Absloute morality vs relative morality

[Gold Winger]

"Stealing is wrong regardless of the reason."

 

Let's say that you are stranded in the bayous and Luc and Raoul are chasing you because they want to eat your innards for breakfast. You come across their truck with the keys still in it. You know that you can steal the truck, escape the parish and get back to civilization where the state police can help you. Would stealing that truck to save your life be wrong?

[FScouter]

Yes it is still wrong. Of course, anything one does that could be considered wrong is automatically "not wrong" as long as one can think up a good excuse. "But officer, I had to run that red light because I was running a little late this morning". "OK, no problem, you're free to go. Have a nice day".

[Beavah]

All interesting books but they were all written by men.

 

Of course they were.

 

Origin of the Species was written by a man, too. So was Einstein's Relativity formulation. So was Pasteur's books on how to disinfect such things as milk so as to make it safe to store for long periods before consumption.

 

Just because somethin' is written by a man doesn't mean that it fails to accurately describe a phenomenon that is not man-made in origin. Or at least make a good shot at approximatin' it.

 

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Self-defense is legal in most locales so cannot be murder.

 

And dat's where yeh don't understand. Because you begin with the assumption that law defines morality, yeh dismiss other possibilities. So yeh try to reduce the bible and other ethics to your legalistic assumptions. "Moses was just trying to control unruly people and needed to pass laws", etc.

 

Yeh fail to consider the alternate explanation: that Moses really had a prayerful, personal relationship with Divinity. Which would explain why the Mosaic code in the Torah was so novel and attractive, and why it endured.

 

The rest of us think that morality would be pretty weak indeed if it relied on a definitional turn of phrase (like your murder definition above). Even weaker if it relied on human law, which is not only human-written but human created. A human author writing of experiences with God may only see through a lens, darkly. But at least he sees more than his own reflection.

 

Beavah

 

[Beavah]

Yes it is still wrong. Of course, anything one does that could be considered wrong is automatically "not wrong" as long as one can think up a good excuse.

 

Yah, OK, I'll bite.

 

FScouter, is it wrong to grab a cord and use it to beat people and destroy a small businessman's personal property?

 

 

[packsaddle]

Gold Winger, I tend to agree with you on the Bible thing but as long as there is no way to know for sure, there remains a small but finite probability...

Anyway, belief based on faith alone is unassailable by reason.

 

Back to topic. It is easy to envision situations which force us to confront conflicting absolute moral choices with lesser consequences if we choose - or greater consequences if we fail to choose. Anyone who makes the choice (it doesn't matter which one) is engaging in moral relativism. They might even be thought of as heroic.

We can pretend to possess those absolutes but real life is rarely so simple.

[Gold Winger]

" Moses really had a prayerful, personal relationship with Divinity. Which would explain why the Mosaic code in the Torah was so novel and attractive, and why it endured."

 

If you really believe that, I'll bet that you didn't know that "gullible" is not in the dictionary.

 

The last six rules that Moses chisled into those rocks were adopted by societies around the globe. Societies that were polytheistic and atheistic. Why? Because they make sense to keep a society under control.

 

BTW, if your God's injunction is against any sort of killing than he really must be an evil and vile diety. Look at all of the people that he wiped out in the great flood. How about all of the armies that were killed by the Jews with God's help? Or does it go along with, "I'm in charge so I don't have to follow the rules." Actually, that goes well with your ideas in general because you think that written rules only mean what you want them to mean.

 

Ta!

[Beavah]

Actually, that goes well with your ideas in general because you think that written rules only mean what you want them to mean.

 

Yah, which brings us back around to:

 

Childish

Belief in literal, simplistic rules from mom & dad (or other Human Authority who "knows better").

 

Adolescent/Teenage

Recognition that the simplistic rules are sometimes stupid, and that mom, dad, & human authority are fallible. Rebellion against all rules/external authority, aka moral relativism. Choose your own human rule based on what makes you feel good.

 

Adult

Understandin' that there are underlyin' rules/principles, but they're not simplistic (mom and dad really weren't that stupid!) It's just that da underlyin' rules/principles are challenging and subtle and not easily written down. Understandin' 'em in hard cases, like self defense or war is... hard. But while finding truth is hard, it is possible to identify error. Human texts and rules, while flawed, are still valuable as a good startin' point. But they're not the end point.

 

Childish understanding: Never stand in a canoe. It's a rule.

Teenage understanding: I've stood in a canoe before and was fine. Horseplay standing up in a canoe in rapids because it's fun.

Adult understanding: Mostly, one shouldn't stand in a canoe. However, when approachin' a rapid it can be helpful when boat-scoutin' the rapid. Sometimes it's useful in flat water when talkin' to a group so that everyone can see/hear you, or to make a good cast .

 

Beavah

 

[Trevorum]

GW notes, "Societies that were polytheistic and atheistic."

 

Prior to the 20th century, I don't believe there have been any societies that were atheistic. Most have been animistic, some polytheistic, and a very few monotheistic. Some scholars see a historical-cultural evolution of attitudes about the numinous. As the world moves away from magical explanations for natural phenomena, perhaps there will be more atheistic societies in our future.

[LongHaul]

Beavah has presented a progression which kinda says we learn right and wrong as children and then refine those definitions as we grow older or wiser. As children we learn right from wrong from those older than us and they from those older than they. Going all the way back to who decided right from wrong in the first place?

Trev spoke about the evolution of attitudes. The validity of the belief not withstanding can we agree that our basic attitude of right and wrong originated in religious trainings long long ago in a place far far away? Taking the evolution of attitude to the extreme, eventually the majority of peoples will be atheistic. The seeds of right and wrong were sown long before we decided there actually is no GOD. These basic rights and wrongs were the product of fear of reprisal from some GOD. If some "entity" was to descend upon us with absolute proof that their race started the life cycle on earth would right and wrong change? They come down and say look we got proof, pick a religious figure and we'll show you the DVD on what really happened. There is no GOD never was a GOD. Will right and wrong change? Does right and wrong hinge on a fear of reprisal more than acceptance of principle?

 LH

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Gold Winger writes:

The last six rules that Moses chisled into those rocks were adopted by societies around the globe. Societies that were polytheistic and atheistic. Why? Because they make sense to keep a society under control.

 

No, because societies already had them, well before Moses existed. Do you think Moses was the first one to suggest that murder, stealing, or lying were wrong?

[Gonzo1]

Wow,

This is so convoluted, yet so simple at the same time.

 

*** Warning ***.....*** Warning ***.....*** Warning ***

I'm about to agree with Merlyn (again )

Societies already had rules in place.

 

If Beaudreaux and Thibodeaux are chasin' you in da bayou, take the air boat, not the truck. Don't keep it, just use it to get away. If the gators get them, consider adding it to your insurance policy.

 

Murder is wrong, self defense has been deemed "justified" but must still be heart wrenching for the person who defended his life. Though not a criminal, he must endure a lifetime knowing what he had done.

 

Ed, stealing the enemy's battle plans is wrong, but gathering intelligence data and information is necessary for victory.

 

Beavah is right, Man's laws do not define what is right or wrong, the individual AND society do. While it may be legal to smoke if over 18, society may say it's wrong for a pregnant lady to smoke.

 

GW, FWIW, I do not believe that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel. I reject the concept of Mormonism or whatever you'd like to call it. I acknowledge however, the right to worship as one chooses, including LDS members. Here's a cliche', I have many mormon friends. They are all nice, some of the most polite people I have ever met. I don't agree with their religious beliefs.

 

 

 

 

[Gold Winger]

"GW, FWIW, I do not believe that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel."

 

But you don't have a problem with a tent maker having a "vision" while travelling which prompted him to start writing letters telling people what to do?

[Gonzo1]

That's right.

[Gold Winger]

Accepting one but refusing to accept the other is both rather closed minded and somewhat silly, IMHO.

[packsaddle]

Well, for that matter there is no one, provided I am faithful to my claim, who can provide evidence that I have not also personally received messages from spirits or God or space aliens. Who knows, maybe I'm missing an opportunity to make a lot of money.

But if I came from Thermia and just arrived here with no preconceived notions, I would have to consider all such claims with equal belief or equal doubt, even those who have pieces of paper with the claims written on them.

Without further evidence that I can examine there is simply nothing more...

 

...but then nothing more is needed for true faith.

I don't see what the problem is. People are free to believe whatever cockamamie beliefs they want as long as they don't harm any of the rest of us as a result (I never much cared for blue laws or dry counties ).

This is where those who reject medical care on the basis of faith, for example, tend to encounter difficulties when denying care to their own children.

 

Gonzo1, I am fairly certain that I would feel little or no remorse if I ever made the decision to take a life, for whatever reason. That burden would be settled prior to the act...I think you know what I mean.

 

Back to the topic, I agree that a basic moral code has been around for perhaps as long as man has formed social groups. Moreover, I think those basics arise from simple application of logic and require nothing else. Which is why I don't understand why anyone thinks morality MUST depend on religious faith and that without such faith there can be no such moral codes.