view selfishness as part of the problem. Selfishness can be a virtue as long as respect for our neighbor's choice is respected. It's when we allow government to divide people and create dependency that society begins to head downhill.

Well, I agree somewhat with this point, when you put it in those terms. I do see a cyclical process in societies. However, I don't see people doing "what they believe as best for themselves" as the point where the society begins to decline. When people find themselves oppressed, they distrust government, and they work towards change. When they find themselves more prosperous, they trust government, and are more apathetic towards the power-hungry who work to slowly erode the society and make it more dependent on government. (Think Boiled Frog Syndrome). So I don't view selfishness as part of the problem. Selfishness can be a virtue as long as respect for our neighbor's choice is respected. It's when we allow government to divide people and create dependency that society begins to head downhill.

See? We agree on the subject.

The thing about the Greeks that we must keep in mind is that too much power was placed with the peoples' hands. Greed and apathy took over, and soon the country was being governed by a vocal minority rather than the silent majority. The Romans were much the same way, but to a far lesser degree because of the Republic governmental structure. You will notice if you look at Roman history, towards the end the people started to elect the senators that promised them the most financial gain. The prospective senators appealed to the selfishness and greed of the people and did what was best for the individuals rather than the country as a whole. That is why you see the Empire split and the western part of the empire was overrun shortly thereafter while the eastern part in Constantinople thrived for 1000 more years.

I see our society going much the same way. We are too consumed with looking out for ourselves (morally speaking) that we don't spend enough time strengthening our communities as a whole.

Humans, by their very nature, are fallen beings, prone to doing evil. Why? And what do you mean by Evil? (whole different argument... or is it?) Some might dispute this fact, and say that humans are inherently good, but they would be incorrect.It's not a fact, Ben, it's your opinion. Based on your religion. And you know I don't believe in your religion. A fact is something that can be proven. Prove it, or stop with the rhetoric.

That said, every human knows the difference between right and wrong.You have your own idea of what is right and wrong, I have mine, they have theirs. Don't be so naive as to assume all are the same. Some societies think it's OK to force their children into arranged marriages. I think they're wrong, they think they're right. Who's to judge? You? Who the fuck do you think you are? Some of that might be social, some may be a product of their environment, but I say it goes deeper than that.WHY???? Everybody has a consciense, and when you do wrong, or think about doing wrong, that kicks in.That's utter bullshit mate, and you damn well know it. You know what a sociopath is? It's someone who has no conception of how to interact with other people... someone almost completely lacking in empathy. These people exist - in numbers greater than you or I would care to admit - in everyday society. If you deny that, then I can only conclude that you don't get out much and have MASSIVE blinkers. If you agree that these people are amongst us, then your position is untenable. I personally believe that the Bible gives us a moral truth and compass to guide us.Good for you. I don't. So what? Our laws give us direction as well, and most of our current laws in America and other civilized nations are based on the very principles found in the Bible.No, they aren't. Our laws are basically to ensure safety and prosperity for the maximum number of people in a society. Those laws change from society to society... Case in point - Britain and the USA are pretty much eye to eye on most things, yes? We are close allies. I'm glad about that. But you guys have the death penalty, which I think is as unevolved and barbaric a custom as I can imagine. And didn't the Bible say "thou shalt not kill"? Of course it did.
In my estimation, a society MUST have a moral absolute or else said society will devolve into chaos with every individual doing what they see fit with no absolutes to judge against.I'm beginning to question whether or not you actually know what an absolute is... I think that maybe you mean there is a degree of behaviour that a society will not tolerate. No argument here, but that ISN'T what a moral absolute is.

What you're saying is that nobody should ever be allowed to act outwith the parameters outlined by western law. That isn't a moral absolute, mate... that's just imposing your will and beliefs on others. I hate to break it tou you, but that's exactly what the fucking Nazis did. Seriously. Take a step back and ask yourself... if that's actually what you mean, are you being reasonable? What right have you got to dictate how other countries live their lives? Answer - you haven't. Sorry, but America doesn't rule the fucking world. It's that simple. Get off your high horse. This certainly explains why our society is the way it is today, and degrading VERY quickly day by day.Maybe American society might be a little more palatable if you didn't have guns in every house and stopped scaring yourselves to death about terrrorism.

Guns + Scared Americans = dead people.

Think about it.

Moral Relativism is a system of morality that holds that there are no absolute or universal morals. All morals are personal and/or cultural. An example would be an American thinking it is okay to stick your tongue out in public, versus an Arab who thinks it sinful. Thus a moral relativist would never expect anyone other than himself to adhere to his set of morals.

A *true* moral relativist therefore, would never say "murder is wrong", for example. He would only say that it is up for you to decide for yourself if it was wrong. In fact a true moral relativist wouldn't even say whether moral relativism itself was right or wrong.

The moral absolutist on the other hand only sees the world in "black and white". There are absolutely no shades of gray, and no such thing as "mitigating factors". Further, the moral absolutist does not distinguish between personal and absolute values... all values are absolute. If a moral absolutist thought that wearing yellow was offensive to God, then anyone wearing yellow is a sinner, even if they belong to another religion and only wear yellow in the privacy of their own homes on the other side of the world. Further if asked whether or not moral absolutism was right or wrong, an absolutist would immediately say that it was appropriate. I've yet to meet a conservative who fits this description, though I've seen some that come disturbingly close.

But you guys have the death penalty, which I think is as unevolved and barbaric a custom as I can imagine.

And I happen to think that the eating the eating of crumpets and the drinking of tea to be absolutely dispicable and the most barbaric thing that a human can do. Actually, if you do those things, you can't be human. You have become an animal. :p

And didn't the Bible say "thou shalt not kill"? Of course it did.

Actually, it says "thou shalt not commit murder." There is a huge difference.

And I happen to think that the eating the eating of crumpets and the drinking of tea to be absolutely dispicable and the most barbaric thing that a human can do. Actually, if you do those things, you can't be human. You have become an animal. :p
You win, mate. :D

Crumpets suck. :p

Actually, it says "thou shalt not commit murder." There is a huge difference.Sorry - I sit corrected. I'm not gonna argue with YOU over this. I withdraw... ;)

You win, mate. :D

Crumpets suck. :p

Sorry - I sit corrected. I'm not gonna argue with YOU over this. I withdraw... ;)

Furthermore, what cruel and unusual punishment is HAGGIS?!

Anybody who eats Haggis has no business whatsoever telling a civilized person about morals.

Dammit, don't modify your post after I've replied! :D

I said humans are fallen beings, not inherently evil. :) What I meant by that is that humans know right from wrong, but it is much easier for a human to do wrong than it is to do right.

How can you possibly follow every word? Like I said in my previous post, humans are fallible. I am of the belief that the Bible is infallible; inspired by God. This is the subject of a completely other debate altogether, and I would love to discuss that somewhere else.

In order to believe in the Bible, you have to believe it in it's entirety; it is not a piecemeal deal.
But there are many versions of the Bible, are there not? And also a holy book for many different religions. Each one states a different set of morals. If you base morals on the Bible, then which holy book is the correct one? I'm agnostic, and I believe this can never be answered.

Anyways, back to the question. I actually do think there is an absolute, except that we, as humans, can never discover it. My argument on morals being relative is based on reality, and how things are today. While there may be an absolutely correct set of morals, we'll never completely know what it is, or completely accept it.

However, when I said that the definition of absolute morality is whatever we accept it to be, that's true. Whether or not it's the actual absolute morals, we'll never know, but to us, whatever we choose to accept is what the absolute moral is. So actually, morals are both absolute and relative, depending on whether you take the point of view of a human, or of a supreme being looking at the world as a whole.

Maybe American society might be a little more palatable if you didn't have guns in every house and stopped scaring yourselves to death about terrrorism.

Guns + Scared Americans = dead people.

Now you just knew I had to reply to this didn't you? :p

I promise that just because someone has guns in the house it doesn't mean they are afraid and feel the need to be on defense all the time. I'm not scared. But I do like having the ability to take things to the next level if someone else is intent on pushing it there... I definitely don't think about it all the time though. My guns and I will be happy to play host to anyone from the UK... I've done it before. :)

Moral Relativism is a system of morality that holds that there are no absolute or universal morals. All morals are personal and/or cultural. An example would be an American thinking it is okay to stick your tongue out in public, versus an Arab who thinks it sinful. Thus a moral relativist would never expect anyone other than himself to adhere to his set of morals.I'm glad you understand my position. Now - what exactly is your point?

A *true* moral relativist therefore, would never say "murder is wrong", for example. He would only say that it is up for you to decide for yourself if it was wrong. In fact a true moral relativist wouldn't even say whether moral relativism itself was right or wrong.That's right. I don't say that murder is wrong. I leave that up to the courts. It's called the Rule Of Law. Anything else is Vigilanteism. You choose.

The moral absolutist on the other hand only sees the world in "black and white". There are absolutely no shades of gray, and no such thing as "mitigating factors". Further, the moral absolutist does not distinguish between personal and absolute values... all values are absolute.Yes... I know. So... you come home and find someone has broken into your home and is sexually assaulting your daughter. You then take the nearest sharp object and beat them in the head until they are dead... And I wouldn't blame you. But your own moral code says it is wrong to kill... Remember, you said there were NO MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES. What the hell do we do with YOU, you murdering bastard? Get my point? If a moral absolutist thought that wearing yellow was offensive to God, then anyone wearing yellow is a sinner, even if they belong to another religion and only wear yellow in the privacy of their own homes on the other side of the world.But I don't believe in God. I missed the part where this discussion became about religion... Further if asked whether or not moral absolutism was right or wrong, an absolutist would immediately say that it was appropriate. I've yet to meet a conservative who fits this description, though I've seen some that come disturbingly close.I don't really know what this means... it's probably a language thing. Sorry, Gil.

I'm glad you understand my position. Now - what exactly is your point?

None. I agree with relativists in few cases but as a believer, I'm deeply moral absolutist in despite of doubts. Our society needs rules to protect the system even many times such are not welcome nor perfect.

Pardon what may be my ignorance, but if you bring such things as society and culture into morality doesn't that immediately make it Relativistic...

And if thats true, then I don't see how an argument can hold that there would be such a thing as absolutism.

That's utter bullshit mate, and you damn well know it. You know what a sociopath is? It's someone who has no conception of how to interact with other people... someone almost completely lacking in empathy. These people exist - in numbers greater than you or I would care to admit - in everyday society. If you deny that, then I can only conclude that you don't get out much and have MASSIVE blinkers. If you agree that these people are amongst us, then your position is untenable.

That's, not, quite true. Correct me if I'm wrong --

Conscience, or at least moral conscience is governed by a part of your brain called your pre-frontal cortex. Everybody has one. However, in some people activity in this part of the brain is greatly diminished. For example in cannibals, murderers, mutilators, rapists, arsonists, the works. In other words, some people are born killers. Some people are born rapists. Some people are born to be in today's sociaty wrong. To others, this is something done unto them. This trend is just, a trend however. It does not exist in all reprobates, likewise there are people with a damaged PFC that have lived perfectly normal lives, however, unless this part of the brain has been completely obliterated, even sociopaths have morals. Just not a lot of them :p .

Spero

Moral are relative. What one person considers "good" is actions that conform with what they believe is moral and "evil" is actions that oppose what they consider to be moral.


EDIT: Hehe, didn't mean to be so generic. :D However, morals are still relative, because for something to be absolute, it means that it is unchangeable. Mathematics has absolutes, because no matter how much a perso argues, 2 + 2 will always equal four. You can't have that with morals, because people will always have different ideas of what is right and wrong.

Moral are relative. What one person considers "good" is actions that conform with what they believe is moral and "evil" is actions that oppose what they consider to be moral.
You didn't read anything besides the first post, did you? :rolleyes:

I think that with 7 pages, we've covered that generic response in every way possible.

I am banning everybody that posted on this thread that disagrees with my belief. If you don't like that idea, please post and explain why.

I am banning everybody that posted on this thread that disagrees with my belief. If you don't like that idea, please post and explain why.

For once, I do actually agree with what you said on this thing. Does this threat of banning count as a moral absolute for posting?

For once, I do actually agree with what you said on this thing. Does this threat of banning count as a moral absolute for posting?

I don't understand your question, so therefore, I am banning you. If you disagree, please explain why.

I don't understand your question, so therefore, I am banning you. If you disagree, please explain why.

Your banning me! That isn't fair! I was asking if your statement of "agree with my opinion or be banned" was a moral absolutism for the board.

Your banning me! That isn't fair! I was asking if your statement of "agree with my opinion or be banned" was a moral absolutism for the board.
I'm not talking about the board. I'm talking about life in general.

Do you believe in moral absolutism or moral relativism?

Was that question aimed at me or everyone else as well?

I belive in moral absolutism (with possible flexability of punishment depending on the circumstances).

Was that question aimed at me or everyone else as well?

I belive in moral absolutism (with possible flexability of punishment depending on the circumstances).

Ok, then since you agree with me, I will not ban you.

Anybody else care to speak up? :) Otherwise I'll just start banning people.

I disagree with you, because morals are based on personal belief, and therefore, it can not be absolute.

I disagree with you, because morals are based on personal belief, and therefore, it can not be absolute.

Ok then, MSI101...How would you feel if I banned you right now?

I disagree with you, because morals are based on personal belief, and therefore, it can not be absolute.

Are you saying that if I belive its okay to eat children alive, then it isn't wrong of me to do so?

I disagree with you, because morals are based on personal belief, and therefore, it can not be absolute.


So Hitler thought it was moral to kill all the Jews, are you saying what he did was moral?

Ok, then since you agree with me, I will not ban you.

Anybody else care to speak up? :) Otherwise I'll just start banning people.
Woooooah, I'm scared to debate now!

Ok then, MSI101...How would you feel if I banned you right now?

I think that would really suck, cause I was just expressing my opinion in a debate. However, "morals" is a very broad subject that it can include almost anything. However, I will agree that some moral values have become absolute, because they are so ingrained in the society that they aren't going to change.

I think that would really suck, cause I was just expressing my opinion in a debate. However, "morals" is a very broad subject that it can include almost anything. However, I will agree that some moral values have become absolute, because they are so ingrained in the society that they aren't going to change.

Everybody is free to have their own personal beliefs until those beliefs hurt YOU. You are hurt because you feel like you have been wronged. If I banned you, you would find it unfair, unjust and wrong. That is the point I am trying to make here. A person's reaction to injustice is proof that there is a moral absolute outside of themselves.

Everybody is free to have their own personal beliefs until those beliefs hurt YOU. You are hurt because you feel like you have been wronged. If I banned you, you would find it unfair, unjust and wrong. That is the point I am trying to make here. A person's reaction to injustice is proof that there is a moral absolute outside of themselves.

It was a very well made point, and after much serious thought, I've found that I agree with you for the reasons you stated.

EDIT: This change in opinion also resulted from really seeing both sides of the argument. :D

A person's reaction to injustice is proof that there is a moral absolute outside of themselves.

No, their reaction to what they perceive as "injustice" shows that they are relative concepts.

Their reaction shows that their standards of good and evil and other morality concepts differ to others; whether "others" includes the entire world, their family, friends, Bill Blogs or whoever depending on the situation where they feel injustice.

I am banning everybody that posted on this thread that disagrees with my belief. If you don't like that idea, please post and explain why.
Okay, bye!

fu.20.chars

No, their reaction to what they perceive as "injustice" shows that they are relative concepts.

Their reaction shows that their standards of good and evil and other morality concepts differ to others; whether "others" includes the entire world, their family, friends, Bill Blogs or whoever depending on the situation where they feel injustice.

Do you "perceive" the Holocaust to have been an injustice?

Do you "perceive" Mother Theresa to have been a "good" person?

Do you "perceive" the Holocaust to have been an injustice?

Do you "perceive" Mother Theresa to have been a "good" person?

can you think of anything in your reality that you don't "perceive" in some way, whether good, bad or neutral?



So Hitler thought it was moral to kill all the Jews, are you saying what he did was moral?

To him it was moral. To everyone else it was appalling. Hence, he thought that he was doing the "right" thing, the same way that terrorists are convinced that killing Americans is a "good" thing to do. If morals were absolute, Hitler would have been disgusted at killing the Jews and would have stopped. But he didn't.

can you think of anything in your reality that you don't "perceive" in some way, whether good, bad or neutral?



To him it was moral. To everyone else it was appalling. Hence, he thought that he was doing the "right" thing, the same way that terrorists are convinced that killing Americans is a "good" thing to do. If morals were absolute, Hitler would have been disgusted at killing the Jews and would have stopped. But he didn't.

If morals are relative, then where did we get off going over there to stop him? We should have just let him kill all the Jews if it was right according to his moral standards...

What sets those perceptions? You know deep in your heart, without anybody telling or prodding you, that murder is wrong.

If morals are relative, then where did we get off going over there to stop him? We should have just let him kill all the Jews if it was right according to his moral standards...

What sets those perceptions? You know deep in your heart, without anybody telling or prodding you, that murder is wrong.

He had one set of morals; we had another. To us it was "wrong" that a genocide was being committed; to him it was "right." Hence, we took our perception of right and wrong and applied it according to the situation. Just because Hitler thought that it was "right" for the Jews to be killed doesn't mean that we shouldn't assert our morality.

He had one set of morals; we had another. To us it was "wrong" that a genocide was being committed; to him it was "right." Hence, we took our perception of right and wrong and applied it according to the situation. Just because Hitler thought that it was "right" for the Jews to be killed doesn't mean that we shouldn't assert our morality.

If I believe that 2+2 = 5 then I am wrong, am I not? The only way you know that 2+2 is not equal to 5 is because you know what the right answer is.

If there is not a Moral Law, then there's no difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler. Statements like "murder is evil," "racism is wrong," or "you shouldn't abuse children" have no objective meaning because they're just your opinion. It's the same as "I like chocolate better than vanilla."

Furthermore, the terms "good," "bad," "better," and "worse" have no meaning either in terms of morality if there is not an absolute standard.

How do you know what is WRONG unless you know what is RIGHT? And if you know what is right and good, then how do you know that you know it's right and good?

Without a Moral Law or standard, there is no need for civil rights or even differing political opinions. Many Liberals are so adamant about their political beliefs, but yet they do not believe in a moral standard. How can they value their values while believing that there is no absolute value system to base their values on in the first place?

actually ben, you shouldnt use the term 2+2, cuz in theory while thats true, in fact it isnt.

for instance if one raindrop meets another, the two combine to make one bigger raindrop, in this instance 1 +1=1

on topic, a relativist could claim that the same conditions in the same enviroment wouldnt necessarily produce the same results.

however, my arguement to that would be, while the results wouldnt be exactly the same, they would be similar.

If morals are relative, then where did we get off going over there to stop him? We should have just let him kill all the Jews if it was right according to his moral standards...

What sets those perceptions? You know deep in your heart, without anybody telling or prodding you, that murder is wrong.

My upbringing, social circle, education, socio-economic status and the chemical balances in my brain, to name a few influences, shape my set of morals and ethics. Some of them are fairly fixed in stone (like my attitudes towards rape and murder for example), others changed as I gerw older and shifted from one spectrum to another.

If I believe that 2+2 = 5 then I am wrong, am I not? The only way you know that 2+2 is not equal to 5 is because you know what the right answer is. You just contradicted yourself. If you knew that 2+2 really did =4 then you wouldn't believe that it equalled 5. For you to "believe" it, you would have to have been told that 2+2=5 since birth.


If there is not a Moral Law, then there's no difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler. Statements like "murder is evil," "racism is wrong," or "you shouldn't abuse children" have no objective meaning because they're just your opinion. It's the same as "I like chocolate better than vanilla."
Exactly. It seems appalling to many people, but the only reason that you can designate anything "good" or "bad" is on the basis of how your mind chooses to designate input.
The basis of that designation coems from standards through growing up in a structured society. Have you ever seen a young child smash a grasshopper or an ant for no apparent reason and laugh about it?

Furthermore, the terms "good," "bad," "better," and "worse" have no meaning either in terms of morality if there is not an absolute standard.

How do you know what is WRONG unless you know what is RIGHT? And if you know what is right and good, then how do you know that you know it's right and good?
The reason that you know one thing is "good" or "bad" is, as I said above, because you've grown up in a society where those things have been designated "bad" through reasoning. In feudal Japan, for example, it was considered much more honorable(we'll say "good" for this argument) for a samurai to committ sepuki(violent, messy type of suicide invovling self-disembowlment) than suffer the shame of defeat. Today, we find that abhorent. Who in their right mind would kill themself after a battle that they lost? Today, we would say nobody. In fact, we would say that its "wrong" to kill yourself under just about any circumstances. The fact that to one group of people the act of suicide "bad" and another finds it "good" is proof that there is no moral standard between the two.
If there was, then all people from all time in all states of mind would have to find the act of suicide in any form to be a "bad" thing. There could be no exceptions, and here there clearly is.
Without a Moral Law or standard, there is no need for civil rights or even differing political opinions. Many Liberals are so adamant about their political beliefs, but yet they do not believe in a moral standard. How can they value their values while believing that there is no absolute value system to base their values on in the first place?
What the wtf does politics have anything to do with this? Equating liberals with no moral laws and conservatives with moral absolutes is, you'll hopefully agree, pretty ridiculous. Furthermore, just because there are no moral absolutes doesn't mean that we shouldn't have and enforce laws according to what we find good or bad. What we as a society call "good" and "bad" falls within a range acceptable to most people. Hence, we do in fact need civil rights because this society designates the rights of the individual. To violate them would be to violate our designation of right and wrong, not a higher absolute.


If there was higher absolute, then it wouldn't change over time. If 50 years ago it wasn't "right" in this country for a black man and a white woman to marry, it wouldn't be "right" today.

I really wish people who don't understand mathematics wouldn't try to use it to support their arguments.

actually ben, you shouldnt use the term 2+2, cuz in theory while thats true, in fact it isnt.

for instance if one raindrop meets another, the two combine to make one bigger raindrop, in this instance 1 +1=1


This is comparing apples to oranges and frankly shows that you have no concept of what "addition" means in mathematical terms. You are mixing your definitions and combining two different definitions of addition into something that is not a definition of addition in order to support your point. That's either ignorant or dishonest, take your pick.


If I believe that 2+2 = 5 then I am wrong, am I not? The only way you know that 2+2 is not equal to 5 is because you know what the right answer is.


No, the only way you know it is because you can demonstrate it from base axioms. It has, as a matter of point, been convincingly argued that the law cannot be considered a "moral agent."

Certain things that you are describing as moral constructs, such as murder, can be treated instead as ethical precepts that can be handled from the discussion of certain basic axioms that should be defined in advance. These "social-ethical" axioms can be debated over as to which is the best set for the foundation of a rational society, but it is the discussion of the axioms themselves and not just the results from those axioms that needs to take place in a societal context.

Mathmatics can't be used in an arguement about morals because this arguement is opinion, the laws of maths are factual, there is an absolute which can't be deviated from without error.

If there is a moral absolute, then does it mean that if we didn't do any wrong, we wouldn't be able to tell what is right either?

[COLOR=Olive]Mathmatics can't be used in an arguement about morals because this arguement is opinion, the laws of maths are factual, there is an absolute which can't be deviated from without error.


Therefore morals can be logically inconsistent, i.e., contradictory and still be correct?

They cannot--A or not A. If they are logically inconsistent then they are by definition incorrect, and therefore mathematics can and should be used in arguments about morality.

Therefore morals can be logically inconsistent, i.e., contradictory and still be correct?

They cannot--A or not A. If they are logically inconsistent then they are by definition incorrect, and therefore mathematics can and should be used in arguments about morality.

2 + 2 = 4. There isn't a way around it. It's a fact.

Murder = wrong. This may be an almost universal constant, but it is not fact. There are and always have been people whom believe murder is not wrong. Since everybody in the entire world has not been raised on identical principals it is impossible to call a moral a fact. It is an opinion.

In short, mathematics is based on fact. Morality is based on opinion. Comparing the two is like asking 'What height is red made out of?".

Spero

Therefore morals can be logically inconsistent, i.e., contradictory and still be correct?

They cannot--A or not A. If they are logically inconsistent then they are by definition incorrect, and therefore mathematics can and should be used in arguments about morality.

I phrased my post badly, when I said mathematics I ment the basic arithmetic that prievious people were using as examples, propositional logic can of course be applied, but that doesnt prove that arguments are correct. Any valid argument can be backed up using logic, but valid arguements aren't always true.

Eg.

Morals are absolute = A
Morals are relative = B

A Xor B, A, therefore not B

This argument is valid, it conforms to the logic set out by the arguement, that does not however mean that it is true. (It is true in my opinion, but that is my opinion and I can't prove it through logic, if somone else can Ill be only to happy to be corrected)

I phrased my post badly, when I said mathematics I ment the basic arithmetic that prievious people were using as examples, propositional logic can of course be applied, but that doesnt prove that arguments are correct. Any valid argument can be backed up using logic, but valid arguements aren't always true.

Eg.

Morals are absolute = A
Morals are relative = B

A Xor B, A, therefore not B

This argument is valid, it conforms to the logic set out by the arguement, that does not however mean that it is true. (It is true in my opinion, but that is my opinion and I can't prove it through logic, if somone else can Ill be only to happy to be corrected)


But just because A and B are mutually exclusive, the properties of A and B are notnecessarily mutually exclusive.

If Lly has a red Corvette and I have a Tacoma, you cannot state that, because a Corvette is a car and a Tacoma is a truck, my truck cannot be red.

But just because A and B are mutually exclusive, the properties of A and B are notnecessarily mutually exclusive.

If Lly has a red Corvette and I have a Tacoma, you cannot state that, because a Corvette is a car and a Tacoma is a truck, my truck cannot be red.

Im not sure I understand what your point is, I was saying that logic can't be used to back up an argument if the argument itself defines the laws of logic, Im not sure what you are getting at here.

Im not sure I understand what your point is, I was saying that logic can't be used to back up an argument if the argument itself defines the laws of logic, Im not sure what you are getting at here.

Hmmm maybe spending too much time reading the moderation post queue has eaten away at my brain. I knew what I was talking about when I posted that I swear. But right now my point escapes me, to be honest I think your clarification confused me more than I was before it.

Hmmm maybe spending too much time reading the moderation post queue has eaten away at my brain. I knew what I was talking about when I posted that I swear. But right now my point escapes me, to be honest I think your clarification confused me more than I was before it.

Lol okay, if Im not making any sense then I wont explain again, Ill just confuse people more. I was merely asking Llywelyn how you could back up an arguement based on opinion through logic, as apposed to confirming whether or not its valid

I phrased my post badly, when I said mathematics I ment the basic arithmetic that prievious people were using as examples, propositional logic can of course be applied, but that doesnt prove that arguments are correct. Any valid argument can be backed up using logic, but valid arguements aren't always true.
Even sound arguments are not always true. I don't know how familiar you are with philosophy, but there is a case called a Gettier example that posits the idea that even a justified true belief may not rise to the state of knowledge.

One simple example I've found goes like this:
1) I have a clock on the wall that I use to get the time every day.
2) This clock, when I look at it right now, says that the time is 2:00.
3) I conclude, "The time is 2:00."
Unknown to me, the clock has stopped in the night at exactly 2:00, so therefore, I have a justified true belief that does not rise to the state of knowledge. It is mere coincidence that the time is right.

How does this affect logic? The premises you choose as being absolutely true in order to make a sound argument as opposed to a valid one, may be nothing more than coincidences. Logic is not absolute, by any means. Sounds strange coming from me, I know.

However, to keep this somewhat on topic, morals can be absolute without everyone's morals being the same. Some people can be wrong. Here's a hypothetical for all you people that are relativists:

You travel to a planet where people skin babies alive for fun. This is an integral part of their culture and is a source of pride on this planet. There are no ill effects to the growth of the culture. It has always been this way, and will always be this way for the future. No one on the planet that thinks "logically" there feels that this is wrong. My question to relativists is "Are they still wrong?" My question to absolutists is "Since you are an outside observer, is your perception of what is morally right and wrong on this planet flawed since you have no experience with the world you have traveled to?"

Even sound arguments are not always true. I don't know how familiar you are with philosophy, but there is a case called a Gettier example that posits the idea that even a justified true belief may not rise to the state of knowledge.

One simple example I've found goes like this:
1) I have a clock on the wall that I use to get the time every day.
2) This clock, when I look at it right now, says that the time is 2:00.
3) I conclude, "The time is 2:00."
Unknown to me, the clock has stopped in the night at exactly 2:00, so therefore, I have a justified true belief that does not rise to the state of knowledge. It is mere coincidence that the time is right.

How does this affect logic? The premises you choose as being absolutely true in order to make a sound argument as opposed to a valid one, may be nothing more than coincidences. Logic is not absolute, by any means. Sounds strange coming from me, I know.

However, to keep this somewhat on topic, morals can be absolute without everyone's morals being the same. Some people can be wrong. Here's a hypothetical for all you people that are relativists:

You travel to a planet where people skin babies alive for fun. This is an integral part of their culture and is a source of pride on this planet. There are no ill effects to the growth of the culture. It has always been this way, and will always be this way for the future. No one on the planet that thinks "logically" there feels that this is wrong. My question to relativists is "Are they still wrong?" My question to absolutists is "Since you are an outside observer, is your perception of what is morally right and wrong on this planet flawed since you have no experience with the world you have traveled to?"

Your right in asuming that I dont know much about philosofy, but as far as I can tell you are agreeing with me. In your clock example, the arguement that it is 02:00 because the clock says so, when the clock is taken to be telling the time, is valid, but not true, so while the hypothetical person looking at the clock belives its true, it still isnt, he just isnt aware of it. It's isn't true just because someone belives it is. This is a different debate and I'll say no more.

As an absolutist, I answer your question with the response that because I know nothing of life on this planet, I am not qualified to judge those who do, however I still belive that skinning babies is wrong and just because it is the norm on this planet of yours and is generally percieved to be absolutly moral, that doesn't mean the society is right in beliving that. I also belive that (in a previously quoted example) the Japanese who thought it was the honorable thing to do the kill themselves if they lost a battle, were wrong. Just because they didn't think it was, doesn't make it so. People can be wrong when they are defining what the absolute of morals actually are.

2 + 2 = 4. There isn't a way around it. It's a fact.

Murder = wrong. This may be an almost universal constant, but it is not fact. There are and always have been people whom believe murder is not wrong. Since everybody in the entire world has not been raised on identical principals it is impossible to call a moral a fact. It is an opinion.

In short, mathematics is based on fact. Morality is based on opinion. Comparing the two is like asking 'What height is red made out of?".

Spero

Did people miss my post or does everybody agree? Sorry, just need to know.

Spero

2 + 2 = 4. There isn't a way around it. It's a fact.
This sort of reasoning won't win you much more than a shouting match.
There are and always have been people whom believe murder is not wrong.
Perhaps they are wrong.
Since everybody in the entire world has not been raised on