Absolute Morality...again.

Several times I've asked Nemesis Juggernaut from the rapture ready thread to come up with some sort of working definition of what Absolute Morality is. As well as possibly an example of it such that he could justify his usage of an Abosulte Morality as well as justifying his strawman characterization of what a relative morality is. So I would invite Nemesis Juggernaut to come over here and hopefully have a productive discussion about what Absolute Morality is, as well as any other interested participant. And the discussion starts off with the quoted sections.Faith and Belief forum please.Edited by Discreet Label, : added weblink to the other thread as well as small formatting

If this How is it that an Absolute Morality must come from GOD? Could not an Absolute Morality come from a different source? And if GOD does not exist how do you come to the conclusion that an Absolute Morality does not exist? How is an Absolute Morality assigned by GOD become binding on all? Are you then saying that we are committing sin by not following the Absolute Morality. (This question is probably answered as you answer the rest). How do you come to the conlusion that the Ten Commandents are the Absolute Morality? Is there not other morals present within the bible? Why do you disclude those?How do you come to the conclusion an:

How do you come to this conclusion? How does utilarianism become an unrealistic way to judge or rule a society? What causes you to say that Moral Relativism must acknowledge every moral value set to be respected with equal justice and mercy?

How do you come to this conclusion? Why could not another source be the source of an Absolute Morality, what makes GOD the only source?

What do you mean when you say absolute? Are you saying there is only 1 specific moral action to take in any given situation? Are you saying that there is onlya 1 proper conlusion to come to? How do you come to this conclusion for a society? Individually people may see everything as permissable, but moral sets also extend beyond the indivudal. How do you again come to this conlusion of morality coming down to personal opinion, when personal opinion is not the only place to draw upon for moral values? Does not a society have its own set of moral values? Again how can you come to this conclusion? I can claim I am completely right and you are completely wrong. But the validity of the statement comes into the question does it not. Can not a claim be more right than another person's claim? Could not one action be more 'right' then another action?

Why is a morality that comes from GOD absolute. What makes it absolute? I understand that you tried to answer the question, I may not of phrased it appropriately. BUT what gives GOD's morality more viability then a different Absolute Morality?

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. 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. 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.

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?

For the sake of this particular portion of discussion we will say that GOD exists so we can stop talking about if or who. 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. 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?

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.

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?

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?

Or perhaps another question that seems to have arose. Is that everyone seems to talk of the context of a situation.Could we then propose that an absolute morality would be mutually exclusive and not be affected by the context of the situation? Or perhaps that the situation must be reduced into such absrtraction (or stereotyping) that te situation loses all meaning?

Or maybe we could perhaps instead make a situation so abstract that then an absolute morality can be applied. By that i man:Consider a murder of a husband (wife beater/murder via the wife. So violation of the proposed 10 commandments murder list) but then we abstract it to. Woman killed man. So now it fits into the conception of absolute morality.Does that indicate we must abstract to such a level that a situation and life then becomes meaningless?

First you say categorical imperitive i'm not sure where that is.But from what i understand you mean there is a fundamental value on life? And the preservation of it and thus because of that militant groups are not covered by that set. True but this does not cover the varieties of utiliarianism that are present, that is only a single one. There are other different ones that if operated upon would have provided a different set of solutions. Some forms of utilitarism also emphasize attributes that may not necessairly contribute happiness of a singular person or group such as justice etc. I would say consistent, open, and free dialogic processes where people would constantly have to learn about each other and that stereotypes and racial barriers would fall, and begin to understand each other would then allow for a democratic method to take place that would allow for looking out for the needs of all vs singular group. Again this wouold be decided through a continual feedback loop process of dialogue that would continually grow and change as populations changed and grew to best accommadate and synthesize a view that would further the entire social group. If people buy into the idea of a common dialogue, then by necessity everyone will be looking out for each other's natural rights and needs.