Moral absolutes (page 4)

drwtsn32

Expatbrit...very interesting....

You and Azec might yet just shake the last bit of believing in a few moral absolutes out of me.

Simon

We had a very good discussion on this (or a similar topic) some time ago.

Along the lines of whether what people believed was 'right' and 'wrong' because of what God said it was or because it genuinely was.

ie. does God decide? If he does them we're just obeying some programming for our rules. If not then what exactly is he for? We can obey the rule and be 'good' with him or without him.

I'll try and find the topic tomorrow. T'was probably about 6 months ago now.

Skeptic

logansrun, thank you for illustrating your point in a non-disgusting manner.

This discussion reminds me of the question, "If you could achieve permanent world peace by killing one innocent child, would you?" The answers you give indicate your value system.

The problem is with the word absolute. Once a person says something is always wrong, people can come up with scenarios where it might not be. Other problems are around the definitions of words.

Rape is one. Most people define rape as forcing unwanted sex on someone. In Canada, having sex with someone who said "No" is rape. This is normally a good law, but there have been abuses. Let's say a man wants to have sex with a woman and she says no once. If she later changes her mind and makes love, he can still be charged with rape.

If a woman is drunk when she has sex, the man can be charged with rape. Though it is a good law conceptionally, this one has been abused as well.

Big Tex

The problem, as I think I've already expressed to you, is that your definition of rape is not necessarily the same as everyone elses.

I've always understood the definition to be unwanted and/or forced sexual contact.

I too have trouble understanding under what situation unwanted and/or forced sexual contact could be considered appropriate or excused. I can see situations where killing or robbery could be, but most sex "crimes" I cannot. Now I suppose if a society was structured similar to the one Aldous Huxley described in "Brave New World", i.e. children having sex play at school, then perhaps. But that was fiction, and as I say I cannot think of a society throughout history wherein unwanted and/or forced sexual contact was considered okay.

Having said that I do remember reading that in the mid-19th century in England, the age of consent was 12. In fact, at the time there were those who thought a cure for syphyllis was to have sex with a virgin and so sought out 12 or 13 year old girls.

I can't think of relatively stable society that did not place some limits on behavior. What is moral or immoral would be relative to those limitations. But absolutes? Well someone help me out on sex crimes because I just can't stretch my mind that way.

SixofNine

But absolutes? Well someone help me out on sex crimes because I just can't stretch my mind that way.

Well, I suppose there is nothing absolute about the various ages of consent?

rocketman

I view it as a matter of some things are simply wrong, in any context. Child abuse and rape have been mentioned. Those things are wrong, and no set of circumstances makes them right.

As Reborn mentioned, there are some things that depend on circumstances. One reason that murder is wrong and killing may not always be wrong is because one might kill in self-defense, or a government may kill as capital punishment. Those two things generally are not considered murder but do involve killing. So murder is another thing that is always wrong in any context, though killing may not be.

Big Tex

unwanted and/or forced sexual contact.

Agreed Six, but still my mind can't think of a situation where unwanted advances are appropriate or excused.

logansrun

dr wtson (from now on I'm just calling you Dr. Watson, kay?),

you said:

But weren't you still forced to do something immoral? Even though that something was less immoral than the destruction of an entire planet?

In a way. But, then we we have to redefine the word "immoral." Is causing a child pain immoral? Well, if so then giving him or her vaccinations is immoral since the needle will doubtless make them cry. My definition of what is ethical/moral and what is not is on the lines of John Stewart Mill and his brand of utilitiarianism: whatever causes the greatest good for the greatest number of people while causing the least harm is the correct thing to do.

Bradley

drwtsn32

from now on I'm just calling you Dr. Watson, kay?

That'll be just fine.

whatever causes the greatest good for the greatest number of people while causing the least harm is the correct thing to do.

That is quite sound... I cannot possibly argue with it.

logansrun

Yerusalim

When God said, DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, etc, those were moral absolutes.

Let's tackle a hypothetical question. What if God said that, from now on, murder and adultury were not sins-- that He commanded that you do these things to as many people that you can find. Is that wrong? Why or why not?

Bradley

Moral absolutes

Share this