Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Absolute Morality...again.
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 46 of 300 (333389)
07-19-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-19-2006 1:12 PM


More details
Faith writes:
The reason it is absolute is that He is absolute and the moral law expresses His own mind, and He made us in His image so we reflect His own mind -- or did before the Fall. God's writing the Ten Commandments in stone has the meaning that the Law is absolute. Written in stone =absolute. It means that He made His universe to run by them, He made human nature to operate by them, so that violations of them are resistance or opposition to the natural operations of things, which has inevitable repercussions. There is no way to avoid the repercussions of the Law. It affects everyone equally and exactly. It is a universal Law.
Please tell me what Commandment # 6 means by the term "murder".
Does this commandment apply to everyone equally?
How about an unborn child?
Exodus 21
quote:
22Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
Or a resident of a conquered city...
Joshua 6:
quote:
Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
Or a slave who lingers a few days before dying
Exodus 21:
quote:
20"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Apparently, none of the above killings constitute "murder" so your definition of murder must be such that it cannot be applied to the actions described above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 300 (333390)
07-19-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Faith
07-19-2006 3:13 PM


Re: Let's try again
No, it merely shows a specific application of the Law to a particular situation, nothing subjective or relative about it.
Yes, the law must be considered in relation to the particular situation.
Murder has many degrees because of different circumstances that don't call the absoluteness of the law into question, as the idea of subjectivity or relativity does.
Huh? And the Commandment say "Thou shalt not kill." To change it to "Thou shalt not do murder" makes it very much subjective and relative. What is murder under one set of conditions may be self defense in fact.
Give us an example of an Absolute Moral.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 3:13 PM Faith has not replied

LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4676 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 48 of 300 (333391)
07-19-2006 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-19-2006 1:12 PM


More details
Faith writes:
The reason it is absolute is that He is absolute and the moral law expresses His own mind, and He made us in His image so we reflect His own mind -- or did before the Fall. God's writing the Ten Commandments in stone has the meaning that the Law is absolute. Written in stone =absolute. It means that He made His universe to run by them, He made human nature to operate by them, so that violations of them are resistance or opposition to the natural operations of things, which has inevitable repercussions. There is no way to avoid the repercussions of the Law. It affects everyone equally and exactly. It is a universal Law.
Please tell me what Commandment # 6 means by the term "murder".
Does this commandment apply to everyone equally?
How about an unborn child?
Exodus 21
quote:
22Suppose a pregnant woman suffers a miscarriage as the result of an injury caused by someone who is fighting. If she isn't badly hurt, the one who injured her must pay whatever fine her husband demands and the judges approve. 23But if she is seriously injured, the payment will be life for life, 24eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, cut for cut, and bruise for bruise.
Or a resident of a conquered city...
Joshua 6:
quote:
Then the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city. 21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword.
Or a slave who lingers a few days before dying
Exodus 21:
quote:
20"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. 21But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.
Apparently, none of the above killings constitute "murder" so your definition of murder must be such that it cannot be applied to the actions described above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 3:30 PM LinearAq has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 300 (333395)
07-19-2006 3:30 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by LinearAq
07-19-2006 3:27 PM


Re: More details
Please tell me what Commandment # 6 means by the term "murder".
It doesn't matter if we can define it at all.
If god set up a perfect, and absolute, definition of murder and decided it is immoral, then it would be absolutely immoral if we can define it as well or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by LinearAq, posted 07-19-2006 3:27 PM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by LinearAq, posted 07-19-2006 4:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 50 of 300 (333397)
07-19-2006 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Hyroglyphx
07-19-2006 1:09 PM


Re: Absolute morality
Where else could it come from then? If morals aren't absolute then it was formulated by the opinions of the lawmakers.
Morals are seperate from laws. For laws touch a broad subset of life beyond what is morally correct and incorrect. I.e. booze, tying up giraffes to telephone polls etc.
Otherwise you are saying that morals are intrinsic. If morals are intrinsic then that would mean that everyone would agree upon what is moral and what is not, which would make it absolute.
Your statement is a well thought out try however, you have several misconceptions. If morals are intrinsic the intrinsic value of a moralistic action will not necessairly be the same for every person. For example in murder, I can choose not to participate for the reason that denying someone else's right to live horrendous, and thats the intrinsic value i see in it. Another person could see the intrinsic value in it that if they were to kill another person then they have to live under the threat that they can be killed at any time. And yet a third person can see the intrinsic value of murder as instead a continuation of the life cycle and thus it becomes a matter of restarting the cycle.
Not with absolutes, it can't! Alrght, lets break it down a little further. Do you believe that absolutes of any kind exist or is everything relative?
I am open to the possiblity that absolutes do exist. But I will give you an example of why relativity has more support through a sliding scale action then anything else.
(for sake of example, not whether the ten commandments are actually the Absolute Morality)
You see a neighbor and he is beating his wife. Wife is incredibly beautiful and she is nearing death. You act out from your conception that Absolutely murder is wrong. So you take him down and send him off to jail. Yourself you know why you went through the action.
However, in a possibility others shall judge you and say. NJ you are covetting that man's wife, you sent him to jail for his actions for your desire of this man's wife. Thus allowing you to pursue this woman, or maintain your secret desire for her.
Now if GOD does exist s/he knows your intent. However, GOD is not the one to be looking at what your actions are, it is other people who have to live with you that you are. By thier mind if they ascribe to GOD's supposed moral code you have sinned and broken it while trying to protect it. You may have 'maintained it' but in doing so you have broken the code set.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2006 1:09 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-20-2006 12:00 AM Discreet Label has not replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 51 of 300 (333400)
07-19-2006 3:36 PM
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.
Does that work for everyone? Are we clear on what an absolute is?
So definitively you can point at an example of morale code that everyone can see as morale and that in no way shape or form application of this moral can be misconstrued in any way?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-19-2006 2:44 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 52 of 300 (333412)
07-19-2006 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Faith
07-19-2006 1:12 PM


For the sake of this particular portion of discussion we will say that GOD exists so we can stop talking about if or who.
The reason it is absolute is that He is absolute and the moral law expresses His own mind, and He made us in His image so we reflect His own mind -- or did before the Fall. God's writing the Ten Commandments in stone has the meaning that the Law is absolute. Written in stone =absolute. It means that He made His universe to run by them, He made human nature to operate by them, so that violations of them are resistance or opposition to the natural operations of things, which has inevitable repercussions. There is no way to avoid the repercussions of the Law. It affects everyone equally and exactly. It is a universal Law. That's how God made it. When Jesus said that not one jot or tittle of the Law would go unfulfilled, He was referring to the absoluteness and precision of the Law down to minute details. Inexorability.
So in your mind Law is conflated to and the same as Morale. And specifically we are only talking about the 10 commandments. However, how can 'law' be the same as 'morale'. Again although using man law, law talks of things outside of morale, i.e. tying giraffe's to a phone poll. In terms of GOD's 10 laws then and their application within the text you probably should look toward linearag he brought up so interesting examples of the meaning of 'murder' present throughout the bible. As well as post may want to examin this situation.
(for sake of example, not whether the ten commandments are actually the Absolute Morality)
You see a neighbor and he is beating his wife. Wife is incredibly beautiful and she is nearing death. You act out from your conception that Absolutely murder is wrong. So you take him down and send him off to jail. Yourself you know why you went through the action.
However, in a possibility others shall judge you and say. NJ you are covetting that man's wife, you sent him to jail for his actions for your desire of this man's wife. Thus allowing you to pursue this woman, or maintain your secret desire for her.
Now if GOD does exist s/he knows your intent. However, GOD is not the one to be looking at what your actions are, it is other people who have to live with you that you are. By thier mind if they ascribe to GOD's supposed moral code you have sinned and broken it while trying to protect it. You may have 'maintained it' but in doing so you have broken the code set.
How do you respond to this particular context? Where you have the possibility of having broken at least two different commandments.
Lastly also if these are the 10 'morals' that must be adhered to, do these cover the entirety of the reality that we live in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 1:12 PM Faith has not replied

Lithodid-Man
Member (Idle past 2931 days)
Posts: 504
From: Juneau, Alaska, USA
Joined: 03-22-2004


Message 53 of 300 (333413)
07-19-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Discreet Label
07-19-2006 12:14 AM


Great topic! My 2 cents
I think from reading this thread (up the 45 current posts) that the root of the problem is both semantics and philosophy. That is, I wonder if some aren't using 'morality' as both 'what is good' and 'what is the law'. And also at the root is the philosophical point (I can't remember exactly how DL worded it) of whether something is good because God said it or that God said it because it is good.
I would assume from posts here and elsewhere that Faith is taking the former view. Because of this counter arguments from the latter perspective are meaningless. I hope this makes sense (Dammit Jim, I am a zoologist not a philosopher!). So to specifics, let's say Faith were arguing from the latter perspective (God said it because it was good). Then the counter argument would be to analyze what's good about not working on the Sabbath, what exceptions would be valid etc. If however, she is arguing the other viewpoint then those counter arguments are futile (reminds me of the Army of Darkness quote "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun"). This is in no way an attack on Faith's arguments, just a suggestion that she may be arguing apples and getting replies about oranges.
Now for fun I want to pose an absolute moral situation. As an atheist and a relativist, I define absolute morality as a right or a wrong that is wrong in any culture in any time irregardless of that societies mores. Something for which there is never an exception that makes it right. I am sure this can be picked apart, but it is a fun mental experiment.
I believe that it is immoral for a thinking, self-aware human being to own another thinking self-aware human being. That is ownership in the complete and absolute sense of the word. It is not right if the person agrees to the ownership. It is not right if your chosen diety says it is (even with rules). It is not right if you have a thousand years of tradition behind it. Breaking the rule will have no effect on the cosmos, but it makes anyone who does a bad, bad person. People who traditionally did this knew they were bad bad people hence the great stretches of justification (they are not really human or they like it this way).

Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Discreet Label, posted 07-19-2006 12:14 AM Discreet Label has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 3:57 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied
 Message 59 by Discreet Label, posted 07-19-2006 4:03 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied
 Message 63 by Discreet Label, posted 07-19-2006 4:10 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

RickJB
Member (Idle past 4991 days)
Posts: 917
From: London, UK
Joined: 04-14-2006


Message 54 of 300 (333414)
07-19-2006 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Faith
07-19-2006 12:11 PM


faith writes:
The answer is that any morality given by the God who made us would be absolute.
Which god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 12:11 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 07-19-2006 3:53 PM RickJB has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 55 of 300 (333415)
07-19-2006 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by RickJB
07-19-2006 3:52 PM


Whichever one made us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RickJB, posted 07-19-2006 3:52 PM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RickJB, posted 07-19-2006 4:08 PM Faith has replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 56 of 300 (333418)
07-19-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
07-19-2006 3:12 PM


Re: Moral Absolutism
Acually, I just jumped in becuase I thought it was stupid that DL was all like "Oh yeah, define it!" Which I thought was a pretty easy thing to do.
Stupidity is a pretty questionable attribute. Some of the most innovative and powerful ideas thoughout history have been seen as incredibly stupid. But I digress. To my understanding, this part I may not have communicated to well (probably implied vs explicitly stating what i wanted), I was spefcifically looking for Nemsesis Juggernaut's defined absolute morality.
But again thank you for the refrence to wiki on abolute and relative they will be a useful resource.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-19-2006 3:12 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 300 (333419)
07-19-2006 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Lithodid-Man
07-19-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Great topic! My 2 cents
What if I demand that you own me?
What if I force you to own me?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-19-2006 3:50 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Annafan
Member (Idle past 4579 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005


Message 58 of 300 (333421)
07-19-2006 4:02 PM


The fact that our observations/experiences don't reveal absolute morality (i.e. we see examples everyday of how morals were/are differently interpreted, or 'violated'), is IMO enough in itself to conclude that no such thing exists.
Suppose 'a' proposed set of morals, then I ask the question "In which way can we be able to recognise this set of morals as an absolute one?"
- claiming that the source is some 'God' clearly doesn't cut it. Too many around, how to prove that the source is indeed 'God'?, some of those morals turn out to sound too silly to take serious...
- a set that emerges from a democratic process obviously clearly admits that it is not absolute, but just a matter of numbers
- coming up with your personal set and concluding that it is an absolute one, is nothing more than a proof of extreme arrogance and lack of self-critique (in the knowledge that other people happen to have a different set of morals)
An actually existing set of absolute morals would prove/impose itself, quite simply. It would be inescapable. And by being inescapable, it would prove itself to be absolute.
There simply is no other way.

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Discreet Label, posted 07-19-2006 4:05 PM Annafan has replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 59 of 300 (333422)
07-19-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Lithodid-Man
07-19-2006 3:50 PM


Re: Great topic! My 2 cents
As this arose inside of chatroom i thought it might be useful to place out here. Instead of trying to go top down why not go the reverse.
Could anyone possibly posit an absolutely immoral act? And in all acontext no matter how it is interpreted everyone could arrive at the same conclusion that this act was immoral?
Maybe from this point we could try and work toward an absolute morality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-19-2006 3:50 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by robinrohan, posted 07-19-2006 4:07 PM Discreet Label has replied

Discreet Label
Member (Idle past 5064 days)
Posts: 272
Joined: 11-17-2005


Message 60 of 300 (333426)
07-19-2006 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Annafan
07-19-2006 4:02 PM


Very curious take, What would an immergent and inescaple set of morals look like? Could you go through the process of how you think it might arrise or work out?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Annafan, posted 07-19-2006 4:02 PM Annafan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Annafan, posted 07-20-2006 7:25 AM Discreet Label has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024