|
Author
|
Topic: Absolute Morality...again.
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Wrong Definition
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. What do you mean? You place the two words side by side and add their meanings. To me, that's like saying, I know what a car is, and I know what washing means, but I'm not sure what a carwash is for.
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. Its an inference, because the alternative means that all morals are based on opinion. And if they are based on opinion then who gets to decide what's moral and what isn't? As if that isn't condeming enough, if morals are always relative, then its very nature is exhibiting an absolute phenomenon, in which case, that isn't relative at all, that's absolute.
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." 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?
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? There has been much debate in this thread over what an absolute is. Some people felt that absolutes don't exist at all, and if they dont exist at all in the known universe, then why should morals be any different? 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.
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. No, that's just a battle over semantics. Then can you be on two continents at the same time, without being dismembered? There are those pesky laws of physics that get in the way. That is an absolute phenomenon. And all I need is just one to prove that absolutes exist. Those laws are irrespective of anyone's personal opinions. 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.
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. 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? Because if something is either absolutely true or absolutely false, then absolute exist. Why is this is difficult a concept? Not everything can relate in relativity. I have no control over that and neither do you.
Unfortunately you would first have to explain what absolutes are? 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.
“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
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
|
Message 107 of 300 (333880)
07-21-2006 12:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Hyroglyphx
07-19-2006 2:44 PM
|
|
Re: Absolute morality
Absolute----> Definite------> Certain-------> Nothing can circumvent or supplant its authority.
No, that's absolutely wrong. You can have "absolute" in your sense by having a ruthless dictator. But we would consider a ruthless dictator to be immoral, so that's the wrong meaning of "absolute" for moral questions. Purpledawn has it right ( Message 39) with: 6. without reference to anything else
Show me a moral absolutist, and I will show you a moral relativist who absolutely wants to impose his relative morals on everybody else
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2006 2:44 PM | | Hyroglyphx has replied |
|
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: 04-14-2006
|
|
|
Message 108 of 300 (333897)
07-21-2006 3:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 89 by Faith
07-20-2006 7:13 AM
|
|
Of course what? Cat got your tongue? Again, if Allah was the source of absolute morality would you shift your moral codes in favour of Islam?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 89 by Faith, posted 07-20-2006 7:13 AM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 121 by Faith, posted 07-21-2006 1:29 PM | | RickJB has replied |
|
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: 04-14-2006
|
Re: Wrong Definition
I often find that advocates of "absolute" morality seem to operate under the assumption that it falls in line with their own beliefs. Question: If it was shown that absolute morality DID exist, but in a form that you did not agree with, would you shift your beliefs accordingly, or would you maintain an "immoral" outlook? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
|
Message 110 of 300 (333915)
07-21-2006 7:48 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by RickJB
07-21-2006 3:31 AM
|
|
Re: Wrong Definition
I often find that advocates of "absolute" morality often seem to operate under the assumption that it falls in line with their own beliefs. Heh! "Often?" That's being pretty generous, Rick. More like "always."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by RickJB, posted 07-21-2006 3:31 AM | | RickJB has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 111 by RickJB, posted 07-21-2006 7:54 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: 04-14-2006
|
|
|
Message 111 of 300 (333917)
07-21-2006 7:54 AM
|
Reply to: Message 110 by Coragyps
07-21-2006 7:48 AM
|
|
Re: Wrong Definition
coragyps writes: That's being pretty generous, Rick. I do try...! 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2006 7:48 AM | | Coragyps has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 112 of 300 (333943)
07-21-2006 10:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by nwr
07-21-2006 12:04 AM
|
|
Re: Absolute morality
No, that's absolutely wrong. If I'm absolutely wrong about anything then morals absolutely exist, in which case this conversation is absolutely over.
You can have "absolute" in your sense by having a ruthless dictator. Ruthless dictators only give the impression of absolute rule. But you still aren't fully grasping the concept. Absolute morality is that it is unchanging. It matters not the circumstances involved, it matters not what year it is, it matters not what country we're in, because nothing is going to change that disposition. Murder is always going to be wrong. Why?
But we would consider a ruthless dictator to be immoral, so that's the wrong meaning of "absolute" for moral questions. I guess everyone is still overlooking the obvious. If there are no absolutes in morality, then everything comes down to an opinion. Now, there is a dictator that rules the land, his opinion dictates rules that we think are "immoral." Our feelings about things being immoral are our set of opinions. So, the dictators opinions are expressed, but the peoples opinions are suppressed. Is that fair? I would say, and you might too, "Of course not!" But let me ask you, if morals come down to mere opinion, and opinions conflict, then all that matters is who's in power to enact their version of morality on everyone else. There is still this sense, this deep sense in the inner-core of our being that what he is doing is immoral. But without an absolute framework, you could not even understand this principle. There is something deeper to our understanding of morals; a connection on the spiritual level, and not the mere intellectual level.
“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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by nwr, posted 07-21-2006 12:04 AM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2006 11:35 AM | | Hyroglyphx has replied | | | Message 117 by nwr, posted 07-21-2006 12:03 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied | | | Message 118 by nwr, posted 07-21-2006 12:07 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 113 of 300 (333944)
07-21-2006 11:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by RickJB
07-21-2006 3:31 AM
|
|
Re: Wrong Definition
I often find that advocates of "absolute" morality seem to operate under the assumption that it falls in line with their own beliefs. How bizarre that a belief that conforms to other beliefs should find parity.
Question: If it was shown that absolute morality DID exist, but in a form that you did not agree with, would you shift your beliefs accordingly, or would you maintain an "immoral" outlook? Exist, but in a "form" I didn't agree with? It doesn't matter what I think, if its absolute. All that matters is truth. Truth is absolute and truth is what I seek. I'm not biased by mere opinions about morality. So, if absolute morality existed in a form that I found myself in disagreement with before, I would seek to conform to the absolute truth.
“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
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by RickJB, posted 07-21-2006 3:31 AM | | RickJB has replied |
|
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: 11-12-2002
|
Re: Absolute morality
Absolute morality is that it is unchanging.
So you're telling us that either: 1) It is immoral and unlawful to do any work of any sort on the Sabbath, whatever day that is, or 2) the Commandments that Moses brought down the first time don't represent Absolute Morality, despite being written by God's Finger. Right?
|
Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5094 days) Posts: 272 Joined: 11-17-2005
|
Re: Wrong Definition
Nemesis:
Ruthless dictators only give the impression of absolute rule. But you still aren't fully grasping the concept. Absolute morality is that it is unchanging. It matters not the circumstances involved, it matters not what year it is, it matters not what country we're in, because nothing is going to change that disposition. Murder is always going to be wrong. Why? Murder in self defense is not wrong (unless purposfully provoked the other person. Murder in protection of country is not wrong (by standards of some people). Murder when the US goes to war is not wrong (by standards of people running a war). (And please don't say that civilians etc. are just collateral damage from war.) Discreet:
[qs] Aslo to my knowledge you are demonstrating an incomplete knowledge of what relativistc morals are. It does not boil down to simple personal opinion because humans are inherently social animals. They agree on things and then it becomes an opinion of a 'group' the larger the group turns into a community, then into a culture etc. Thus morals then become derived from larger groups as well not solely individuals. Not all things are as you percieve them Nemesis. This quote directly is realted to your above two quotes because it demonstrates that morals are not derived solely by individual people. If someone sees someone lying to promote their religion and no consequence ensues from society, well several options remain three easy to see, well lying to promote my religion is okay, two i should rise above lying and preach the truth, or three i should persecute groups that lie, many other options are available. [qb]Case one demonstrates accepting the normal norms of society, so i don't think it constitute as 'moral'. Case 2 has a person taking a higher standard and taking a 'moral ground'. Case three has the systamtic persecutions of false witnesses, which is a mixed bag of results.[/b][/qs] Highlighted were 3 things that relate directly to your point of absolute morality from a 'lawgiver'. Lawgiver may have all the power, but groups can go and maintain a moral code seperate from that of lawgiver, a social group can establish them. Even historically Jewish people were set apart from other cultures because of their own 'moral' rule set far beyond the code of the cultures they had lived with like the Romans. Nemesis:
I guess everyone is still overlooking the obvious. If there are no absolutes in morality, then everything comes down to an opinion. Now, there is a dictator that rules the land, his opinion dictates rules that we think are "immoral." Our feelings about things being immoral are our set of opinions. So, the dictators opinions are expressed, but the peoples opinions are suppressed. Is that fair? I would say, and you might too, "Of course not!" But let me ask you, if morals come down to mere opinion, and opinions conflict, then all that matters is who's in power to enact their version of morality on everyone else. There is still this sense, this deep sense in the inner-core of our being that what he is doing is immoral. But without an absolute framework, you could not even understand this principle. There is something deeper to our understanding of morals; a connection on the spiritual level, and not the mere intellectual level. Again to your continued misunderstanding, there is no singular ruler in a given social context. While the ruler can dictate wrong, the people involved within the society can choose to follow the social norms of a different group, i.e. Jews following their code in Roman times. Thusly the 'ruler' does not control what is and is not immoral, but only what is or is not punishable by 'law'. Secondly, perpetuating this idea that everyone has this vague sense that something is not right and that there is a spiritual level. How does that relate to the important point brought up by PurpleDawn that:
absolute: 6. without reference to anything else Is extremely important point which you have yet addressed and only handwaved away without discussing. Clearly when you say that spirituality enters the picture then you are starting to refrence something else. Demonstrate please how an absolute morality that is unchanging where spirituality can influence absolute morality, when absolute morality does not have any refrence. By the way, I do appreciate your lack of response to my posts to you. Its becomming indicative of a lack of desire to post back which can stem from a) dishonest discussion tactics or b) inability to discuss the points brought up (and if you have quote portions of your posts that have and explain how your quotes support your position versus just Asserting that the quotes tou.) or c) just ignoring the posts, which seems to be very discourteous especially considering I started the thread. Edited by Discreet Label, : corrected formatting error.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 11:04 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
RickJB
Member (Idle past 5021 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: 04-14-2006
|
Re: Wrong Definition
nemesis writes: Truth is absolute and truth is what I seek. Very romantic, but until the day when you can show us this "truth" your assertions regarding absolute morality will remain absolutely unfounded.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 113 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 11:04 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Absolute morality
But you still aren't fully grasping the concept. Absolute morality is that it is unchanging.
Observation shows that morality is changing, has always been changing, and likely will always be changing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 10:56 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Absolute morality
Murder is always going to be wrong. Why?
That's because "murder" is a relative term. Murder is that kind of killing that is considered to be wrong. It is relative to the standards of the culture.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-21-2006 10:56 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18353 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
|
Message 119 of 300 (333973)
07-21-2006 12:17 PM
|
Reply to: Message 85 by crashfrog
07-20-2006 1:00 AM
|
|
Re: Absolute morality
community=common unity.
crashfrog writes: Morality is something we experience as community. Phat writes: and by definition, you declare that we live in a secular community, rather than a theocratic one. OK. Gotcha It's not a set of absolutes that the universe enforces. Obviously God can't enforce anything as he doesn't exist. Phat writes: Thats because you choose not to have Him in your community! He may well be in the a community, however. If morals were absolute, they would be inviolable and obvious. That they are fungible, negotiatable, and flexible in every instance proves that there are no moral absolutes. Perhaps what Nemesis is trying to say is that morals should be absolute, not that they are.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2006 1:00 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3488 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: Wrong Definition
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 3 1. perfect; complete (absolute silence)
2. not mixed; pure
3. not limited; unrestricted (an absolute ruler)
4. positive; definite
5. actual; real (an absolute truth)
6. without reference to anything else So let's put them together and see what they say to me. 1. (complete) (principles) = I don't think this one works2. (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:
Absolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ”Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ”Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. 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
|
™ Version 4.2