toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ours

[DocJohnson]

I am sure that the Muslim extremist is just as convinced of his absolute morality as you are of yours and has just as much "evidence" to justify it.

At least they have morals. :mmph:

 

[Flipper]

At least they have morals. :mmph:

What a relief.

 

[zoo22]

That being the case how could you possibly argue that rape is absolutely wrong?

You are merely arguing that it's wrong because your own empathy says it's wrong. That isn't very compelling for the rapist, he doesn't care about your empathy.

Well, by that same token the rapist, doesn't care for anything that may say rape is wrong. Whether empathy, moral absolute, laws (moral or governmental) ... I just don't see how "the rapist doesn't care about fill in blank" is any indication regarding absolute right/wrong? I may be misunderstanding the comment.

The "absolute right/wrong" question is something I have a very difficult time understanding clearly.

I have to admit I generally steer away from the discussion at TOL because it seems it often turns into a "SO you think rape is okay??" type thing.

 

[DocJohnson]

Well, by that same token, the rapist, doesn't care for anything that may say rape is wrong. Whether empathy, moral absolute, laws (moral or governmental) ... I just don't see how "the rapist doesn't care about fill in blank" is any indication regarding absolute right/wrong?

In other words, the rapist is defaulting to his/her own, selfish code of ethics.

 

[fool]

So, if humans decided it was a good thing to eat your son (because they were hungry) your only argument against them would be that you personally would prefer they not do that?

Do we humans settle things by argument?

Is that the best argument you got?

That's all anyone has.

 

[John Mortimer]

Society is managed under judicial the laws of their land.

Everyone must uphold them.

After that there are two types of people.

Those who do not have God given freedom, liberty and justification.

And those who have God given freedom,. liberty and justification.

That's right... and any laws will necessarily relate to situational contexts and therefore be relative.

Too many people take "absolute" to mean, "very" or "extremely" or "unquestionably".
To say the Absolute is unconditional comes closer to the mark but doesn't quite get there either. The Absolute is unconditioned by any possible circumstance.
The Absolute is that which is independent of any relative manifestation or expression.

 

[zoo22]

In other words, the rapist is defaulting to his/her own, selfish code of ethics.

Yes, that makes sense. But I don't know that empathy ought to be discarded too casually in terms of absolute right/wrong.

Also (I'll try to tread lightly here), I don't quite see how someone believing that rape is wrong isn't somehow similar in terms of being "his/her own, selfish code of ethics." I believe that rape is wrong (I consider it one of the most heinous crimes). But why oughtn't one consider that the belief that rape is wrong is one's own "selfish code of ethics?"

In terms of my trying to understand absolute right/wrong, I place a lot of consideration towards empathy... Or something perhaps less defined, but very closely related to empathy.

But as I'd said, the "absolute right/wrong" question is something I have a very difficult time understanding clearly.

 

[Town Heretic]

I put no more words in his mouth than he put in mine.

Let's not make this about who put what in whose mouth, shall we? lain:

You were being called on your assertion that morality is contrived and relative. If so, what business have you defining the morality of another's actions? I believe that was the thrust of it.

 

[DocJohnson]

Also (I'll try to tread lightly here), I don't quite see how someone believing that rape is wrong isn't somehow similar in terms of being "his/her own, selfish code of ethics." I believe that rape is wrong (I consider it one of the most heinous crimes). But why oughtn't one consider that the belief that rape is wrong is one's own "selfish code of ethics?"

In terms of my trying to understand absolute right/wrong, I place a lot of consideration towards empathy... Or something perhaps less defined, but very closely related to empathy.

Spoken like a true moral relativist. Empathy weighs more than morals.

 

[nicholsmom]

To the question, "is there anything inherently wrong?"

Not that I am aware of.

So if someone incapacitates you, steals your brand new Lamborghini, burns down your house with your children inside, and rapes your wife, you wouldn't say that there was something wrong with that? That would be okay by you?

 

[DocJohnson]

So if someone incapacitates you, steals your brand new Lamborghini, burns down your house with your children inside, and rapes your wife, you wouldn't say that there was something wrong with that? That would be okay by you?

No! Not the Lamborghini!

 

[Town Heretic]

To the question, "is there anything inherently wrong?"

So if someone incapacitates you, steals your brand new Lamborghini, burns down your house with your children inside, and rapes your wife, you wouldn't say that there was something wrong with that? That would be okay by you?

There's a good point lying in the tall grass of all of this: is morality necessarily tied to self interest?

 

[zoo22]

Spoken like a true moral relativist. Empathy weighs more than morals.

Funny(ish)... A comment I had just been about to add to my post:

PS: Doc, I welcome having a discussion with you about this; it's something I'd like to understand better. But if so, please don't turn the discussion into something snide/distempered/personal. Otherwise I simply don't want to participate. :e4e:

Still stands.

 

[DocJohnson]

There's a good point lying in the tall grass of all of this: is morality necessarily tied to self interest?

Self-interest might be at the heart, but it would be a universal self-interest in remaining unviolated.

 

[Son of Jack]

toldailytopic: Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ourself? Or is right and wrong determined by God?

Well, by definition, if we answer yes to the first question then we can toss absolute right out the window. Concerning the second question, I would reword it to ask whether God is the standard of morality. By answering that He determines it, morality then takes on an arbitrary feel. However, if we claim that morality proceeds from the very nature of God, the one Good.

 

[DocJohnson]

Funny(ish)... A comment I had just been about to add to my post...

Alright, then I'll rephrase: A true moral relativist would weigh empathy more heavily than morals.

Better?

 

[nicholsmom]

Absolute morality. Is the standard of right and wrong relative to ourself? Or is right and wrong determined by God?

Yes. It is relative to the individual and determined by God.

There are deeds that are absolutely right no matter who you are: selflessness, generosity, mercy, kindness, truthfulness, etc. These are determined by God and do not vary. Now you might say the ancient Spartans did not value mercy - they left unfit babies out in the elements to die; that the Muslims do not value truthfulness - quite the opposite since lying is encouraged and expected. But that does not discount the unchangeable nature of these things as inherently good, because you only have to personalize them to realize their universal acceptance. The Spartans showed no mercy, but any given Spartan would welcome and praise the fellowman who came to their rescue out of mercy, and would not then decry it. Likewise the Muslim certainly doesn't like being fooled and would appreciate truthfulness in spite of not understanding its use.

We also have personal standards for what is good: I value handmade gifts above purchased ones, considering that the handmade gift is the mark of good character I personally value the ability to cook well. Good people cook well, so I teach each of my kids to cook and bake.

It's the same for the evil/bad/wrong stuff - there are absolute and personal standards there as well.

 

[Son of Jack]

There's a good point lying in the tall grass of all of this: is morality necessarily tied to self interest?

I'm curious. What do you think?

I'm inclined to say yes to your question, with the qualification that self-interest is not synonymous selfishness. Jesus clearly tells us that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, with the build-in assumption that we do, in fact, love ourselves.

 

[zoo22]

Alright, then I'll rephrase: A true moral relativist would weigh empathy more heavily than morals.

Better?

Uh oh... I think so, yes, better. At the very least, I'll accept it as such.

[restart]

As said, this is something I have a difficult time understanding clearly... In that regard, I don't see that I could be a moral relativist (certainly not a "true" one?). But yes, I do struggle with trying to understand why. I do find an emphasis towards empathy or something related regarding right/wrong. And I do see a lot of right/wrong as relative. As we move towards "absolute" it becomes very cloudy for me.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm curious. What do you think?

I'm inclined to say yes to your question, with the qualification that self-interest is not synonymous selfishness. Jesus clearly tells us that we should love our neighbor as ourselves, with the build-in assumption that we do, in fact, love ourselves.

I'd say we're thinking along the same lines. A while ago I noted (somewhere around here) the irony that both the selfish and selfless man desire the same thing: their ultimate happiness. But, while the selfless man finds that happiness in the purposeful fulfillment of his relational nature, both with God and his fellow man, the selfish man will never arrive there through the pursuit of an isolated and singular self service.

So I say as the Good is derived from God, it follows that while it may not serve our seeming self interest in the moment it in every meaningful way must serve the and our good and so our ultimate happiness and actual interest.