Absolute Morality...again.

Who are the originators and advocates of this point of view? Yes, my impression is that most of it is Marxist-inspired. Thanks for confirming. The reason is that the whole system was invented out of Cultural Marxism I believe. Just part of their ongoing strategy of bringing down the West by hook or by crook.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Derrida, Foucault, Lacan et. al.Have you actually read them? They give me a headache.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That's because they're trying to cram reality into their ideology and it takes amputating the language to make it fit.

I have made a decision to ignore all personal questions -- about my life, about my attitudes etc. -- in the midst of a discussion from now on, thanks to my discussion with you, because they are nothing but ad hominems and improper. See my comment to Omnivorous on the Hindu Marriage thread. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I didn't mean I wouldn't discuss personal things when that is the topic, only when I'm being challenged on my personal attitudes in relation to another topic, where the only point is to make an ad hominem argument out of it against me.Sorry I haven't kept track of threads where I've given some of my personal conversion, and I can't seem to think of useful search terms to locate them either.

Who on earth has EVER claimed a word gives "absolute knowledge" of anything or even the most minimal understanding??? Or "functional knowledge" either??? Words IDENTIFY -- what something IS, they don't give any knowledge beyond that. When the small child learns that a certain picture is a "ducky" it doesn't mean he grasps anything about the biology and migration patterns of the duck OR that "functionally" it plays a role in some great Chinese and French cuisine -- only that when he sees a live duck he may be able to name it. And that's about as "absolute" as literalism ever gets that I know of.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

That IS silly, really really really silly. Just word tripping.Let me try again. When we "search" for a moral judgment in any given moral dilemma -- we or a jury or a judge or an ethicist or whoever -- unlike when we search for Atlantis or gold from lead -- we FIND one, it just may not be the perfect one, the one that arrives at THE fairest decision, the one that covers all the bases, all the aspects, is free of all biases, etc etc etc. But since we do find one in our pursuit of the fairest, truest, best one, that implies that there is always a best one, and that implies that there is an absolute morality behind it all -- a morality that we would recognize if we had all the facts and were absolutely free of bias. I dunno, seems pretty straight to me. There may be a flaw in it, but all the objections so far are just silly misrepresentations so the flaw is far from evident if there is one.

It would tell us how best to live, what is always the wisest, fairest, most honest way of dealing with our fellow man, the actions that promote the best interests of all concerned, etc etc etc. The usual. Nothing new.The fact that there are disagreements about this does not mean that morality is relative, it means that some ideas are right and some wrong.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Having absolute standards doesn't mean they are applied by some kind of flat formula. Of course every case has to be judged individually.