Absolute Morality...again.

Maybe they (the majority of people) simply behave according to a 'good enough' set of morals? And maybe 'good enough' means a set that sufficiently overlaps the 'set of morals' of other people? Who says there aren't solid guidelines? What about The Golden Rule? And isn't the Golden Rule something that is to be expected to appear spontaneously (in an evolutionary framework)? It's all pretty simply, if you think about it... It wouldn't matter much if it was only an "opinion". Opinions don't affect others. But in this case, the "opinion" has serious implications that affects people, including (potentially) relatives and ourselves.

OK, let me change my wording to see if I can get at what I meant better. It may not be the case that the person seeking the best moral judgment actually has the assumption that there is an absolute objective morality, but I would say that the very searching for a best moral position on any issue implies that there is such an absolute objective morality that could conceivably be discovered. That is, it's implicit in the very seeking of the right or best judgment of any particular case. My take on this is that we may often NOT find the best or optimum moral judgment of a particular case, but this merely means we are flawed, fallible or fallen. It is not at all that certain dilemmas don't have an optimal solution, it is merely that we are flawed and aspects of the dilemma escape our understanding, and this is why we sometimes must settle for "good enough." Yes, but the very fact that we can imagine it means that it is theoretically possible to find it, in a perfect world at least, and the very seeking for a best judgment implies that such an optimum actually exists. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

As I just argued, I believe the very attempt to arrive at the best judgment of any given moral dilemma implies that a perfect judgment exists, whether we recognize it or not, and whether we are able to arrive at it or not. There must be a perfect solution if all the aspects of the dilemma could be taken fully into account. This has not entered into any of the reasoning here that I have seen. And the world of human behavior, and the searching for a best moral judgment, implies that there is a best judgment, which means that there is an absolute morality, although we often fall short of it. Again, its existence is implied in the existence of moral thinking at all, the seeking of the best resolution, and, I'd add, in the wisdom writings of many civilizations, much of which was collected in the Book of Proverbs of the Bible.

Why must there be a 'perfect solution'? That seems to be making some unwarrented asssumptions. Show me that every 'moral dilemma' has a 'perfect judgement'. That is an assertion on your part. So your evidence for an absolute morality is there is a perfect judgement, and there is a perfect judgement because there is an absolute morality? Right!! That doesn't seem too convincing to me. Well, Proverbs has lots of advice. I certianly wouldn't call it absolute. Some of it might even be good advice. But, you are merely making an assertion it's advice is an 'absolute morality'.

I said it is implied that it must exist whether we can arrive at it or not, in the very seeking of the best judgment on any given moral dilemma.{Edit: I mean this absolute morality is LOGICALLY IMPLIED in the very fact of trying to find the best moral judgment of any given dilemma.And you aren't reading too carefully as usual. I did not say the Book of Proverbs offers "absolute" moral precepts. I said its existence, reflecting the moral wisdom of many civilizations, shows the human reach for the best moral solutions, that logically implies that there is an absolute morality that applies to all dilemmas whether we can discover it or not.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There's a few other options.
- You can search for the best judgment "for me"; i.e. search for judgment that fits your morality, with the understanding that the result is only applicable to people who have a morality like that of yours.- You can simply not judge morally. I think this is the utilitarian approach--you face problems practically only, there is no ideaological morality. Or more likely, the ideaological morality is very, very basic and doesn't necessitate moral judgment in the vast majority of cases.People believing they know what's "right" doesn't logically imply that there is any right. It logically implies... that they THINK there's some "right". There's nothing forcing that judgment to be applicable to all. Post-modern relativism is not threatened

But in these cases you are only searching for what satisfies YOUR bias. You've just abandoned the search basically, so it doesn't have anything to do with what I'm saying. I haven't said anything about people *knowing* what's right. I said the SEARCH FOR THE BEST MORAL RESOLUTION OF ANY GIVEN DILEMMA (which has been the occupation of most of the human race forever, until postmodern chaos took over), implies that there must be an absolute morality. Unfortunately it's not, since it's so easy for people just to abandon the search and let chaos rule. But I think when it comes to the crunch of a particularly difficult moral dilemma, we would most likely find you seeking a moral absolute too.Very good try, though. I think you accurately represent present-day moral relativism.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, we know that you said that. The question is "Why do you think that it implies that there must or even might be some absolute morality?"

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

If anyone is seriously searching for the right moral resolution to any dilemma, they have to implicitly be assuming, whether conscious of it or not, that there IS a right moral resolution to any dilemma. They may content themselves with the best that occurs to them, either thinking they've found the best, or being willing to settle for the best they could do under the circumstances, but the mere seeking implies that there is a best. This is the case in all life situations. It's the case in the courtroom, where if only all the facts could perfectly be known, the best judgment on the crime could be arrived at. Reality keeps us from knowing all the aspects of any situation, and we are also subject to bias, but these are FLAWS. Were they not always with us, perfect moral solutions would be possible.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith asserts: Again, that is not obvious. In addition, you are now shifting the goalposts again from Absolute to Right. In addition, what they may be looking for the the best solution in a given situation. That does not imply in anyway that it is absolute or even right or best. So again, what evidence is there that some Absolute Morality exists?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I've argued my case. I think it's pretty convincing myself. If you don't, sobeit.

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

You're basically saying that a relativist morality is NO MORALITY AT ALL. In other words, you're defining morality as necessarily non-relative. That's the only way you could say that having a relativist morality is "abandoning the search basically"--i.e. not actually searching for a moral judgment of a situation.So... of course, when you define morality to mean non-relativist, you're going to come out with the result that making moral judgments assumes absolute morality. But that's not much of a conclusion--that's just playing "p's and q's" with definitions. Seems to me as well that the human race has traditionally assumed an absolute morality. I also agree that post-modern thought on morality seems chaotic. But I guess it's always chaotic in times of change.I'm wondering if what you call post-modern relativistic morality is simply the moral equivalent to globalization of economic markets. When you try to globalize different absolute moralities, I think you're stuck either incessantly fighting with no ability to resolve any conflict, or stuck to accept some type of relativistic morality, even if only on a purely practical level.That's my thought for the day.

What I don't quite understand is how post modernism can take over. I mean most of the world population is in developing, or non western countries. And post modernarism is a peroid present after industrialism...

I'm sorry but I just don't see how that follows... To take a silly example: there are thousands of people searching for Atlantis; does that mean that Atlantis must exist? Thousands of alchemists were looking for a way to turn ordinary metals into gold. Does that in itself mean that this 'philosopher's stone' actually exists? Desires or expectations do not imply actual existence. That's rather interesting... Maybe it wasn't explicitly mentioned, but I sorta assumed it as the only possible reason. I'm curious after any other 'behind the scenes' reason to hold onto Absolute Morality.Maybe simply the 'absolute' vs the 'relative' mindset at work, again, lol.