|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,386 Year: 3,643/9,624 Month: 514/974 Week: 127/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Absolute Morality...again. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
SuperNintendo Chalmers Member (Idle past 5854 days) Posts: 772 From: Bartlett, IL, USA Joined: |
Then the argument still stands that morals aren't static, but rather, they are formulated by mere opinion. That means morals don't actually exist at all. But if that were the case, then how is that most people are able to understand what morals are if they weren't absolute? I'm sorry... but this argument is garbage. Do you think opinions don't exist? MORALS ARE OPINIONS as has been shown on this thread multiple times. I think relative morals are fairly easy to understand
I intentionally chose that question because I knew this topic would surface. You tell me. Can the allegations of the US engaging in torture at Gitmo be considered immoral? If so, who gets to decide? See, its always going to be a catch-22 for the Relativist. He says that its immoral for anyone to decide for him/her if something is right or wrong. But, he/she expects everyone else to pander to his/her beliefs. If there is not a solid guidline for morality, then there is no basis for anyone to oppose anyone else's morality. Understand? Again... this is just garbage. Some people thing it's ok... some people don't. To some people it's immoral to some it isn't. There is no universal right or wrong. You keep trying to say that just because morals are relative opinions that they therefore are meaningless and right and wrong don't exist. This is such obivious BS.... How do you think society has worked for 1000s of years? It used to be ok to own slaves... now it isn't. It used to be considered moral... now it isn't. Funny how that works.
That's your opinion that they are uneducated and ignorant. Its also your opinion that its wrong to stop Fetal Stem Cell Research. If you are a Relativist, then you have no basis for anything. You are a body of water, climbing a staircase of water, in a sky of water. You have no fixed referrence to anything and are anchored by nothing. And your penchant for fluidity is the very thing that will drown you. But when the waters recede, the Rock will remain. Do you even understand the subject under discussion here? It is my opinion that they are ignorant and their resistance is immoral. Others have different opinions. We reach consensus in our society through democracy and social interaction.
What difference does it make to you? That's their opinion. You have yours, and they have theirs. Right and wrong is arbitrary, right? There is nothing certain in this world, right? So what difference does it make to you? Abortion is either wrong or it isn't..... yet most pro-lifers want abortion banned except in the case of rape or incest.... Huh? I guess abortion is only wrong in certain situations..... Who cares, because there is no such thing as morality apart from a person's own ability to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. People do decide for themselves what is right or wrong... but there are definite consequences when their view of right and wrong diverges from the consensus. Heck.. there are a lot of things that the majority considers moral that are immoral in my opinion. Unfortunately it's hard to convince people since morals ARE OPINIONS. Ok... just give me ONE... ONE example of a moral that isn't an opinion. ONE.. Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : No reason given. Edited by SuperNintendo Chalmers, : changed tone of post slightly
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminFaith Inactive Member |
The only people who can't understand relative morals are the simple-minded. I'm going to give you a warning, SNC. You habitually skirt the edge of violating Rule 10 and if you keep it up you'll take some time off. Reminder of The Forum Guidelines Edited by AdminFaith, : No reason given. Take comments and questions about moderator actions here:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
People do decide for themselves what is right or wrong... but there are definite consequences when their view of right and wrong diverges from the consensus. Morals appear to be based on feelings. There's no logical ground for them at all. But we have to understand that that includes ALL morals, liberal as well as conservative. If it's based on "consensus," that just means that they who have the power win this game. That's not morality. That's politics. Edited by robinrohan, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4697 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
The concept is precise and can be communicated no matter what words are used. Well, I hope then that what you are calling "concept" is a functional identification rather than some absolute ideal of tomato in itself. Why? partly because language is context sensitive. There is the edible fruit that grows on plants and that we eat. But I could also ask you to select a tomato from a group of photographs, or plastic representations of food for instance. Do we ever know exactly what a tomato is? I don't think so. What we have is the ability to function in regards to tomatoes. We can plant, harvest, purchase, slice, can etc. a tomato all the while not really knowing everything there is to know about it. If by concept you mean something like Plato's archetype of a tomato then I don't follow you. If this functional usage is what you mean then literalism doesn't give you absolute knowledge but rather functional knowledge. Language as utility not as truth. My claim is that literalism occurs when people think that by naming something they have understood it and know it in some absolute total way. The belief that words can give one absolute certainty and assurance of knowledge is what I mean by the error of literalism. lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Eddie Inactive Member |
Message 212 of 215 07-22-2006 09:23 PM
Faith said: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. Faith, Drats! I seem to have joined EVC a few hours too late. I've been reading some of the threads and I find your posts quite interesting. I was hoping to ask you about your journey from atheism to biblical inerrancy. Since that is not possible, I was wondering if you've already covered it somewhere in EVC already and if so, could you direct me to it? I'm asking out of curiosity, NOT to debate it. Also, I apologize for being off-topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5010 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
faith writes: ...where the only point is to make an ad hominem argument out of it against me. I have made no such attack and you know it.
faith writes: I have made a decision to ignore all personal questions No, you have made a decision to avoid answering THIS question. I have asked no personal questions and you know it, Faith. You are clearly hedging. I'll ask again. Do you accept (as a fallible human, to use your term) that it is merely possible for you to be misguided about absolute morality? Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RickJB Member (Idle past 5010 days) Posts: 917 From: London, UK Joined: |
[deleted]
Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Glad you decided to add to our diversity. We have a wide variety of forums for your debating pleasure, but I warn you it can become habit forming.
In the purple signature box below, you'll find some links that will help make your journey here pleasant. Pay particular attention to our Forum Guidelines and all will go well. Again welcome and happy debating. Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate Links for comments on moderation procedures and/or responding to admin msgs:
Helpful links for New Members:
Forum Guidelines, [thread=-19,-112], [thread=-17,-45], and Practice Makes Perfect
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Well, I hope then that what you are calling "concept" is a functional identification rather than some absolute ideal of tomato in itself. The issue is not about knowledge of the tomato. It's about whether one can communicate a precise idea to another via the text, or whether the reader always has to "interpret" it, which means choosing among alternative meanings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1464 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
If this functional usage is what you mean then literalism doesn't give you absolute knowledge but rather functional knowledge. Language as utility not as truth. My claim is that literalism occurs when people think that by naming something they have understood it and know it in some absolute total way. The belief that words can give one absolute certainty and assurance of knowledge is what I mean by the error of literalism. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3477 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
What I understand so far.
Morality deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong. The term is used in regard to three contexts: individual conscience; systems of principles and judgments ” sometimes called moral values ” shared within a cultural, religious, secular, Humanist, or philosophical community; and codes of behavior or conduct derived from these systems. Moral absolutism is the belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions (questions of right or wrong) can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act.
Absolute used in this context is a philosopical term.
”Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. In some varieties of philosophy, the Absolute describes an ultimate being. From what I have read in this thread, I think the idea of innate morality and moral values that develop over time are being confused or used interchangeably.
While morality is sometimes described as 'innate' in humans, the scientific view is that a capacity for morality is genetically determined in us, but the set of moral values is acquired, through example, teaching, and imprinting from parents and society. Different cultures have very different moral value systems. Moral values, along with traditions, laws, behaviour patterns, and beliefs, are the defining features of a culture. IMO, morality is innate in humans, in the sense that we deem things right or wrong. I don't think it is innate as to what is right or wrong. I think those values develop over time from our environment. All things are permissible but not all things are beneficial. Edited by purpledawn, : Fixed Typo "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
I haven't read over the thread in its entirety again, but I wonder if this point has been made:
Of those who "support" the existence of an absolute morality, most seem to admit that it is very hard to get at it, to know it, to interprete it correctly... Maybe even impossible. Or in other words: they argue an absolute morality, that may exist outside the 'knowable' (for mere mortals), but exists anyway. I sorta understand that, since from their point of view there needs to be 'something' that we have to be judged against, in the end? However, I would argue that this simply makes no sense. Morality only exists of, is expressed in, the behaviour of people. It can not exist outside the world of people, it has no meaning as a seperate concept. Where there are no people who act, there is also no morality. Thus, when you're looking for morality, you have to look in the world of human behaviour. I guess this is just an alternative way to point out that we can be absolutely certain that Absolute Morals don't exist, since practice shows that no such uniform moral interpretation reveals itself.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4599 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
Faith writes: It is possible as an atheist to think hard about moral problems and try to arrive at the RIGHT moral position on any given situation, and I would say that aiming for the right or best judgment involves an assumption that there is an absolute or objective morality that could possibly be arrived at, in this case by reason. Assuming that there is a best moral judgment in any given case is assuming that there is an absolute morality that could conceivably, at least theoretically, be discovered. Would you agree? One does not have to assume the existence of one (single) best moral judgement. Or in evolutionary terms: 'perfect' is not necessary, 'good enough' also works. I think we have to accept that certain dilemmas simply don't have an optimal solution. And that the best we can do, is try to not end up too far from an (imaginary) optimum. Hard to swallow for people who postulate absolutes, of course
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024