Absolute Morality...again.

Then my point still stands. If morality is not absolute, then morality comes down to opinions, conflicting opinions, based on the personal prejudice of some people. Since morality, according to the testimony of many, is always relative, then it is exhibiting an absolute phenomenon.If morals are relative, then no one's view is more valid than the next person? True or false?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

What? How so? Its a set of principles that are definite. Its morality that is irrespective of personal opinion. Its a Law established by a higher Power which governs us. Is it that I'm using synonymous concpets or that my definitions conflict? I think I'm giving you synonymous definitions.Let me ask you, what do you think absolute morality means?

quote:

---

:It means a set of of morals that cannot be changed by personal prejudice. That's all that it means. I think we'd have to be very obtuse not to understand what it means. Number 4 seems to be the most accurate; a definite set of principles.

---

How does what I wrote differ from what you listed? Relatives are circumstancial and absolutes are concrete. No, I don't. Alright, I'm going to give a thourough definition of both, because I'm growing tired of not making in progress in our conversation.Relativism:This is larely considered circumstancial, as something can only be made 'real' or 'actual' only in certain circumstances. A Relative Truth is only considered aplicable in certain instances as they relate or vary from person to person and from time to time. What was true at one place or at one point in time may not be true in all periods of time or in all places. Though something may be true now, it may not be true in the future because morals and truth may change at the discretion of personal opinion.Absolutism: Absolute truth states that truth is truth and to deviate from it would nulify its definition. In keeping with truth, and by extension, reality, nothig could even be circumstantial without a basis for contrasting views. What is morally true now, will always be morally true, independant of feelings, opinions, or varying perspectives. Absolutism does not give credence to suppositions, but rather, recognizes the standard set by an original Lawgiver. Truth and morals may be discovered or revealed, but they are not invented by the personal prejudice of man.I really hope that clarifies and distinguishes the differences. They are set of morals that everyone innately understands to be wrong. Every civilization has established a law, or a moral, on murder. What differs from culture to culture, is what defines or constitutes murder. But everyone understands that murder is wrong. Where does this intrinsic understanding come from if was not written on the hearts of mankind by a Lawgiver who bestows upon us a level of understanding?In case you haven't noticed it yet, the problem with your example statements is that you aren't being specific. You are making very general statements. It was an argument for the immutable law of gravity. I was mentioning it because opinion plays no part in it. If your body weight it is not supported by anything, you are going to fall, no matter what, everytime. I already explained why I mentioned absolute physical law. I really don't see how I've been inconsistent with the definition of absolute morality.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

If morals are relative, then morality doesn't actually exist except in the mind of the proponent. But lets say that we have a pro-life vs pro-choice conference. The pro-Lifer's claim that abortion is immoral because it refuses to recognize a human life. Pro-Choicer's claim that it isn't immoral because a fetus is just a collection of well-formed molecules and nothing else. So all of the arguing is pointless because no one is actually right, even though they both regard themselves as being in the right position.If this is the case, what does it all come down to? It all comes down to the person weilding the power to make a moral decision a crime or not. Lets say that Roe v Wade is overturned. You decry that the President made an immoral decision, but is it? How can it be. He says it isn't immoral. So, what is morality then if there are not clear guidelines?And I'm aware that the arguing will continue even if morals are absolute.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Delete: Double-postedEdited by nemesis_juggernaut, : Deletion

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

How have I changed my position? That's consistent with everything else I've been saying. If morals are not absolute, then it all comes down to the personal opinion of some people (i.e moral relativists, not moral absolutists).

quote:

---

If morals are relative, then no one's view is more valid than the next person? True or false?

---

If everything is relative, then that's your personal opinion that I'm touting false perceptions. My opinion says that I'm right. So, its all dictated by society, huh? Lets suppose we had the ability to go back into time, when you were a small child who's never even concpetualized what murder and torture even is. We alter past events and you witness the subsequent torture and brutal murder of your parents. What are you thoughts have you surmised as you witness this event? Are you not innately horrified that parents were slaughtered right before your eyes? Of course you are. So, society played no role, whatsoever, in your formulation of right and wrong. You just knew. And you were right. What happened to your parents is awful. No, this is what moral relativism has done. It causes a divide on matters by using excuses or special circumstances. There is no circumstance so great as to allow torture, even when someone has commited an atrocity against you. What is debatable, is what constitutes torture. Is Chinese water torture, torture? Is shoving Bamboo chutes underneath somebody's fingernails torture? Is electrocuting people torture? Is it immoral? Only circumstancialy for the Relativist. And because there are no clear guidelines, he cannot call anyone immoral because it comes down to his own opinion.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Then the argument still stands that morals aren't static, but rather, they are formulated by mere opinion. That means morals don't actually exist at all. But if that were the case, then how is that most people are able to understand what morals are if they weren't absolute? I intentionally chose that question because I knew this topic would surface. You tell me. Can the allegations of the US engaging in torture at Gitmo be considered immoral? If so, who gets to decide? See, its always going to be a catch-22 for the Relativist. He says that its immoral for anyone to decide for him/her if something is right or wrong. But, he/she expects everyone else to pander to his/her beliefs. If there is not a solid guidline for morality, then there is no basis for anyone to oppose anyone else's morality. Understand? That's your opinion that they are uneducated and ignorant. Its also your opinion that its wrong to stop Fetal Stem Cell Research. If you are a Relativist, then you have no basis for anything. You are a body of water, climbing a staircase of water, in a sky of water. You have no fixed referrence to anything and are anchored by nothing. And your penchant for fluidity is the very thing that will drown you. But when the waters recede, the Rock will remain. Who is, "they?" What difference does it make to you? That's their opinion. You have yours, and they have theirs. Right and wrong is arbitrary, right? There is nothing certain in this world, right? So what difference does it make to you? Who cares, because there is no such thing as morality apart from a person's own ability to decide for themselves what is right or wrong.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

But laws stem from our ability to discern what is right and what is wrong. The reason why the law says that its wrong to commit murder is only because of the lawmakers ability to have a moral framework. How else do you think they came up with laws? If it wasn't out of a moral framework, then people create laws for inexplicable and arbitrary reasons. I don;t think that laws and morals are seperate. I'm playing the Devil's Advocate in order to show you that no matter which way you turn, you'll always be in check. Therefore, its check mate. Suppose that huffing is a crime in some states because the lawmakers feel a moral obligation because they are acquainted with the medical reasons on why huffing is dangerous. They didn't just invent laws for no apparent reason. They said, "Hey, kids huffing is bad. Its wrong. They shouldn't do that. Because I'm concerned for them, make it unlawful for them to do so." Not everything that is moral is written down on a written code. Because alcohol in the form of drink has only one purpose... That's to get drunk or to derive some sort of euphoric feeling from it. Mouthwash's intended purpose is to kill the bacteria that resides in your mouth. That's like saying no one is allowed to own knives for preparing meat or vegetables, because some people have broken the law and decided to stab someone with the knife. The absolute law, is, "You shall not commit murder." The relative law is, you can own knives if you "Do not commit murder," with them. Murder under any circumstance is absolutely wrong. The variables concerning the case are relative. Do you understand now? If you believe that morals are always relative, then yes, its arguable as to whether or not its immoral. Again, sexuality is not a crime. Sexual immorality, such as adultery, is.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I've agreed to nothing. I didn't say that I wanted to particpate in these laws. I was simly born. I don't have a choice. I have to follow the rules or I suffer the consequences of that diobedience. (Not that I am disagreeing that it should be any other way). But what if I was a Communist? They are impeding my personal preference. They are undermining my ability to formulate my own opinions. They are wielding absolute authority over me. Again, not that I disagree with Democracy, I'm just playing the Devil's Advocate. Because Absolutists believe that it is God's Law that makes it absolute in the first place, otherwise, everything really would relative. God's absolute Law trumps man's relativistic law.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

You said that participants have agreed to the laws. That isn't true in my case. Not that I'm argunig the point against Democracy. And yes, I pay taxes, but I have no control on where the funding goes to. And my vote does not allow me dictate whether or not I agree with murder. The rules were written long before I was born. Well, I have always wanted to go to Brittish Columbia. But, no, I'm happy beng an American and living in America. I'm just merely informing that my opinion played no role in the formation of American law. That's you're opinion. Is your opinion right or wrong? That's an excellent question. I mean, what if Islamic absolute law was true? This is the part where it comes down to recognition of the obvious and the imperceptable. Though there are good reasons for believing in anything given thing or phenomenon, so much ultimately comes down to faith. I'd say that as long as it isn't derived on the pretenses of a blind faith, then our suppositions concerning evidence, both pro and con, have merit. I guess a better question would be to ask how anyone knows anything? What if its all an illusion? The questions seem as though they never end. And as I said before, there are some who believe that absolutes and relativity end in a perpetual stalemate. I believe that they both exist.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

No, I was born a resident and the laws were established before I was born. But I'm not even sure what you're arguing about, being that I agree with Democracy, and I agree that if anyone doesn't like it, they have the freedom to move. You said that I have a choice about what lwas pass. That isn't true. That was the only argument you were making. I can't remember what this particular argument was on. Not while making contradictory claims. Uh, no, I believe that I have no say in morals. If you are a moral relativist, you pick and choose the morals, not me. I listen to what God says, you listen to the baser appetities of your own flesh. But hey, now you're just being mean-spirited, presumably because you realize the implications of your own argument.As I said, relativism will always undermine itself.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

I just got the book, "Mere Christianity," by C.S. Lewis at the library today. To my surprise, the first chapter of the book discusses absolute and relative morality. It was refreshing to read how Lewis formulates his points in favor of absolute morality. In the opening portion of the chapter, he presents the dialogue of two people quarreling and attempts to go straight to the point of why people argue and what they are essentialy saying. He goes on thus:"What interestsme about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behavior does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies, 'to hell with your standards.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there are special circumstances... Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football... Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right or Wrong, you will see him going back on this a moment later."Instead of holding the book in my lap and engaging in the laborious task of typing out the whole argument, I found a website that contains the synopsis his argument:There is a Universal Moral Law"The first step in Lewis's moral argument is to establish that there is a universal moral law. One reason to accept this premise is that without it, all moral disagreements would make no sense. Lewis points out that we appeal to a universal moral standard all the time. If someone cuts in line at an amusement park, we say, "that's not fair." When a psychotic murderer tortures, rapes, and brutally kills his victims, we say, "that's evil." Whenever we appeal to these standards, Lewis notes that we do not have to explain why these things are considered morally bad or evil. They are morally wrong, and everyone knows it. If a complete stranger walked into your house and picked up your television and started walking out, more than likely you will get up and say something like, "Hey, stop that! That is my tv." What you are doing in that scenario is appealing to a universal moral law. You assume it is an understood standard for all people to follow a principle of not taking things that are not theirs. If this person responded by saying, "So what?", you would probably think that person was very strange or perhaps crazy. When people do not understand certain moral values (for example, sociopaths who feel there is nothing morally wrong with any actions, including killing innocent people for no reason), we think there is something is seriously wrong with them. Lewis believes that this is best explained because we (correctly) assume there is a universal moral law.

​

Another reason Lewis explains for why there must be a universal moral law is that all moral judgments would be meaningless. For example, when we say, "The Nazis were wrong to murder the Jews," what do we mean? Does it mean it is just my personal opinion that the Nazis were wrong? If that is so, it does not seem to make much difference what the Nazis do. It would be on par with my difference of opinion regarding chocolate or vanilla ice cream. Or consider the claims against countries who repress women or mistreat women. If there is no universal moral law, on what grounds can we judge these countries to be committing a moral evil? Without a universal moral law, all of these claims amount to mere differences of opinion, but there cannot be a right or wrong view. In other words, without a universal moral law, the Nazis happen to prefer Nazi morality, and you happen to prefer anti-Nazi morality, but there is no real standard by which we can judge which of the two views is correct. Without a universal moral law, this judgment is a matter of opinion. However, it seems clear that the moral status of certain actions (e.g., the Nazis) is not a matter of subjective opinion, and this is because we presume there is a universal moral law.

​

So, C. S. Lewis, if he is right thus far, has established that there is a universal moral law. At this point he hasn't appealed to God or made claims that even most atheists would find contentious. In fact, Lewis believes that the moral law is something that all humans are bound to follow, no matter how hard they try to escape from it. So, Lewis believes that this first premise is well-founded.If There is a Universal Moral Law, then There is a Universal Moral Law Giver:"After establishing the existence of a universal moral law, Lewis wonders at the explanation of the existence of this universal moral law. Lewis arrives at the conclusion that a universal moral law implies a moral law Giver. Moral laws, unlike physical laws, are obligations or rules that one is responsible to follow. Without a person who makes these laws, it seems utterly inexplicable that they should exist. We can imagine a molecule by molecule physical duplication of our universe existing without any moral rules, so it seems that moral laws are not entailed by any physical, natural features of the universe. If the universal moral law is not entailed by the natural, physical aspects of the universe, how do we explain the universal moral law? Lewis believes that the best answer to this question maintains that the universal moral law implies that there is a universal moral law Giver. This law Giver could not be any arbitrary being. The kind of being to which the universal moral law points would be supremely powerful (in order to create the universal moral law), perfectly good (in order to be the objective standard for the moral law), and a being who is interested in our behavior (in order to explain why he makes us subject to the moral law). In other words, the moral law Giver would have to be like the personal God of the Christian tradition.

​

Even though this second premise is much more controversial than the first one, Lewis has put forward a plausible explanation for the moral law. Moreover, since better explanations do not seem forthcoming, it seems that Lewis has given a substantial defense of the second premise."Therefore, God Must Exist"If one accepts the first two premises, then the conclusion follows logically. So, to resist Lewis's argument, one must show that one of the two premises is false. Below I will consider some of the most often cited ways to deny one of the two premises."Is the Moral Law "Herd Instinct?""One way to deny the second premise of Lewis's argument suggests that the universal moral law can be explained by herd instinct. By "herd instinct," I mean something developed by our physical nature like evolution or survival of the fittest. This means that we find ourselves obligated to follow our strongest impulse, which can be explained by naturalistic processes. The problem with this rejoinder is that our our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example, there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by herd instinct. Furthermore, this tries to get something more from something less. We would expect to be able to explain features of our physical features by appealing to physical processes, but we've seen that the universal moral law is not the sort of thing that would be entailed by any combination of physical material and laws.Is the Moral Law Just a Social Convention?"Another way to resist Lewis's argument suggests that the moral law is merely a learned social convention. (This could be seen as a way to challenge the first premise by denying that the moral law is universal, or it might be a way to deny the second premise by offering an alternative explanation for the universal moral law.) Even though we often learn morality through social conventions, that does not prove that morality is reducible to social conventions. We also learn things like mathematics and logic through social institutions, but we know that math and logic are not reducible to society. This objection confuses how we learn moral laws with the nature of moral laws.

​

It is also worth noting that, on this view, we can accept groups of people as the source of morality but not individuals. But it is not clear why this distinction should be made. Of course, if we acknowledged that morality is completely subjective (i.e., up to each individual to decide for himself) this would also lead to obvious problems. So, the alleged solution is to hold that morality is determined by societies or other social conventions. But this suggestion also leads to obvious problems. For example, how could we ever say a society has morally improved, if the moral standard is set by that society? This would also lead to the absurd conclusion that advocates of social change, like Martin Luther King Jr., are morally evil, since they oppose what is established according to their societies conventions. Moreover, this would make any social convention that establishes moral laws infallible, but we know that these societies can be judged as to whether they are meeting objective moral standards (e.g., the Nazis; any society that violates human rights). Clearly, morality cannot come from social convention."Is the Moral Law My Will Itself?"Some suppose that the moral law is something we must impose upon ourself. Many believe Immanuel Kant proposed morality in this function. Yet, this too cannot fully account for the nature of morality. This would make the one being held responsible to the rules as the same person giving the rules. It seems rather pointless to have morality on one's own terms. Why even bother with morality at all? Even if one puts tough restrictions on oneself, one can change them as it becomes convenient. It is like a jailor who locks himself in a cell, but keeps the key. The appearance of being confined to his jail cell is illusive. He is not really bound to his cell because at any time he can unlock it and leave. Therefore, our own will cannot account for the moral law."Could There Be No Moral Law?Another way to reject Lewis's argument is to deny the first premise. If there is no universal moral law, then there is nothing that needs to be explained. Perhaps, the critic might claim, we have these moral intuitions, but they are all false illusions of a law that doesn't really exist. In other words, there is no moral law. The problem with this view is that the moral law is not a mere description of human behavior but a prescription for human behavior. If the moral law were something we could cast off and live without, this could be a plausible solution, but living without the moral law is simply impossible. Since we did not create it, we cannot cast it off. We cannot escape the moral law because it is impressed upon us. We cannot escape the moral law any more than we can escape the laws of logic or mathematics. Denying the universal moral law would ultimately lapse into moral relativism leaving all moral statements and actions meaningless, thus making Adolf Hitler and Mother Theresa equally good and evil. Such a view of morality is not only impossible to live in practice, but obviously wrong when comparing saints and villains (like Hitler and Mother Theresa)."http://apologetics.johndepoe.com/morality.html

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Right. So if its so often that people innately understand a sense of morality, save the occasional sociopath who destroys his conscience, what explanations do we have to understand how we have it. We've been over this argument many times. (Not you and I, but EvC). How do you personally reconcile the notion of humans having this intrinsic quality? Lewis embraced Christianity only after his late-in-life conversation. It were questions such as these that led him to his inevitable conclusion. Lewis was very much an agnostic for the majority of his life. As far morals being different from culture to culture and from time to time, I'd say that the only thing relative is what people constitutes murder, for example. Everyone is in agreement that murder is "wrong." What they differ in, is what constitutes murder and what constitutes jusifiable homicide. But that intrinsic Law is already established. No one needed to be taught that. A child who sees a vicious murder has never known such attrocities exist. He/she is innately horrified by such acts.Lewis uses a much simpler example. He speaks about being on a train where you get up to go to the bathroom. When you come back someone is sitting in your seat. You and everyone near you are in agreement that the man "stealing" your seat was "wrong." But what makes it wrong? What gives us the understanding that its wrong? Who sits and reads law books for us to know whether or not it is unlawful for someone to do that? Few of us. So, why is it and how is it that this law is implanted in us? Thanks. I thought it was an interesting avatar. After scouring many, many images, I found quite a few. Perhaps I'll change avatars once a month to keep it interesting.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

Because there is an unspoken understanding that crosses the boundaries of culture. If I went to India, Tibet, Paraguay, Cuba, Iceland, or Malaysia and walked up to someone and took their seat, they'd all have this understanding that what I had done was wrong. And when they begin to argue that point, they are appealing to me to uphold some intrinsic standard of humanity. So, where does it originate from?

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

The laborious task I was referring to was transcribing the book verbatim because it takes a long time to do so, not reading or thinking. Then what is it and how does it exist? If morals are purely relative then no one should have any "sense" of right and wrong, because right and wrong would be completely arbitrary.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15

But why such conflicting premises that war within us? If we see a child drowning in the rapids, we feel an impulse to want to help. Why? I ask why in light of another impulse, arguably a much stronger desire, which is self-preservation. In fact, for a person to jump in to save the life of someone else, they must deny their own sense of self-preservation, which has always been the instinct most critical to pro-evolutioon arguments. We find ourselves obligated to follow our strongest impulse. What determines which impulse will win out the decision? The problem with this rejoinder, as I've quoted elsewhere, is that our strongest impulse is not always the right thing to do. For example, there are times when self-sacrifice is the right thing to do, yet it is not something that could be explained by what was once commonly referred to as, the 'herd instinct.' Yes, but that's what I'm saying. No one is 'bad' for the sake of being bad. For them, their acting upon being bad gives them a sadistic pleasure, in which case they feel a desire towards. So for a sociopathic killer, however warped his ideals may be, he feels justified in his actions. It doesn't make him absolutely right. And during interviews/interrogation, they understand on an academic level that what they've done is wrong, they are just indifferent to it. They've assassinated their own conscience. Certainly, if someone assumed that I wasn't coming back, this would be one thing. That would be an honest mistake. I thought what I was arriving at was obvious, which is, I come back to my assigned seat and the man is sitting in it. I inform him that he's in my seat. Instead of apologizing for the inconvenience, he is simply indifferent to it. When I engage him in an argument, I am appealing to him to understand a sense of justice that I expect him to understand.

---

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15