An object lesson

I hate to be the big party pooper here, but as I'm sure you expected, I find your conclusion to be an extremely oversimplified answer to an extremely complex concept - the existance or non-existance of moral absolutes. Perhaps this should go on another thread, but since you did open the forum up for comments and observations, these are mine.Ultimately the argument does not hinge around what we perceive to be an absolute moral truth, that is simply because you can demonstrate differing opinions, this has no relevance as to wether or not any moral absolutes exist. While you would make the statement that absolute truth does not exist, I would alledge otherwise. Perhaps you have concluded that this is the most rational choice, given your ability to correctly percieve others to have differing views of what is right or wrong. I would maintain that this conclusion is oversimplified and a less likely answer to the question of whether or not moral absolutes exist.My question is this, for those that claim abortion is not wrong to do, why do you make this claim? Perhaps it is because you claim that a woman should have the right to choose. Fair enough, however if this is the case, then what is your rational behind supposing someone should have a right to do this or that?For those that would argue that it is not wrong simply because there are no absolutes and therefore nothing is wrong to do, how do you deal with a more complex question of right and wrong. Suppose the most horrific crime possible to be commited. Do you conclude that it is not wrong to do? Say murder a family by forcing the father to kill each of his kids by torturing them (again, sorry for the emotional example, I am not trying to play an emotion card, simply trying to get my point across). Is this wrong because it is illegal, or because of some other reason? Suppose we are in a lawless land, is it then ok to perform this crime? Why specificaly is it not?Suppose rape is commited. Is this wrong? Why? Because you have violated someones space and potentialy will hurt them, thus ending their life prematurely? Why is it wrong to violate someones life in this way?Ultimately the most rational answer is to concede that yes, there are absolute moral truths. Debating what that implies would be another discussion in and of itself.Take care,

grace2u writes:

quote:

---

My question is this, for those that claim abortion is not wrong to do, why do you make this claim?

---

Obviously because those who do not think that abortion should never, ever be done do not see the process as absolutely morally repugnant.They do not have the same morals as you, ergo morality is not absolute.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Yes. It's wrong. Though to some extent we have to "decide" morals, I think there IS an ABSOLUTE good and evil. But, I am Christian so you probably already know this.
So I have God's unchanging word to help me. Though sometimes that doesn't make morals any easier to sort out in one's mind though. Because we are ALL human, and we all face moral dilemmas.[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-02-2004]

There can be no absolutes when you deal with human beings. We have differing viewpoints based on personal experience, societal customs, outside influence, etc... Ad nauseum. The human being can not be simplified to fit any mold due to our inestimable reactions because of our own individuality.
To further impose that we have only one absolute truth in the shadow of all the religious beliefs of the world is a folly I would not attempt. There are many and all have their own validity when examined as that they are based on Faith and Belief.
ISTA - Internet Sacred Text Archive Home
By what manner do we proclaim the total validity of one belief system than another? By what right do we proclaim that one moral truth works for all? Life in its many aspects depends upon your own circumstances at the time you are going through any specific event. No two people will react, speak, believe, think, contemplate or do the same thing another would because we are all individuals.
The questions themselves were simplistic and a simple answer is all that is needed. If my wife made ginger teriyaki chicken I would have a long hard thought about the t-bone I would generally prefer. She makes chicken much more palatable to me. But if its steak or chicken, well it’s a bloody, screaming raw steak every time no second thoughts.
Yellow over red, well I prefer red as an aesthetic pleasure compared to the basic yellow. Something personally about red is more pleasing to me although my wife vehemently disagrees with the firm opinion I don’t have an understanding the primary colors. (Even though I have a professional artistic background as she also does. Personal opinion at its best.) Again it is about the simple question and one should wait until the person posing the question indicates there is more than appears. They will then set the course based upon their own actions and allow us to see their true intentions as to the topic of discussion.
Abortion or Pro-Life? Well there are many reasons why I choose the Pro-Choice stance but the question did not ask why it only asked which position I would choose.
Sometimes a simple question should be taken for what it is and the rest left to the person/persons involved in the discussion and their following actions to truly determine their real motives. From that point on we can make our own presentations for our arguments against or corroborating evidence we would present in support of our position.

Because I wouldn't want it to happen to me? In fact, I don't know anybody who wants to be raped. Since a prohibition against rape would therefore obviously make folks a lot happier, isn't it reasonable therefore to make laws against it?See, simple. Laws and morality without recourse to anything more absolute than "people want to be happy." Woah, woah. You're talking about the cartoon version of moral relativism: "everything is right." No moral relativists hold that position. Rather we hold that since there's no accessable source of moral authority (note that there may very well be one, i.e. God, but since he rather refuses to actually tell us what he thinks, then we can't count on moral absolutes), the source of moral precepts must be society. Society therefore would be best-served by making its people as happy as possible. Good morals tend to do that, like "no rape" or "no stealing." Bad morals have the opposite effect: "women are property", "some adults may not have consensual sex with each other." Except that then you have the thorny problem of trying to figure out what those moral absolutes are. You can't just say "we'll talk about that later" because that's the most important question - not where they come from, but what they are.Fine, there's moral absolutes. But you can't make that statement and then ignore the question "what the hell are they?"Moral relativism is consistent with the idea that moral absolutes exist. It just says that we can't know what they are, so we approximate them via trial-and-error.

Moral Absolutes, Hmmm... If a consensus of persons with a particular expertese could show with a high degree of confidence, that it is a faulty source(the Bible) from which some people get their moral absolutes, then the problem would be left with human government, as it is. Or, would it? The emotions of some(?) who hold to the idea of 'moral absolutes' are usually so strong that many scientific studies that could demonstrate the reality of the faulty source would be ignored or possibly attacked with hideous vitriol. Heck, If we were living in the dark ages, it would mean war. How quickly the flare of emotions would produce the opposite of what Jesus was supposed to have taught.[This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-03-2004][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-03-2004][This message has been edited by Prozacman, 01-03-2004]

I suppose that if "agree" or "disagree" are my only options, I will go with agree.( I am just starting to read this thread, and am way back on yellow/red ) [This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

Sweet Home Alabama is a better song, IMO.

In general, steak is better prepared and thus tastier than most fast food chicken.(I am all the way up to post 28) I am still a bit dense as to seeing where the post is heading, except to say that it appears that absolute vs relative is being applied here. As in the statement that "Creation is better than evolution." What nonsense! Both concepts are valid, yet I agree with the premise that science makes more sense than so called creation science and I am a Believer! How I opt out of this one is by using my handy scripture....note:
1 Cor 1:18-21 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." 20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?===BTW you all are probably exclaiming "why is he bringing up a scripture from that dang book of fables to answer a yellow/red question or a California/Alabama preference? In response, I say...I dunno. I just thought of it. Hold up...I am still making my way through this post...I am still up on 28.

I am a pro choice theist. It is up to the individual to wrestle with their own morality. I would rather disagree with Gods book or Gods people..if either can be defined...than be a lemming.
=============================================================
"As I expected, many of you anticipated my point in this thread quite easily. My intent with this exercise was to demonstrate that the truth of moral statements is subjective in the same way that the truth of other aesthetic statements is. It was primarily intended as an example to those that insist that moral statements have objective and absolute truth values. What we have have seen is that the pretty-ness of yellow or red does not have a single absolute value, nor does the tastiness of chicken or steak, nor does the sonic enjoyability of a song, nor does the rightness or wrongness of abortion."
================================================================
Good thread! A stimulating discussion! Are peoples preferences determined by absolute values? As an example, if I were a Christian who was attracted to guys rather than girls and I modified my lifestyle according to a common Christian biblical argument that states that same sex preference is akin to idolatry, am I limiting my right to enjoy life on relative terms? Another example: If I were an Orthodox Jew who was told not to eat non kosher food, would I be compromising my preferences if I were a secret fast food indulger?
(unlikely scenario, I must admit! )[This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-03-2004]

Oh please. Haven't you ever taken a Philosophy 101 course? You're trying to define the term 'moral absolute' to mean 'something floating around in the sky.' Unfortunately this is the only definition that non-believers feel comfortable with, since it makes it easier to ridicule the entire notion. Its relevant definition is 'something that we affirm to be good in and of itself, not as a means to an end.' And it most certainly does depend on our opinion.If we regard freedom as good in and of itself, it is a moral absolute for us. The way 'relativism' enters the picture is that we have ethical dilemmas in defining the best application of this moral absolute in a certain situation. How do we affirm the 'freedom' of a man intending to rape a woman and still affirm the woman's 'freedom' from being assaulted? The fact that freedom is our moral absolute doesn't stop us redefining it in certain contexts, or setting realistic limits on its meaning.We may say that life is good in and of itself and not as a means to another end. As a consequence it's a moral absolute. However, we run into another dilemma when we look at the abortion debate, where the life of a fetus has to be seen in the context of the life and freedom of the woman carrying it. Are we always going to define the relevance of each absolute the same way in every situation? Of course not, but that doesn't mean that we're not dealing with moral absolutes.If this makes me a 'situational ethicist,' so be it. All ethics are situational. If this makes me a 'moral relativist,' that's fine by me. Moral absolutes are relevant, but only inside the contexts where we have to define them.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

While I agreed with your post, I think it may have been focused on a different portion of the debate regarding general moral principles.This moves beyond Philosophy 101, but you seem well beyond that so I won't mind throwing it in for debate.Regarding Ethics/Morality there are essentially three different levels of discussion...1) Metaethics: From what do we derive our concepts of right/wrong? This may be answered in the universal (absolutes exist, usually given from some authority), or the relative (individual humans are left to create them on their own, from various sources).2) Ethical Theory: What is the nature of ethics? Whether from authority or from autonomy the nature of an ethical system may be deontological or teleological... which for those not up on the lingo means based on rigid laws of conduct or judging right/wrong based on outcomes of the conduct.3) Applied Ethics: How are ethical systems actually practiced? Whether deontological or teleological, there are going to be conflicts when it comes to apply them. They may be applied strictly or relatively.I believe the focus of this thread is the first point, and you are addressing the third.For example you used freedom as an example of a good in and of itself, then showed that in its application humans will end up facing moments where that absolute will conflict with itself. While this is true, it does not deal with whether freedom truly is a good in and of itself, and if so where we got it from.Being a skeptic I end up agreeing with crash's assessment of what metaethical relativism can be. Some may be "strong" relativists and believe there are no Gods and so we are on our own morally, but that is not necessary. It may just be that we have no way of knowing them if they exist, and so we must derive them on our own.I suppose your post was not surprising as you tend to skip the bs inherent in "meta" debates and cut to the chase of practical applications. However, I think debating the "meta" of ethics is valid to some point. Everyone just has to realize that in the end it comes down to the situation you described.Frankly I like "situational" and will probably use that term from now on when dealing with applied ethics.To everyone: Mac is better than PC? Agree/disagree?
(I'll bet that gets a more immediate internal reaction from individuals than abortion)

---

holmes

Holmes,You're right, my post ignored metaethical considerations. I'm not sure how to address the concept of where we 'get' these absolutes, because I'm not sure it matters. If we say our ethics derives from authority, then obedience to authority is our moral absolute. If we only act out of self-interest, then self-interest is our moral absolute.The source from whence we derive these absolutes seems immaterial. The important thing is the meaning we ascribe to them. We've seen plenty of people on this forum who claim that their misogyny and homophobia are derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition. Why are there plenty of belivers who don't hold these beliefs, if their morals are supposedly derived from the same sources?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 01-03-2004]

quote:

---

The source from whence we derive these absolutes seems immaterial.

---

Well see then you agree with the creationists... the source of our moral absolutes is not material in nature, and so cannot be from humans!Heheh. I agree with you that for all of these people saying that there are moral absolutes and they only come from God, we can't seem to find much agreement about this deity or what absolutes he has imposed. In fact it begins to resemble more of an anarchy then they claim relativism would lead to.Actually that last critique of relativism by absolutists kind of cracks me up. For all of the talk of how relativism allows ANYTHING to be okay, when push comes to shove if God tells someone to do ANYTHING it then becomes okay. So in the end, under a deity there is no such thing as absolute right or wrong at all. Rape and murder are just fine as long as God told you personally to go do it... or you feel you are fulfilling God's plan.

---

holmes

Look no further for confirmation of your conclusion than that hideous story in Genesis where Abraham is instructed by God to kill his son. It proves that the moral absolute of obedience to God is supposed to overrule any other ethical or even rational consideration.Wouldn't it have been more meaningful if Abraham had refused, claiming that if the voice told him to kill an innocent person, then the demand could not have come from God? You'd think most believers would have the sense to realize that God would only demand something that were 'good' in some objective sense, not that whatever God demands is 'good' no matter how atrocious it seems. Yeah, you'd think that. The universally accepted meaning of the story is just the opposite.I agree wholeheartedly that all other absolutes go out the window when obedience to God is involved. I draw the same conclusion when the regularity of physical laws are used as proof of God's existence. We'd actually expect to see physical laws subservient to the whims of the Big Magic Guy, just like the moral absolutes that don't have meaning except in whatever way God wants to use them.So we get folks like our Zealot, relishing in the condemnation of various 'sinners' because that's what he sees in the Bible. If God tells us to hate homosexuals, for example, that's validation enough for Z-man and people who would just as soon be homophobic. Others of us may point out the passages of the Bible that talk about forgiveness, or passing judgement on ourselves instead of others. Those of us who are under no obligation to accept the Bible as the source of our moral foundation can be more rational about it. Why a believer is allowed to ignore the admonitions against judging others is another curious loophole that the faithful seem to exploit when it suits them.

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall