Absolute Morality...again.

I'm also interested in what is behind the term absolute morality. I'm curious which meaning of absolute refers to morality? Absolute is only an adjective which doesn't specify right or wrong.Since morals can vary between cultures and change over time even within cultures, I'm not sure how any moral rule can be considered absolute when rules are subject to circumstances.Hopefully someone will get down to the nitty gritty and shed some light on this notion.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I didn't realize that the absolute moral thing was an -ism.

quote:

---

An example is not possible because we'll always be able to come up with a situation where the absolute moral is ambiguous (and therefore not absolute). You've prolly heard them all before.

---

So while morals exists an absolute moral does not. Well that clears up a lot.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Yes, we have morals, but we cannot say, for sure, that something is morally wrong or not, we, collectively or personally, just deem them as immoral.

---

Sure we can say for sure that something is morally wrong or right. Morals or morality deals with conformity to established sanctioned codes or accepted notions of right and wrong. These codes are determined by the individual and their culture. That doesn't mean that people haven't argued to change the codes.

quote:

---

I think NJ was saying that without an absolute morality then, in reality, nothing can truly be deemed immoral, just "I think that is immoral".

---

Sure actions can be deemed immoral. Go against a cultures code and one will be deemed immoral.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What do you mean when you say "is"?

---

But which meaning does it hold when used as an adjective for morality?

quote:

---

For the sake of the argument, can we for once drop the semantics and get down to the actual argument.

---

But this thread is about the definition (semantics) but not about twisting the meaning of a word to mislead or confuse (semantics). It is a matter of understanding what is actually meant by the term, absolute morality.

quote:

---

Absolute----> Definite------> Certain-------> Nothing can circumvent or supplant its authority.

---

Unfortunately I don't see that your conclusion that nothing can circumvent or supplant its authority is supported by the definition you provide.The definition you are bringing forward for Absolute is the same as certain, positive or sure. (I'm certain he's here.) (allowing no doubt)But that doesn't seem to carry the idea of authority.With what you've given me all absolute morality means is that something is definitely (without a doubt) right or wrong.If my questions annoy you so that you are unable to answer with a civil tone, then don't answer. This is a sincere attempt to understand what absolute morality is envisioned to be whether through definition or example.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Hey Crash,Maybe you will work with me on this. I'm not really into philosophy so this Absolute Morality thing is confusing especially the way others are using it.From watching the discussion, the proponents of absolute morality don't seem to know what it means either.I found this definition though that seems to follow what I think some are trying to say: If this is the case then I understand which definition from the dictionary is being used.But given that and looking at NJ's questions, the questions don't make any sense. The last two fall into what you stated and I agree with:

quote:

---

It's obvious that human morality is a fluctuating, amorphous thing. If morality was an absolute condition of the universe, it would be impossible to act immorally. If morals were absolute they would be like the laws of physics.

---

I'm not sure what doing something simultaneously or not has to do with absolute. I mean, I can be wet and dry at the same time and I can tell the truth and lie at the same time.I think that is why I was getting confused. In trying to clarify the absolutist position some get away from morals and into odd stuff.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I'm really not sure how you are still lost on the absolute morality concept. I even broke down the words by using synonyms for added assurance.

---

Except that I don't feel that your definition really defines what absolute means when used with the word morality.After reading the definition of Absolute Morality in the link given in Message 87 and reading your concern for authority, I feel that the meaning of absolute when used with the word "morality" is the sixth meaning (without reference to anything else) and not your definition of certainty in Message 40. As I said in Message 72: Unfortunately I don't see that your conclusion that nothing can circumvent or supplant its authority is supported by the definition you provide.

quote:

---

If morality is just a fluctuating, amorphous thing, then my argument stands. If there is no absolute morality, then right and wrong don't exist apart from personal opinions. Is anyone going to disagree with that?

---

I'm not discussing whether there is or isn't absolute morality and that's not what this thread is about. I'm trying to discern what absolute morality actually means. With your meaning all it says is "yes there are principles of right and wrong."

quote:

---

Just like light to dark, right to wrong, good to evil, morality and immorality make sense in contrast to one another. Without one, the other doesn't exist.

---

You're saying that without one the other doesn't exist, which doesn't fall under the meaning of without reference to anything else. What do these have to do with defining absolute when used with morality?

quote:

---

What's contradictory I mean, I can be wet and dry at the same time and I can tell the truth and lie at the same time.

​

No, that's the very definition of a contradiction.

---

Not sure of your point here since you didn't get my quote right, so I'm not sure what you are addressing. Still not sure what these questions have to do with the meaning of absolute when used with the word "morality", but notice that you had to clarify your question.Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously? The inside of my body is wet, the outside is dry.You can pour water over my head and soak me through to the skin, but until it soaks through my shoes, my feet will be dry.Since our bodies contain some percentage of water, we cannot be entirely dry or I could say absolutely dry, but that still is not the meaning you used for absolute concerning morality or the other meaning I mentioned above. It is another use of the word, which means complete.

quote:

---

Its a clear-cut question. Any answer you give will determine whether you are lying or telling the truth. There is no answer that you could give to make both of them true.

---

For that question you are correct, it is either a lie or the truth, but that doesn't mean I can't tell the truth and lie at the same time. It just means I can't with that question. What does that prove concerning the definition in question?

quote:

---

Again, does anyone disagree that absolutes exist?

---

Unfortunately you would first have to explain what absolutes are?You need to define it before we can determine if it exists.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

What do you mean? You place the two words side by side and add their meanings.

---

Great, let's do that.I assume that for morality you are talking about the principles and not the state of being. principles of right and wrong in conduct; ethics (principles for short)Using the definitions for absolute in Message 3So let's put them together and see what they say to me.1. (complete) (principles) = I don't think this one works
2. (pure) (principles) = Not mixed principles
3. (unrestricted) (principles) = No limits on the principles
4. (definite) (principles) = Sure principles
5. (actual) (principles) = Real principles
6. (independent) (principles) = Principles that stand on their own.As I said in Message 102, your definition and explanations don't show what absolute means when used with the word morality.As I found in Message 87: This supports number 6. Your definition falls under number 4. Is that what you really mean.

quote:

---

Well, the thread is on absolute morality. But if its still hazy for you, its a set of morals that are absolute. Are you really asking me why they are absolute or do you just want to know what it means?

---

This thread (Message 1) is not a general discussion on absolute morality, it is on defining what absolute morality is, not whether it exists or not.Just to let you know, I am biting my tongue. I have this set of morals in my hand. Very nicely written. There are five of them. As I read these morals, what characteristics determines whether I can label them as absolute or relative?

quote:

---

But I gave indisputable evidence that they do exist, so at least the possibility for them relating to morals exists. In other words, I needed to get over that little hump in order to get to absolutes as they relate to morality. Does that make sense? I was just clarifying for everyone.

---

IMO, it really doesn't matter whether absolutes exist outside of morality. What makes a principle of right or wrong, absolute in your mind?

quote:

---

You fall off a cliff, you go splat. You can't just up and decide that you disagree with gravity. It is what it is.

---

Now you are using a different meaning of absolute. That would be definition #5 actual; real, IMO. But then, if one is wearing a parachute, one can fall off a cliff and not go splat. You do need to qualify your statement. So today, that's not a completely true statement.

quote:

---

Because if something is either absolutely true or absolutely false, then absolute exist. Why is this is difficult a concept?

---

Because absolute means different things depending on how it is used and you haven't defined how you are using it in relation to morality. What you have said above is that if something is completely true or completely false, then absolutes exist. But again that is a different use of the word absolute and not the one that seems to be used in philosophy as shown above concerning morality.

quote:

---

Oh dear heavens. Listen, I've posted the the dictionaries definition, I've provided synonyms, I've given referrences in physical world, I've explained, and re-explained it several times... If after reading this post that its still hazy for you, I'll give it one more shot.

---

Are you saying that all those meanings given by the dictionary apply to morality? If yes, please explain how.If you give it one more shot, try answering what I'm asking, not what everyone else is asking.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Anyway, I think I've been answering your questions. Let me know if I have not answered them in the fashion that you want and I'll do my best to clarify.

---

The problem is that you're putting the cart before the horse. Before we can determine if absolute morality exists, we have to understand the meaning of absolute morality. I'm not asking that you define what morals are absolute (not yet anyway), but what absolute morality means. Over the course of our discussion you have given at least 3 different definitions of absolute in relation to morality, but I don't feel that you understand that you have done that.I've come to the conclusion in spite of your efforts, that the philosopical definition is what absolutionist intend and you seem to agree. That's one definition.

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.

---

Here is number 2 in your efforts. You've agreed with the philosophical definition with your first sentence, but your last sentence doesn't agree with it.The 4th definition of absolute doesn't mean a set of principles that cannot be changed by personal prejudice. The 4th definition means positive as in they are definitely principles. Understand the difference? Which falls under definition #1 not necessarily #6. Something that is completely true today, may not be tomorrow and may not have been in the past. This definition does not carry the meaning of independent, permanent and not subject to qualification.Try staying consistent with your usage of the word.

quote:

---

Don't bite your tongue. Go ahead and list them. I'm sure they'll be fun to philosophize over.

---

Your statement is what I was biting my tongue over. But you still didn't answer my question. It doesn't matter what the morals are, I wanted you to define what characteristics determines whether these morals can be labeled as absolute or not.It was a different attempt to get you to show me how you are using the word absolute in relation to morals.

quote:

---

If someone falls 90 feet off a cliff, with or without a parachute, you won't live, because you are high enough to where you will reach terminal velocity, but not enough time for the parachute to work properly. But that really isn't the premise of my argument. The premise is that the law of gravity is absolute, and irrespective of our opinions about it, it reigns supreme.

---

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.Your statement: You fall off a cliff, you go splat.That statement is not true all the time. You had to qualify the height of the cliff. If you were trying to give an example of the law of gravity, it would have been more precise to say, "If you step off a cliff, you will fall downward." Even a hang glider goes downward before the drafts lift it up.But the laws of physics have nothing to do with morality. Even if there are "absolutes" in physics, that doesn't mean that there are morals that are independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. That's when we look at the actual morals and see if they meet the definition.If you really want to discuss whether any one moral is independent, permanent and not subject to qualification, now we can if you can keep to the philosopical definition of absolute.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

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.

---

If you really want to know then read my explanations in Message 163 again. and check out this link.

quote:

---

Let me ask you, what do you think absolute morality means?

---

I don't feel that you are really interested in our discussion. The reason I say that is because I made it clear in Message 87 that I wasn't clear on what absolute morality means. Which is why I'm participating in this thread and why my questions. Needless to say your explanations haven't helped at all.As I said in Message 163Enjoy the thread, but I don't think you and I have anything else we can say without frustrating each other.Good Day.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

What I understand so far. Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions (questions of right or wrong) can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act. Absolute used in this context is a philosopical term. From what I have read in this thread, I think the idea of innate morality and moral values that develop over time are being confused or used interchangeably. IMO, morality is innate in humans, in the sense that we deem things right or wrong. I don't think it is innate as to what is right or wrong. I think those values develop over time from our environment.All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial.Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed Typo

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

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.

---

If you are going to try and argue a point, try to be specific in your examples.Your statement is another example of you changing the terms of the example. You make a vague reference and then add specific details when people disagree.Having a seat assigned by a ticket is different than general seating. The specifics make a difference in the situation.Saves time explaining yourself if you give the details up front. We don't read minds.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz