Moral absolutes (page 5)

OrbitingTheSun

Not to many people listen to "God" when God says to do something against their personal nature. So if the person is a monogamous person, he/she will probably ignore God unless he/she is a devout Christian. Just like most people fornicate--against God's mandate--unless they are devout Christians. So my hypothesis is that nothing would change.

logansrun

Orbiting the Sun,

Not to many people listen to "God" when God says to do something against their personal nature. So if the person is a monogamous person, he/she will probably ignore God unless he/she is a devout Christian. Just like most people fornicate--against God's mandate--unless they are devout Christians. So my hypothesis is that nothing would change.

That reminds me: if you are ever open to fornicating just let me know, okay? Bradley

peacefulpete

It is unwise to try to use the Bible as the measure of what are absolute wrongs. The very commandment to not "kill" is a perfect example. The word there used is "retsakh" and it means roughly to kill a fellow tribesman without the consent of the tribe. Never was a prohibition against the killing of gentiles for their land,goods,girls, etc expressed or implied. Even the Talmud compiled years later still did not confuse the two. It says "One who intending to kill a gentile, kills an Israelite, is to be deemed guiltless."

The taboo about sex with minors is also a cultural construct. In Greece and Rome for example the practice was normal and without apparent harm to the child. It was deemed recreation for both parties and an honor to the boy. It is apparently only when this practice runs counter to the cultural norms that the child perceives itself as different,unclean, a victim and abused. This then is the source of the emotional damage. A present day tribe in S. America engages in sexual activity until puberty, it is then that the tribe feels a taboo is in order.

It is untrue that without absolutes society would decay into anarchy. Social convention is shaped by local needs and traditions. These are real and effective methods of constraining group behavior. It is only when a clash of cultures occurs that one people accuse the other of immorality.

Reborn2002

I certainly appreciate some of the examples given which demonstrate that there are no moral absolutes, only perceptions of acceptable behavior that are ingrained into people's minds due to factors in their environment such as religious upbringing and regional cultural mores.

As I said... contextual ethics come into play. You must examine the unique set of circumstances in any given situation and then act accordingly. The scenario given about the abduction in which a large number of people would be killed unless one gave into excruciating torture was an excellent example.

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

I concur completely.

peaceful pete said:

The taboo about sex with minors is also a cultural construct. In Greece and Rome for example the practice was normal and without apparent harm to the child. It was deemed recreation for both parties and an honor to the boy. It is apparently only when this practice runs counter to the cultural norms that the child perceives itself as different,unclean, a victim and abused. This then is the source of the emotional damage. A present day tribe in S. America engages in sexual activity until puberty, it is then that the tribe feels a taboo is in order.

It is untrue that without absolutes society would decay into anarchy. Social convention is shaped by local needs and traditions. These are real and effective methods of constraining group behavior. It is only when a clash of cultures occurs that one people accuse the other of immorality.

Thank you for such an intelligent post. Perhaps it will help illustrate to others the fact that moral absolutes do not exist.

OrbitingTheSun

Bradley, if I do will I lose my privileges again?

Aztec

Again, thank you for the replies. Expat made an excellent point, despite his shameless plug, how do you define something, anything, as absolutely immoral without factoring in GOD? How do you quantify something as wrong unless you have a benevolent director? That's what I drew from his response.

Put briefly, if God was the source of morality, then he could decide that raping children was good, and it would then be good simply because God says so. If you respond to that and say "God would never say that something so horrible as child-rape is good", then what you're saying is that God has merely recognized the inherent badness of child-rape. But that means that there is a standard of morality independent of God, in which case, God cannot be the source of morality. So why do we need God?

I wonder Expat if you are saying that we have an inherent standard of morality on our own and I wonder where you draw this conclusion from? I haven't read Hobbes so you are light years ahead of me. What do you mean by perceived self-interest?

Drwtsn,

Please define rape so that it retains its intended meaning yet by the same definition cannot be considered always wrong. I don't think I can do it....

I'll do the best I can. I am a rape survivor, although, what I experienced would not necessarily be considered a rape by all. During the experience I was held down, completely against my will, and realizing the futility of getting myself out of the situation through sheer force, I consented. I did not give my consent easily, but, in my confused and frantic state I gave it merely as a way out of the situation. Do you understand that not all would consider this a rape because I did give in? Do you see the shades of gray that any moral idea can have?

~Aztec

joannadandy

Of course there is Moral Absolutes, if there had been none, there would be no rule of Law, only chaos and mahem.

If there were moral absolutes would we even need law? I mean we would all know what was right and what was wrong...the fact that we need laws to define that 17 is not an age where any child can have consenting sex, even when with an 18 year old, tells us there are arbitrary laws.

drwtsn32

I'll do the best I can. I am a rape survivor, although, what I experienced would not necessarily be considered a rape by all. During the experience I was held down, completely against my will, and realizing the futility of getting myself out of the situation through sheer force, I consented. I did not give my consent easily, but, in my confused and frantic state I gave it merely as a way out of the situation. Do you understand that not all would consider this a rape because I did give in? Do you see the shades of gray that any moral idea can have?

Hmm... I still would consider what happened to you rape. I don't see how your "consent" makes it any less of a crime. Wasn't your "consent" more of a "giving up" because continuing to fight would have been futile? Do you consider it rape? Have you met anyone that does not consider your experience rape?

I think you guys have been successful in convincing me that it's wrong to think about anything as absolute, but I still think things are gray to different degrees. Child abuse, rape, and some others are mostly black!

Thanks for your response.

logansrun

OTS,

Oh, we don't have to tell the elders about it. It could be a...a....an experiment in human physiology

hehe,

Bradley..........(okay, okay, I'll stop before this gets any weirder)

Aztec

Drwtsn,

I think you guys have been successful in convincing me that it's wrong to think about anything as absolute, but I still think things are gray to different degrees.

Well, I've helped accomplish something.

Bradley, stick to the topic!

~Aztec

Moral absolutes

Share this