|
Author
|
Topic: Absolute Morality...again.
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Absolute morality
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. A working definition? Its simple... Its morality that is absolute. I don't know how many more ways a hair can be split. The argument isn't in defining the set of priciples for absolute morality. The argument is against the necessity of the philosophical concept. If someone does not believe that morality is absolute then there is no right or wrong which in turn makes everything permissable. This means that everyones beliefs concerning morality comes down to personal opinion. If morality is based on personal opinion, then there is no right or wrong in my version of morality. In other words, you can't claim that I'm ever wrong and you can't claim that you're ever right. Its just your opinion which makes any kind of arguing over it, null and void. So lets see a show of hands: Who believes that morals are absolute, irrespective of defining what those morals are.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Absolute morality
What do you mean when you say absolute? What do you mean when you say "is"? Absolute Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
1. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
2. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
Not to be doubted or questioned
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. So then some peoples opinions are higher than that of others. The main premise being that you can't say that I'm ever wrong about anything. Its my opinion if there is no absolute morality.
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? Where else could it come from then? If morals aren't absolute then it was formulated by the opinions of the lawmakers. Otherwise you are saying that morals are intrinsic. If morals are intrinsic then that would mean that everyone would agree upon what is moral and what is not, which would make it absolute.
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? Not with absolutes, it can't! Alrght, lets break it down a little further. Do you believe that absolutes of any kind exist or is everything relative?
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Absolute morality
But which meaning does it hold when used as an adjective for morality? For the sake of the argument, can we for once drop the semantics and get down to the actual argument. I'm not neccesarily speaking about you, but alot of people keep bringing up asinine statements to detract from the actual argument, as if to ask me what my definition of "is", is. Absolute----> Definite------> Certain-------> Nothing can circumvent or supplant its authority. Does that work for everyone? Are we clear on what an absolute is?
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by purpledawn, posted 07-19-2006 2:40 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 41 of 300 (333362)
07-19-2006 2:48 PM
|
|
|
Absolutes
Since the objection to absolut morality exists, the better question to precede it should entail whether or not anyone here believes in Absolutes at all. Does anyone here believe that absolutes exist in nature or does everything relate in relativity?
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 76 by nwr, posted 07-19-2006 5:47 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: 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. Laws derive from the sense of morality. Outlawing the tying of Giraffes to telephone poles stems for our ability to empathize with the creature. That's the mechanism that allows for us to distinguish what's right and what's wrong.
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. Something that is intrinsic is an innate quality. Everyone has it, but it can be dulled by some. Every culture in the world understands that murder is wrong. What they disagree on is circumstances that might justify or exonerate murder.
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. You're open to the possiblity that they might exist? They do exist. And to be sure, just answer these questions: 1. Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously? 2. Can you be in India and Sweden simultaneously? 3. Can you be telling the truth and telling a lie simultaneously? 4. Is anyone getting younger as opposed to growing older? 5. Can anyone live without sustenance or oxygen? Absolutes exist. That much is unquestionable, though I'm sure somebody who doesn't like the implications of that will come up with some off-the-wall reasons why they are possible.
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. Well, first of all, any judge that would come up with a ridiculous allegation such as that isn't fit to engage on any level of jurisprudence. Secondly, if morals are absolute then something established the rules. We'll say the Creator. If there is a Creator, He/She/It knows your thoughts before you thought them, and you will be judged on those thoughts. If your thoughts are clean, then you have commited no crime against the Eternal Lawgiver.
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. No, the other people bear no relevance to Absolute Morality. If humans sentence you unjustly, then it is they who are absolutely wrong. Injustices happen all the time because we are fallible humans. But the infallible knows whether or not you are justified. Aside from which, why is the obvious eluding the masses? If morals aren't absolute then right and wrong don't exist because it ultimately relies on the opinions of those in power to assign for you what's right or wrong. We could even go so far as to say that even language doesn't make sense for words that convey absolute premises, such as, but not limited to, "Yes, no, right, wrong, left, right, up, down, good and evil." Those words are meaningless without them being in an absolut context. Man 1: "Hey man, what you did back there to that lady was wrong." Man 2: No it wasn't Man 1: Yes it was. Man2: That's your opinion, but where I'm from, were allowed to do that. Man 1: You are evil! Man 2: What's evil? That subjective to the eye of the beholder. Man 1: What? Everyone knows what you did was wrong! Man 2: What makes it wrong? What is wrong? Oh, I see... So whoever is the judge in this town gets to decide what's right or wrong? That's wrong! Man 1: How is that wrong? He understands what is right and wrong. The fact that you don't is shockingly ignorant. Man 2: Eh, that's your opinion. And on, and on, and on it will go if there is not a definitive, concrete, absolute Lawgiver. Without moral absolutes, everything is permissable, nothing has meaning, and chaos ensues. Even me killing one of you would just be a matter of opinion, which is exactly why political Anarchy does not work.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 84 of 300 (333590)
07-20-2006 12:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
07-20-2006 12:18 AM
|
|
Re: Absolute morality
LOL! I'm a big fan of Sweden, and I've always hoped to visit someday, but I had no idea that Sweden was one of the absolute fundamentals of the universe. Just answer the questions.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2006 12:18 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 85 by crashfrog, posted 07-20-2006 1:00 AM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not Subject to Qualification
But given that and looking at NJ's questions, the questions don't make any sense. quote:
1. Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously?
2. Can you be in India and Sweden simultaneously?
3. Can you be telling the truth and telling a lie simultaneously?
4. Is anyone getting younger as opposed to growing older?
5. Can anyone live without sustenance or oxygen?
I'm really not sure how you are still lost on the absolute morality concept. I even broke down the words by using synonyms for added assurance.
The last two fall into what you stated and I agree with: quote:
:It's obvious that human morality is a fluctuating, amorphous thing. If morality was an absolute condition of the universe, it would be impossible to act immorally. If morals were absolute they would be like the laws of physics.
If morality is just a fluctuating, amorphous thing, then my argument stands. If there is no absolute morality, then right and wrong don't exist apart from personal opinions. Is anyone going to disagree with that? As for the last, if morals are absolute then they'd be like a laws of physics, I'd disagree on the grounds of who we are. Just like light to dark, right to wrong, good to evil, morality and immorality make sense in contrast to one another. Without one, the other doesn't exist. Think about someone, possibly yourself, assuming that there is no such thing as sexual immorality. To you its all just a biological function, because if you are able to do it, then what is wrong with it? But it goes against the intended design. A similar notion would someone assuming that cars were designed for drag racing; that their purpose is to drag race, as opposed to what it was originally designed to do - which is to transport you from here to there.
I'm not sure what doing something simultaneously or not has to do with absolute. If you go back to my previous posts, you'll see that I've decided to distinguish between moral absolutes and absolutes at all. Some people seem stumbled by the notion of what an absolute is. To drive the point home that absolutes exist in the known universe, I listed 5 arguments in support of them. I didn't even 5 of them. All that needs to be proven right is just one. If even one thing falls under an absolute law, then everything cannot relate in relativity. Let me give you another example for even more assurance: " Everything is always relative because there are no absolutes.". What is contradictory about that statement? " Everything is always relative because there are no absolutes." The claimant just pwned himself, not once, not twice, but three times in one sentence by using three absolute statements. He would, in effect, dismantle his own argument. And if you argue the point, " but those are just words, then you are stating that words have no meaning and that we can simply change the definitions of words whenever you feel like. The word, always, means, everytime - all ways, definitive, never-changing, everytime, irrespective of personal opinion. If you disagree then your words have no meaning, and your, yes, could mean, no, to me. Now, this isn't to say that relativity doesn't exist. I fully agree that relatives exist as well. For instance, lets say that I'm considered to be an average height in America, because juxtaposed by most American males, 6 feet, or whatever, is the average height. But suppose that I visit a Pygmy tribe in Africa. To the Pygmy I'm considered extremely tall. And so, my being tall or short only stands in relative manner. Do you understand what I mean by absolute and relativity? Did I manage to convey the meanings well to you?
What's contradictory I mean, I can be wet and dry at the same time and I can tell the truth and lie at the same time. No, that's the very definition of a contradiction. How can you be both wet and dry at the same time? I'm not talking about having half of your body wet and half of your body dry. As for truth and lies, then consider this question: "Do you weigh 8,000 pounds, yes or no?" Its a clear-cut question. Any answer you give will determine whether you are lying or telling the truth. There is no answer that you could give to make both of them true. Anyway, once again, I'm going over the nature of what absolutes are because it seems that the conept of absolute morality is stumbling quite a few people. To alleviate some confusion, I thought that I'd first establish whether or not absolute exist in the known universe. Again, does anyone disagree that absolutes exist?
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 87 by purpledawn, posted 07-20-2006 6:31 AM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 97 of 300 (333747)
07-20-2006 12:32 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by LinearAq
07-20-2006 8:14 AM
|
|
Re: Absolute morality
Like I said, some ridiculous, wholly pathetic excuses would invented by the opposition.
quote:
1. Can you be both wet and dry, simultaneously?
Yes. I am dry externally but the inside of my circulatory system is wet. Alright mister smarty pants. If I submerge you in a lake, from head to toe, and you are completely naked, hence, there is nothing on your body, whatsoever, other than the water that completely surrounds you... Can you be both wet and dry?
quote:
2. Can you be in India and Sweden simultaneously?
Yes, at the Swedish embassy in New Delhi. Can you be standing on the continent of Asia and the continent of North America, simultaneously? The prerequisite is that you are alive, just as you are, not missing any body parts.
quote:
3. Can you be telling the truth and telling a lie simultaneously?
Yes, if repeating a lie that you believe. That doesn't make it true. Whether or not you believe it is inconsequential to whther it was true or not. If I asked you whether or not you are a male or a female, your answer would determine whether or not your statement is true or false. Oh, and the prerequisite is that you are not a shemale or hermaphrodite of any kind.
quote:
4. Is anyone getting younger as opposed to growing older?
Yes, midlife crisis in men is described in just such a manner. LOL!!! Your personal belief doesn't make it any more valid. How pathetic.
quote:
5. Can anyone live without sustenance or oxygen?
Yes, I did it as I was typing this sentence by holding my breath and not eating anything.  How sad!!! Alright, then riddle me this: Can you survive 30 years without oxygen or eating or drinking? Yeah, I didn't think so.
What do the answers to these questions have to do with absolute morals? The inquiry stems from some peoples inability to understand what an 'absolute' is. And now that I've unambiguously proven that absolutes exist, we can now apply that to morality.
The obvious is not always right...
1. It's obvious that the sun orbits the earth every 24 hours.
2. It's obvious that a 10-lb ball will accelerate 10 times faster than a 1-lb ball.
3. It's obvious that a rabbit chews cud. All that matters is what is true. And if the laws of physics weren't absolute, then you couldn't survive. Just like if I tell you to point to True North, and you end up pointing to the southwest, your opinion means jack squat to the truth.
I cannot think of a situation where yes and no are subjective except in sarcasm that is not understood by the receiver of that sarcasm. However, right, wrong, left, right, up, down, good and evil are obviously all subjective. Example: when telling someone a location you would say something like this, "The room is up from me to my left." The use of a point of reference was necessary to provide an exact location. I just gave you multiple examples of absolutes. In order for you to try and get around them, you had to come up with the most off-the-wall excuses in attempt to exonerate yourself.
Example: "Homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible." Actually, this sentence that states absolute judgement by the Bible is really providing a subjective opinion. It should be stated, "Homosexuality is wrong according to my interpretation of the Bible." "Should" doesn't even factor into it if you believe in a purely relativistic universe. If YHWH institutes absolute morality, then homosexuality is wrong. As for you, that's your opinion as to whether or not is absolutely right, absolutely wrong, or absolutely a matter of relativism. And like I said, if relativity is always the case, then that is an absolute phenomenon, in which case the arguments pwns itself. Therefore, there are absolutes and that's an absolute fact. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by LinearAq, posted 07-20-2006 8:14 AM | | LinearAq has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 98 by nwr, posted 07-20-2006 1:07 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 99 of 300 (333841)
07-20-2006 9:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 96 by Annafan
07-20-2006 12:09 PM
|
|
Re: Not Subject to Qualification
You're afraid of relative morals because you present the false dichotomy that a lack of Absolute morals equals "anything goes". No, I'm not afraid of relative morals, being that they are expressed on a daily basis by people al around me. I'm used to it.
Everyday experience shows there's no sign of Absolute morals, and at the same time we clearly see that this doesn't mean total anarchy. We get something that is infinitely better than "anything goes", something that goes some way towards Absolute morals, but has the benifit of flexibility. Ascertaining what the absolute morality is, isn't always easy. I don't contend with that. But I'm not arguing on what those absolute morals are, just that they exist out of neccessity. Again, if morals are relative then it is completely dependant on whoever has the power to institute those laws. If everything deals in relativity then no one would reasonably have a basis for arguing any point. Think of the Ten Commandments. The absolute Law is, "you shall not commit murder, you shall not covet, you shall not bear false testimony (lie), etc...." This is extremely broad, and it leaves open the discussion on what constitutes murder. But the Law, "You shall not commit murder," is solid. In human society, there are a plethora of variables that are presented, both pro and con, to ascertain whether the defendent did in fact commit murder. In other words, there are extenuating circumstances surrounding every case, to be looked at on an individual basis. But again, I digress. If morality is not absolute, then everything is based upon opinion. Either way, it isn't a very compelling case for those who support relative morality. Does everyone understand? If there is absolute morality, then we are going to be held accountable on those morals. But even if there wasn't, then nothing is concrete, and my opinion might be considered less valid than the lawmaker's "version" of morality, in which case, that isn't being relative at all. The lawmakers have established for themselves an absolute code of conduct. And how is any of that in keeping with "tolerance?" Lastly, if you think that morals are relative, then you can't ever say that I'm wrong about anything. If that's the case, then cease and desist this forum immediately because your impeding my right to personal preference.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 96 by Annafan, posted 07-20-2006 12:09 PM | | Annafan has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Not Subject to Qualification
Democratic societies decides in a consensus on what is right and wrong. Sometimes (like in the US) people have the right to do things that the majority considers immoral. Then I guess one country can't say that another country is doing anything wrong, and I guess since the majority opinion leans towards the right that conservative views rule absolutely.
Morality and the law are VERY different things. Laws stem from our moral frame of mind. How could you miss that? You can't kill someone indiscriminately because its squalid behavior. How did they ever decide something was going to be a law apart from a moral framework? They just flippantly decided that smashing some guys face in for no apparent reason was wrong based on some passing thought?
Can you stop repeating this garbage? Here's how it actually works in the real world. If you do something that many people consider "immoral" you may face social consequences for doing this thing. If we have also decided to make a law against it than you may also face legal consequences. In other cases you may be doing something that many consider moral... yet still face legal consequences due to some silly law. No, I won't stop repeating it, one, because its true, and two, no one has actually addressed my point. And everyone wants to play opposum about it as if it has no implications. You keep missing the point. If something is decided right or wrong based on someones personal opinion on the matter, then everyone's opinion is valid. That isn't the case. I've never been asked to establish a law and I'm gonna go out on a limb and suppose that you haven't either. Even supposing that you did, someone else had no say to opine one way or the other. Just answer me this one question: If absolute morality does not exist, then it all boils down to opinions. Yes or no? I don;t want to here semantics about Democratic socieites, because that isn't going to answer the question, especially in light of democratic societies being based on the major "opinion" of any given nation, state, or city.
Morality can also change over time as people change their views (showing that it obviously isn't absolute). Slavery is a very good example of this. Yep, so its still based on opinions, right? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typos
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Wrong Definition
After reading the definition of Absolute Morality in the link given in Message 87 and reading your concern for authority, I feel that the meaning of absolute when used with the word "morality" is the sixth meaning (without reference to anything else) and not your definition of certainty in Message 40. What do you mean? You place the two words side by side and add their meanings. To me, that's like saying, I know what a car is, and I know what washing means, but I'm not sure what a carwash is for.
As I said in Message 72: Unfortunately I don't see that your conclusion that nothing can circumvent or supplant its authority is supported by the definition you provide. Its an inference, because the alternative means that all morals are based on opinion. And if they are based on opinion then who gets to decide what's moral and what isn't? As if that isn't condeming enough, if morals are always relative, then its very nature is exhibiting an absolute phenomenon, in which case, that isn't relative at all, that's absolute.
I'm not discussing whether there is or isn't absolute morality and that's not what this thread is about. I'm trying to discern what absolute morality actually means. With your meaning all it says is "yes there are principles of right and wrong." Well, the thread is on absolute morality. But if its still hazy for you, its a set of morals that are absolute. Are you really asking me why they are absolute or do you just want to know what it means?
You're saying that without one the other doesn't exist, which doesn't fall under the meaning of without reference to anything else. What do these have to do with defining absolute when used with morality? There has been much debate in this thread over what an absolute is. Some people felt that absolutes don't exist at all, and if they dont exist at all in the known universe, then why should morals be any different? But I gave indisputable evidence that they do exist, so at least the possibility for them relating to morals exists. In other words, I needed to get over that little hump in order to get to absolutes as they relate to morality. Does that make sense? I was just clarifying for everyone.
I'm not sure what doing something simultaneously or not has to do with absolute. I mean, I can be wet and dry at the same time and I can tell the truth and lie at the same time. No, that's just a battle over semantics. Then can you be on two continents at the same time, without being dismembered? There are those pesky laws of physics that get in the way. That is an absolute phenomenon. And all I need is just one to prove that absolutes exist. Those laws are irrespective of anyone's personal opinions. You fall off a cliff, you go splat. You can't just up and decide that you disagree with gravity. It is what it is.
Since our bodies contain some percentage of water, we cannot be entirely dry or I could say absolutely dry, but that still is not the meaning you used for absolute concerning morality or the other meaning I mentioned above. It is another use of the word, which means complete. For that question you are correct, it is either a lie or the truth, but that doesn't mean I can't tell the truth and lie at the same time. It just means I can't with that question. What does that prove concerning the definition in question? Because if something is either absolutely true or absolutely false, then absolute exist. Why is this is difficult a concept? Not everything can relate in relativity. I have no control over that and neither do you.
Unfortunately you would first have to explain what absolutes are? Oh dear heavens. Listen, I've posted the the dictionaries definition, I've provided synonyms, I've given referrences in physical world, I've explained, and re-explained it several times... If after reading this post that its still hazy for you, I'll give it one more shot.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 112 of 300 (333943)
07-21-2006 10:56 AM
|
Reply to: Message 107 by nwr
07-21-2006 12:04 AM
|
|
Re: Absolute morality
No, that's absolutely wrong. If I'm absolutely wrong about anything then morals absolutely exist, in which case this conversation is absolutely over.
You can have "absolute" in your sense by having a ruthless dictator. Ruthless dictators only give the impression of absolute rule. But you still aren't fully grasping the concept. Absolute morality is that it is unchanging. It matters not the circumstances involved, it matters not what year it is, it matters not what country we're in, because nothing is going to change that disposition. Murder is always going to be wrong. Why?
But we would consider a ruthless dictator to be immoral, so that's the wrong meaning of "absolute" for moral questions. I guess everyone is still overlooking the obvious. If there are no absolutes in morality, then everything comes down to an opinion. Now, there is a dictator that rules the land, his opinion dictates rules that we think are "immoral." Our feelings about things being immoral are our set of opinions. So, the dictators opinions are expressed, but the peoples opinions are suppressed. Is that fair? I would say, and you might too, "Of course not!" But let me ask you, if morals come down to mere opinion, and opinions conflict, then all that matters is who's in power to enact their version of morality on everyone else. There is still this sense, this deep sense in the inner-core of our being that what he is doing is immoral. But without an absolute framework, you could not even understand this principle. There is something deeper to our understanding of morals; a connection on the spiritual level, and not the mere intellectual level.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 107 by nwr, posted 07-21-2006 12:04 AM | | nwr has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2006 11:35 AM | | Hyroglyphx has replied | | | Message 117 by nwr, posted 07-21-2006 12:03 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied | | | Message 118 by nwr, posted 07-21-2006 12:07 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 113 of 300 (333944)
07-21-2006 11:04 AM
|
Reply to: Message 109 by RickJB
07-21-2006 3:31 AM
|
|
Re: Wrong Definition
I often find that advocates of "absolute" morality seem to operate under the assumption that it falls in line with their own beliefs. How bizarre that a belief that conforms to other beliefs should find parity.
Question: If it was shown that absolute morality DID exist, but in a form that you did not agree with, would you shift your beliefs accordingly, or would you maintain an "immoral" outlook? Exist, but in a "form" I didn't agree with? It doesn't matter what I think, if its absolute. All that matters is truth. Truth is absolute and truth is what I seek. I'm not biased by mere opinions about morality. So, if absolute morality existed in a form that I found myself in disagreement with before, I would seek to conform to the absolute truth.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 109 by RickJB, posted 07-21-2006 3:31 AM | | RickJB has replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 125 of 300 (334011)
07-21-2006 2:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by Coragyps
07-21-2006 11:35 AM
|
|
Re: Absolute morality
1) It is immoral and unlawful to do any work of any sort on the Sabbath, whatever day that is Yes, you are correct. The Sabbath has only to do with the ceasing from work. It was a day ordained by God to rest on our behalf, the only stipulation, to keep that day of rest, holy. This is the absolute rule until the Savior would come to give us victory over sin, establishing His rest by His spirit of grace that indwelt us. And this could only be made possible through the propitiation of a Savior. The Tenach is replete with examples of Sabbath commandments. But in this, we miss the example that this was God's plan from the beginning. The Law is our schoolmaster, giving us the understading of what it is right and what is wrong, absolutely. But there is only one problem with the absolute Law in relation to humans... Nobody can absolutely keep it. And so, our reliance upon a Savior is neccessary to take upon himself our guilt, for it written: "Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. The Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe. Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." -Galatians 3:21-25 And those who think that they are keeping the Sabbath as a day must remember that it is also written: "If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, 'Love your neighbour as yourself,' you are doing right. But if you show favouritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as law-breakers. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. For He who said, 'Do not commit adultery,' also said, 'Do not murder.' If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a law-breaker. Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!" -James 2:8-13 So the question is, now that the triumph of Calvary has come, is there still a Sabbath? If so, what does it mean? Therefore, since the promise of entering his rest still stands, let us be careful that none of you be found to have fallen short of it. "For we also have had the gospel preached to us, just as they did; but the message they heard was of no value to them, because those who heard did not combine it with faith. Now we who have believed enter that rest, just as God has said, So I declared on oath in my anger,'They shall never enter my rest.' And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world. For somewhere he has spoken about the seventh day in these words: And on the seventh day God rested from all his work. And again in the passage above he says, They shall never enter my rest. It still remains that some will enter that rest, and those who formerly had the gospel preached to them did not go in, because of their disobedience. Therefore God again set a certain day, calling it Today, when a long time later he spoke through David, as was said before: 'Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts." - Hebrews 1:4-7 So what does the Sabbath mean for those entering into the Covenant? It means that the Sabbath isn't on a particular day of the week, it always falls on 'Today.' Therefore, the Law remains and it is wrapped up in Jesus Christ, God our Saviour. Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2006 11:35 AM | | Coragyps has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 128 by Faith, posted 07-21-2006 2:21 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied | | | Message 133 by Coragyps, posted 07-21-2006 3:46 PM | | Hyroglyphx has not replied |
|
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member
|
Re: Wrong Definition
I assume that for morality you are talking about the principles and not the state of being. principles of right and wrong in conduct; ethics (principles for short) You know, some people feel that the absolute versus relative argument always ends in a perpetual stalemate. And perhaps we can't concretely define the axiomatic method for either case. But looking at the very nature of both, absolutism stands out superior. Now, everyone seems to be in agreement that morals are relative and that they are independent of lawful matters. So, by this argument, if morals are seperate from laws, then it isn't morally wrong for me to kill any one of you in my own mind. Since there is no absolute measure for right or wrongm, then its dictated soley by the individuals personal feelings concerning it. By some people's own testimony, it is lawfully incorrect of me to kill you for no reason, but it isn't morally wrong. Some people may think so, but not for me. Here in lies the crux of the argument. If there is moral compass that guides us, then morality is just a figment of our imagination. Therefore, it isn't passed genetically, even though most people seem to have some intrinsic understanding of it. So how can this be if morals really are relative?
1. perfect; complete (absolute silence) 2. not mixed; pure 3. not limited; unrestricted (an absolute ruler) 4. positive; definite 5. actual; real (an absolute truth) 6. without reference to anything else So let's put them together and see what they say to me. 1. (complete) (principles) = I don't think this one works 2. (pure) (principles) = Not mixed principles 3. (unrestricted) (principles) = No limits on the principles 4. (definite) (principles) = Sure principles 5. (actual) (principles) = Real principles 6. (independent) (principles) = Principles that stand on their own. As I said in Message 102, your definition and explanations don't show what absolute means when used with the word morality. It means a set of of morals that cannot be changed by personal prejudice. That's all that it means. I think we'd have to be very obtuse not to understand what it means. Number 4 seems to be the most accurate; a definite set of principles.
Absolute and Relative are philosophical terms concerning the mutual interdependence of things, processes and knowledge. ”Absolute’ means independent, permanent and not subject to qualification. ”Relative’ means partial or transient, dependent on circumstances or point-of-view. Yes, this is an excellent concept to convey what it means.
This thread (Message 1) is not a general discussion on absolute morality, it is on defining what absolute morality is, not whether it exists or not. How can you have a discussion on absolute morality without discussing whether or no it exists? I mean, isn't that the whole purpose of the discussion?
Just to let you know, I am biting my tongue. I have this set of morals in my hand. Very nicely written. There are five of them. As I read these morals, what characteristics determines whether I can label them as absolute or relative? Don't bite your tongue. Go ahead and list them. I'm sure they'll be fun to philosophize over.
IMO, it really doesn't matter whether absolutes exist outside of morality. What makes a principle of right or wrong, absolute in your mind? I think demonstrating that absolutes exist is an important aspect, because again, if no absolutes existed in the known universe, there would be no compelling reasons to assume that they should exist in morals. But anyway, that part of the argument is over. In my mind, the only thing that makes a principle right or wrong is the Being that set all of life in motion. But I can't convince you to understand why I believe as I do. In other words, I can't definitavely show you what constitutes absolute morality. However, that's not my argument. I'm not arguing over whether or not you agree with the ten commandments, or whatever, I'm arguing the point that they must exist. What I'm not arguing is that we have to define what they are.
Now you are using a different meaning of absolute. That would be definition #5 actual; real, IMO. But then, if one is wearing a parachute, one can fall off a cliff and not go splat. You do need to qualify your statement. So today, that's not a completely true statement. If someone falls 90 feet off a cliff, with or without a parachute, you won't live, because you are high enough to where you will reach terminal velocity, but not enough time for the parachute to work properly. But that really isn't the premise of my argument. The premise is that the law of gravity is absolute, and irrespective of our opinions about it, it reigns supreme.
Because absolute means different things depending on how it is used and you haven't defined how you are using it in relation to morality. What you have said above is that if something is completely true or completely false, then absolutes exist. But again that is a different use of the word absolute and not the one that seems to be used in philosophy as shown above concerning morality. How is that a different use of the word? If something is absolutely true, then it is definately true. It isn't open to debate. The outcome is always going to be the same. So, how is that different?
If you give it one more shot, try answering what I'm asking, not what everyone else is asking. Well, I have been under assault. I was actively participating on four separate threads, with an average of answering 10 people per thread, per hour. Its a daunting challenege. The other threads are getting ridiculous, so I've opted to remain here only. Anyway, I think I've been answering your questions. Let me know if I have not answered them in the fashion that you want and I'll do my best to clarify.
“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.” -1st Peter 3:15
|
™ Version 4.2