Standards of definitions by definition (Morally speaking)
the•ol•o•gy n, pl -gies 1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; esp : the study of God and of God's relation to the world 2 : a theory or system of theology — the•o•lo•gian \'thÈ-€-"lÖ-j€n\ n — the•o•log•i•cal \-"lä-ji-k€l\ adj
phi•los•o•phyn, pl -phies 1 : sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology 2 : a critical study of fundamental beliefs and the grounds for them 3 : a system of philosophical concepts 4 : a basic theory concerning a particular subject or sphere of activity 5 : the sum of the ideas and convictions of an individual or group 6 : calmness of temper and judgment — phil•o•soph•ic \'fi-l€-"sä-fik\ or phil•o•soph•i•cal \-fi-k€l\ adj — phil•o•soph•i•cal•ly \-k(€-)lÈ\ adv
I think it is important to point out that absolutes are rarely found in philosophy, which tries to find the grounds of belief and is exclusive of theology. Theology properly presupposes God as the uncaused first cause. Philosophy never assumes anything but, rather, attempts to define and clarify the origin of human beliefs on an intellectual level.
What does perfection have to do with absolute? Try to stick with one subject. What makes you think Absolute Morality would be perfection?
I would think that absolute morality would be what Jesus had. You and I disagree on his sinless nature...you thinking he was 100% human and therefore subject to fallible whims.
I think the dude never even looked at a woman with lust...stopping just short of that fine line between respect and appreciation versus longing and desire.
Of course some absolutes exit. But "Absolute Truth" or "Absolute Morality"? I haven't a clue what they might be.
Frankly, they sound like totally useless constructs. Pointless and inane.
so then, Jesus, being totally human, was in fact not without sin? Even if the standard is unobtainable to our fallible selves, why can't the standard have been personified in Christ? This sounds shockingly similar to The Last Temptation Of Christ by Martin Scorsese. While Wiki claims that Jesus was portrayed as a man full of doubts, insecurities, and lusts,(yet still sinless) I would ask at what point does a thought become a sin? This would answer the dividing line between absolute and relative definitions of what sin is in the first place.
I am certainly not perfect, and have exhibited a relative morality through much of my life, but I can still look to Christ as an absolute standard.
Were Christ imperfect, I would then agree that absolute standards cannot exist within humanity.
Any moral code which promotes intolerance &/or ignorance is not born of morality. True morality is based on empathy and sympathy, which aid you in determining how to interact with others. Intelligence is our natural advantage over other species and morality is a part of intelligence - it helps determine our reasoning. Thus the absolute standard of morality is 'social responsibility' - that which aids society is moral, that which deprive society is immoral.
Spreading preconceptions & presumptions can make people intolerant to "the other" that they have been given preconceptions & presumptions about. In defiance of reason, people can become convinced that immoral acts are actually moral.
Thus they no longer allow themselves to feel empathy or sympathy for these "other(s)". That is how "subjectivity" is made between cultures. Some cultures promote an ignorance to the ultimate deprivation of the society. The society will stagnate over time unless it addresses this issue, eventually leading to its destruction & the birth of a new social order. This has happened several times in history.
You do not commit murder, theft etc, unless you have lost your ability to reason (insanity). Unless you are born a sociopath, or have recieved brain damage to that effect though accident or substance abuse (accounts for 1-4% of the population), the natural order of your brain is not to murder. Normal reasoning tells you that you that murder will not profit you unless it is in self-defence. Loss of reasoning may convince you that you will profit, but it is a lie.
You have to work at bending your mind against it natural inclinations to commit immoral acts, because they are literally stupid acts.
A young child or sociopath will commit 'foolish' acts because they do not have morality, they are in a state of innocence. For a child it is the responsibility of adults to punish harmful acts & reward benefical acts because they haven't developed full reasoning yet. The incentive to receive reward & avoid punishment will substitute for moral reasoning until the child developes. If a child does not have the correct incentives they can develope skewed reasoning and have a harder time dealing with society. They know what acts are immoral but the skewed reasoning makes them commit immoral acts anyway. Sociopaths do not respond to the punishment/reward system & never develope morality or full reasoning.
Scroll down for the table version. (For some reason the table shows up way below & I can't figure out why!)