by StinkyPantz 29 Replies latest jw friends
to steel or take away (what's not yours or do not deserve and so on ...)
Okay, let's look at stealing for a second. Let's suppose a teenage girl is kicked out of her home for whatever reason. She doesn't have a job, nor a place to go. She steals an apple from a supermarket because she needs to eat. Did she deserve that apple? Was it hers to eat?
I (but that's me) see a big difference in between
it's a logic that people can apply and understand very easely : it works against the murder ... and for instance about the "cheating" issue does a man/woman who didn't or who can't treat (which differe with taking care) of his/her woman/man the way he/she should be can really feel betrayed when cheated on ... who cheated first somehow ?
Good topic, Stinky. Personally, I believe that morality is an evolved response to the need for norms that govern social relationships. (IOW, people can't live together without some ground rules.) So it follows that the only rational basis for morality is the individual or the common good (or some combination of the two); and hence there can inherently be no moral absolutes, since it is impossible to predict with certainty what will always lead to the greater good.
That doesn't change the fact that there will be useful moral principles, which will almost always be applicable; but I would seriously hesitate to call them "absolutes".
SP : Okay, let's look at stealing for a second. Let's suppose a teenage girl is kicked out of her home for whatever reason. She doesn't have a job, nor a place to go. She steals an apple from a supermarket because she needs to eat. Did she deserve that apple? Was it hers to eat?
The moral absolute is still there to me. she didn't have the right to ... The difference that we have to make is in the punishement and the punishement have to be related to the WHY'S ...
Also : You can pay or send somebody to murder someone ... It is not because you didn't do it yourself that you are not moraly responsible. For one of them the REASON is TO MURDER for the other on the REASON is FOR MONNEY or any KIND OF REWARD.
So it is ALWAYS ABOUT THE WHY'S more than the HOW's about the WHAT's to find out about what makes something acceptable or not about a moral issue (which is still a moral issue).
Euphemisme : That doesn't change the fact that there will be useful moral principles, which will almost always be applicable; but I would seriously hesitate to call them "absolutes".because of the why's ...
Euphenism,
What an excellent way to put it. I definitely couldn't have said it any better myself.
Brad
Let's take for instance a woman who got beaten and beaten and beaten by her husband to the point to become frigthened or insane and that she murder him (not in a situation of self-defence).
She did murder him yes : but she was insane or frightened to the point it was the only solution she was able to use. it is still a moral issue (the guy might that night change his way for whatever reason a finally be nice _ dream about it _ but still it happen. she was not in an iminente self-defence situation) but still the why's make's her act quiet understandable _ and someone had what he deserve.
morality is an evolved response to the need for norms that govern social relationships. (IOW, people can't live together without some ground rules.)
I agree with Euphmeister.
One thing is for sure.....humans have similar feelings in many areas of morality. Regardless of the period of time in history, screwing around with another mans mate, stealing what is his, or killing or hurting his children or mate, has always produced the same feelings in man, so in this sense, there are absolutes which at least produce the same actions/feelings in humans. Why? Don't know
Gumby
For the record: I totally agree with Euph.
I think most of us have an internal moral compass, things we feel are wrong or bad. Those are our personal moral absolutes and they may change from time to time as we grow and change.
