Absolute Morality...again.

quote:

---

If morality is not absolute then nothing is wrong and everything is permissable

---

This statement is correct, cultural or moral relativism essentially creates this problem.A man named Kant wrote on a philosophy on how to decipher moral right and wrong that was based much on a concept most here would understand: the Golden rule.There is also another philosophy that is utilizeded to deem action as right or wrong which depends on the happiness of the majority. This philosophy: utilitarianism can be easily dismissed through questioning the majority or minority of a culture, to establish what exactly is, if not each individual vary (as they will) on their own beliefs. It is simply an unrealistic way to judge or rule a society.I hope this helps answer your questions on an otherwise subjective subject (right and wrong) that would lead to utter chaos if each person's morals were respected with equal justice and mercy of a society's law.Good luck.Edited by friend of Kierkegaard, : No reason given.Edited by friend of Kierkegaard, : edit originally for spelling error and then removal of the type after recognizing this feature

My registered email address was too long, I didn't recognize Google changed it to fit its regulations until after I had registered

quote:

---

How do you come to this conclusion?

---

p1: Morality is subjectivep2: Each human being has a set of moralsp3: There is no universal morality(I used p1, p2, and p3 because the use of p, q and pq may sidetrack my point)Based on the above truth preserving statement I will further explain what I wrote to you earlier. This is under the assumption that you believe there is not a universal morality.A society can not exist if each individuals morals were equally respected.For example:There is a man that does not believe killing human beings is wrong and this man takes pleasure in this action and does it frequently.
This man believes killing is a righteous action...If a society deemed this man's morality equally because of morality's subjective nature then the society would be unable to stop the man from killing men.If morality is subjective who is to say this man's action of killing and belief that killing is good is wrong?

• Kant established a way to live

The categorical imperative would fix this plight because surely not everyone would want to kill or be killed. And the second categorical imperative establishes that all individuals are valuable so it dismisses fanatics (militant groups, nazis etc).

quote:

---

How does utilarianism become an unrealistic way to judge or rule a society?

---

Utilitarianism, in my personal view is not sound because I believe like Eugene Debbs: "The rights of one are as sacred as the rights of a million".In history the doctrine of untilitarianism has helped to provide for heinous crimes such as the Holocaust and the genocide in Rwanda, this is because the point is to maximize happiness for the majority.

quote:

---

What causes you to say that Moral Relativism must acknowledge every moral value set to be respected with equal justice and mercy?

---

As I made clear in the earlier portion of this post, what is the standard a society of government would govern upon?Who would decide what is wrong and what is right?For example:Majority? What if they choose genocide? A Monarch(Hobbes)? What if he also was an advocate for genocide?Who or what in your mind would decide the morality of a society?Would there need to be basic protection of a human's natural rights(Rousseau)?Think these questions over.

Cs Lewis Believed that man is born with a general sense of right and wrong instilled in him.There is a chapter devoted to the subject in Mere Christianity

Sorry about that Jar, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned that one lol. May be in the wrong hands.

quote:

---

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:

---

Reading the book would require one to think which is a laborious task for some, yes. It would be better form if you read the work and expressed your views on it.Having a general sense of right and wrong is very different from an absolute morality.I respect Mere Christianity greatly because of Lewis's description of how "the next evolution" has already happened for christians and that that is selflessness, that is altruism, that is Jesus Christ.I find this concept groundbreaking.*It also lead me to realize the inherently dualistic reality we are in. Which is extremely important.Edited by -messenjah of one, : that which is starred *

Forgive my ignorance Jar but could you please enlighten me on to what "JRR" and "CoE" mean?I'm not good with abbreviations but once I learn them I remember.