Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Religion does not give a solid basis to morality
tudwell
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 16 of 20 (408601)
07-03-2007 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by mick
06-04-2007 8:50 PM


quote:
The implication is always that absolutist morality (i.e. killing another is always wrong) is in some way better than relativistic morality (i.e. killing another is sometimes wrong and sometimes right, depending on the situation).
Hmm. Maybe I'm just confused, but I've always had a different definition of absolute and relative morality than it seems most people here at EvC have.
You see, an absolute morality, to me, is one that exists beyond human influence. It is not created by humans, even though humans are subject to its rules. It is a morality that exists forever and always, doesn't change, and affects all people the same (e.g. 'judgement' after death).
A relativist, then, says that morality does change, that each society defines its own morality. It really has nothing to do with the nuances of the rule. An absolutist can say that killing isn't always wrong, but that no matter how nuanced the rule is, it always applies. I mean, look at all the Christians who oppose abortion but support the death penalty. I certainly wouldn't call them relativists.
On that same notion, a relativist can say that killing is always wrong, according to his society's current prevailing notion of morality.
I think people get confused when talking about morality. Absolute vs. relative really has nothing to do with what a particular rule actually says but with the nature of that rule, how it's applied, who it affects, etc.
Just my two cents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by mick, posted 06-04-2007 8:50 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2007 6:04 PM tudwell has replied

  
tudwell
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 18 of 20 (408608)
07-03-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Chiroptera
07-03-2007 6:04 PM


I've always called this "objective morality" vs. "subjective morality". I've seen "absolute" morality used in both senses, but my own subjective feeling about the phrase "absolute" is that it is one that always holds in all situations, whereas "relative" implies that it can change with the situation.
That makes sense. But saying "absolute morality" seems to imply that all of that morality's rules are absolute and hold in all situations. This obviously isn't the case, even (especially?) with Christians. As I pointed out above, many Christians oppose abortion but support the death penalty.
I think the OP is flawed in analogizing (your definitions of) absolute and relative moralities as being facets of religion and non-religion, respectively. Not all religions promote absolute moralities (though most are objective). And there are some subjective moralists who hold absolute ideas (your pacifist example). I think this flaw comes from miscommunication. I think that many religionists use the term "absolute morality" like me. Then mick, who has his own definition, thinks they're saying something they aren't.
If there is no miscommunication, then mick's portrayal of religionist morality is a strawman (even applying it only to Christian dogma, as the OP seems to do).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2007 6:04 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Chiroptera, posted 07-03-2007 6:54 PM tudwell has not replied
 Message 20 by anastasia, posted 07-03-2007 8:07 PM tudwell 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