The questions I asked are simple. The are just yes/no questions.
Then you invariably support absolutes because relativity means that something can be understood in a specific context. Slavery is a prime example. Is it right to beat people into submission and to hold them against their will. I certainly believe so. However, is that what slavery really means? Has our morals about slavery changed, for better or worse, or has our perception of what slavery changed? That's a question that can only be answered in a relative manner.
You can only point to changes in morality over time as I have pointed out in this thread. At the time of the Bible, slavery was considered moral, and that view continued well into the 19th. Century. The same factors are shown in each of the examples I posted.
Again, its not the act of slavery that makes it right or wrong, because the term "slavery" is ambiguous. I mean, we are slaves to Christ according to Scripture (the Good Master) who sets us free from true bondage, sin (the Bad Master). The moral isn't about slavery, its about the application that makes either moral or immoral. Does that make sense?
The audience then will decide whether the moral standard in effect today has increased or decreased relative to morality at some other era and culture.
I understand your logic, but what I don't understand is how our opinion on the matter, a very small body of participants, is somehow going to prove the point that morality is either increasing or decreasing.
Nemesis_Juggernaut loves to bring in irrelevancies when faced with a really simple position or question.
Elucidating is not irrelevant. If I asked if the tree in your yard was immoral or moral and required that you answer that in a yes or no format, is that really fair to do? Can a tree be moral or immoral? Can you really answer that with a simple yes or no?
Throughout the thread it has been pointed out that "relative" refers to what was considered moral in the past but immoral today.
Well, that's not what it means. You aren't using the term correctly. Relative morality means that if extenuating circumstances exist, it will change how we view morality. Absolute morality means that irrespective of our opinions, various times throughout history, or circumstances will not effect if something is moral or immoral.
The size of the poll is also irrelevant since it is limited to those reading and responding in this thread. Further all I said was that NJ agreed that morality is increasing. Since my position is only related to what NJ said, the size of the poll has NOTHING to do with the position.
I can't know if morality is increasing or decreasing with any empirical certainty. I can make inferences based on what I see from society, but I can't know that and neither can you.
The questions I asked were answered by Nemesis. In each case he indicated that he thought the current position was more moral than the position held in the past.
My answers to the question was not me speaking on behalf of the entire human race. I was answering for myself and no other.
Further there have been assertions that there is some absolute morality, yet NO ONE has been able to provide an example of that which held up to examination.
I believe that moral absolutes exist simply for the fact that would have to. We couldn't know anything about morals without some sort of guiding principle to begin with. Its just like God. I can't prove the existence of God, but I can make certain compelling arguments that support the inference of such a Being. Its the same with morality. I can't prove that moral absolute exist. What I can do is show the absurdity of life without them.
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis
™ Version 4.2
