Absolute vs. relative morality

You're ranting again, TW Scott. Go have a lie down, and you might feel better.
 
I'd feel better if you actually read the posts you are rebutting. I mean come on man. You are capable of so much better. Usually you can do two paragraphs of BS before the inconsistancy pops up. In your rebuttal it was so obvious it almost hurt to read.
 
I was referring to your lack of performance here.

James R. said:
Neildo:


Neildo said:
“ Morals are all relative.
...
Hell, just let everyone do whatever they want so long as it doesn't harm anyone against their will and it should be fine. ”
Click to expand...


What if somebody considers it morally acceptable to harm other people against their will? That would be moral for them, and so ok by your own argument, I guess.
Click to expand...

Everybody else could see what Neildo's statement menat, except you. In fact you completely missed the point as if you had not read past "Hell, just let everybody do what they want' in his statement. You made a luaghing stock out of yourself. Not that you weren't before in some places.

I was just trying to goad you inot actually responding ina more logical fashion. I can see now, however you will not as you cannot see where you are wrong.
 
TW Scott:

It is quite clear that if you had a substantive complaint about my post, you would have made it by now, instead of making ad hominem attacks.

Nothing more needs to be said.
 
James R said:
TW Scott:

It is quite clear that if you had a substantive complaint about my post, you would have made it by now, instead of making ad hominem attacks.

Nothing more needs to be said.
Click to expand...

James R

It is astonishing clear that you were not capable of seeing my point. I would hand you a magnifying glass, but if after several readings you have not gotten, I fear you never will. Luckily for me it has allowed me to officially classify you.

PS Since your point was already countered by the preceding statement my point was you needed to reread and adjust. And insults added were hardly and ad hominem attack as I did deal with the idssue in another way. Please learn proper debate techniques, if you can.
 
Last edited:
What if somebody considers it morally acceptable to harm other people against their will? That would be moral for them, and so ok by your own argument, I guess.
Click to expand...

It depends if that somebody is the one doing the harm or the one receiving it.

What I meant is that the people involved, in whatever actions they may be, should be allowed to do whatever they want if they *all* consent.

If someone finds it morally acceptable to harm others and the person being harmed didn't consent, it's a no-go as that person is being harmed against their will. However, if the person being harmed consented to that harm as if they're a masochist, then sure, knock yourself out.

- N
 
I believe that Morality is both absolute and relative, absolute in that there is a universal and timeless morality that we through the passing of time come to learn through (as you suggested before James) evoluton and the development of our conscience and powers of empathy. Meanwhile, while we are journeying toward that 'absolute' morality that exists outside of ourselves and despite ourselves, we use relative morality to guide our actions.

Hence as time goes by, things considered acceptable in the past become unacceptable in the present and more so in the future. We are less barbaric today than we were yesterday.

In cultures where some practices are still barbaric, they are in every sense behind the modern world, in terms of development. So rather than the barbarism being just a cultural norm, it is a difference in development of that particular group of people. In some point in their future they will up to where we are now and also consider the actions of their present barbaric in their future. Such is evolution.

We are as a people evolving towards a higher understanding of our universe and that includes a higher understanding of all life and appreciation for it, especially as we come to learn the true fragility of what we have here.

Some people are closer the the moral truth than others hence the differences in opinions on moral issues. While some depend on relative morals dictated by culture and society and religion, others can see beyond these and form their own moral choices based on a higher set of values that form the absolute moral code.

For the world to live in harmony all cultures thus need to be up to speed in their development both emotionally and developmentally. This is not the case and probably cannot ever be the case. Hence the instability in the world. Meanwhile, while recognising the more barbaric nations among us, we must not be intolerant towards them, afterall their present is merely our past and we were them at one point in our time. We should show them the path rather than 'beating' them into it.
 
How is 'absolute moralilty' measured? Measuring the world with our personal emotions is what subjective means. Perhaps you are refering to what I have recently learned is called 'inter-subjective' rather than what the word 'absolute' implies.

I don't understand how we can deduce absolute morality. I don't believe it exists.

hense the difference in opinions...
Click to expand...

Could there not also be a difference in opinions without an absolute morality.
 
Blue_UK said:
How is 'absolute moralilty' measured? Measuring the world with our personal emotions is what subjective means. Perhaps you are refering to what I have recently learned is called 'inter-subjective' rather than what the word 'absolute' implies.

I don't understand how we can deduce absolute morality. I don't believe it exists.



Could there not also be a difference in opinions without an absolute morality.
Click to expand...

IMO the absolute morality exists without and outside of ourselves, we can't measure it, we can only reach it, via gradual progression through time. An evolution of conscience.

The existance of an absolute morality can be conceived of by tracking humans path of conscience throughout history, which I have already briefly commented on. The absolute morality has yet to be reached, as it is an evolutionary process, it is in our future. Some are closer to it though than others.

Meanwhile we have relative morality.
 
Meanwhile re 'subjective' our subjectivity is what defferentiates us from intelligent machines, do not so quickly dismiss it as 'invalid' every time a topic comes up relating to human behaviour.

Science may like to observe in objective terms, well observe history objectively and you will see we are less brutal than centuries ago and tomorrow we will be less brutal than today.
 
James R said:
Are morals absolute or relative?
That is: can we say some things are absolutely right or wrong for all human societies at all times, or are morals just a cultural construct which vary according to time and/or place?
Click to expand...

"Do as would be done by" ought to apply well enough to any time or place.

Mind you, the result of applying the maxim is not infallibly auspicious.

--- Ron.
 
James R said:
Are morals absolute or relative?

That is: can we say some things are absolutely right or wrong for all human societies at all times, or are morals just a cultural construct which vary according to time and/or place?
Click to expand...

In most cultures, morality is derived from religion and there is a consensus among followers of a particular belief. Different religions have different ideas about morality, e.g. Jainism believes it is immoral to eat tubers growing underground. Hence all Jains refrain from eating tubers.

To a person who is not a Jain, this idea is not immoral.

Morality, therefore, is relative.
 
Raphael said:
Everyone knows what love is. Unconditional love is love without conditions. All people are capable of loving unconditionally. Not only are they capable, they loved unconditionally when they were young children.

It is absolutely right to love unconditionally. Unconditional love is the only moral truth. When unconditional love is challenged that moral judgment come into play. If unconditional love is ignored or obfuscated, morality can only be relative.
Click to expand...

Is this unconditional love restricted to humans or do you apply it to all living creatures?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top