Why Does Morality Come From God Alone?

[NotBlinded]

Okay...I'm probably a little more than confused, but if animals also show moral behavior in order for their species to survive and thrive, then why wouldn't not killing your own kind be considered an absolute moral?

 

If we are speaking about morals that are floating around out there somewhere for us to follow, then no they don't exist independently of the beings that use them. In this instance, I would agree with Antlerman and say it doesn't exist anymore than a god that is floating around out there issuing the orders does. But if this instinct to act moral comes from within the person/animal, then it is absolute. In this instance it would exist, the same as God. It can't be separate from the entity.

[Antlerman]

If we are speaking about morals that are floating around out there somewhere for us to follow, then no they don't exist independently of the beings that use them. In this instance, I would agree with Antlerman and say it doesn't exist anymore than a god that is floating around out there issuing the orders does. But if this instinct to act moral comes from within the person/animal, then it is absolute. In this instance it would exist, the same as God. It can't be separate from the entity.

For the individiual, or the society, in effect to serve as a "standard" it can be called "absolute", but it would not necessarily be a standard for all humans in all socities and in that sense the "absolute" is more regional, local, or to state that horrible, dreaded word..... "relative".

 

To state something is an absolute on this level is no different than the Chruch saying God's law is valid for all men in all places and judges humanity based on the moral system they chose to adopt because it reflected their values. Who is making whose "absolute" the standard?

[NotBlinded]

If we are speaking about morals that are floating around out there somewhere for us to follow, then no they don't exist independently of the beings that use them. In this instance, I would agree with Antlerman and say it doesn't exist anymore than a god that is floating around out there issuing the orders does. But if this instinct to act moral comes from within the person/animal, then it is absolute. In this instance it would exist, the same as God. It can't be separate from the entity.

For the individiual, or the society, in effect to serve as a "standard" it can be called "absolute", but it would not necessarily be a standard for all humans in all socities and in that sense the "absolute" is more regional, local, or to state that horrible, dreaded word..... "relative".

 

To state something is an absolute on this level is no different than the Chruch saying God's law is valid for all men in all places and judges humanity based on the moral system they chose to adopt because it reflected their values. Who is making whose "absolute" the standard?

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to understand exactly what absolute means. Is it objective, subjective, universal, without exception, biological, magical??? I understand that it probably means that there is a certain way for all people to act at all times, but that is nonsense.

[Ouroboros]

Okay...I'm probably a little more than confused, but if animals also show moral behavior in order for their species to survive and thrive, then why wouldn't not killing your own kind be considered an absolute moral?

You might have to kill someone out of necessity. If someone is "damaged" and dangerous to you and/or your loved ones you could take action to kill the threat. That is not considered immoral neither among animals or humans. It depends on the situation if you would consider one thing to be immoral or not. That's why the law books are so plenty and thick, because it's not possible to write absolute law that fit every situation.

 

Consider that the last 4000 years or so, humanity has tried to write the "perfect law" into the books, and yet haven't figured it out. While at the same time, it less time to figure out how to put someone on the moon. Morality and also law isn't anything that is easily put to a few words, or few rules. It's like asking, "is there any absolute color?"

[Ouroboros]

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to understand exactly what absolute means. Is it objective, subjective, universal, without exception, biological, magical??? I understand that it probably means that there is a certain way for all people to act at all times, but that is nonsense.

The problem is the every moral code you come up with will have exceptions. You write a code, and after a few years you have to amend it. Then you have to modify it. Then you have exceptions again. And then...

 

If there was an easy way to establish the "perfect" and "absolute" and "basic" moral code, humanity would have found it by now. I'm not saying morality is relative in the sense that everyone establish their own morals, I don't think that is right either, but we are beings in a society, cog-wheels in a machinery, we are individuals but yet a collective, and the morals is the glue that make the individual a working unit in the whole collective without disrupting the process too much. One and many at once.

 

Just look at something weird like Pederasty in Ancient Greece, and how different we view things now! The same goes for slavery, child or spouse abuse, abortion. One thing that have stayed somewhat stable is murder and killing, but even there the public opinion changes over time, like what is considered manslaughter or not. In some strict Muslim countries there are different punishment if a man kill a man or woman, or if a woman kill a man or a woman. They're not equal to the law, and they see the law as a derivative of the "moral" described in the Quran. Or take things like theft. Today the trend is that even making a copy of your own music CD is theft. Sometimes the law and morality coincides, and sometimes they don't, like abortion which is considered immoral by some, but still legal (mostly).

[Antlerman]

I guess I'm having a hard time trying to understand exactly what absolute means. Is it objective, subjective, universal, without exception, biological, magical??? I understand that it probably means that there is a certain way for all people to act at all times, but that is nonsense.

Absolutes are essentially God in philosophy. Its premise is that there are absolutes in the world that serve as the foundation of all truth and knowledge. Logic and reason are the paths to this reality. As I understand it mathematics and art during the Renaissance was in pursuit of absolutes, to find "God", a system by which to understand the world. Of course this failed.

 

I recall a Christian Philosopher who tried to have the Christian God serve as the philosophical absolute to address the three main areas of philosophy: Moral, Metaphysics, and Epistemology. (How do we know how to behave; How do we know the nature of reality; How do we know that we know). He used "God is Love" for the absolute of morality; "God is Spirit" as the absolute for metaphysics - all things came through Him; "God is Light" as the absolute for epistemology or knowledge, "in god is all knowledge".

 

The problem with this? We're talking about Western philosophy. This system of philosophy only works for those whose value systems are shaped by Western culture. What's more than that? The premise is flawed. It assumes God is believed in. It might work for those who believe as a system, but since God is not determined through consensus observation and verification, it is a flawed system.

 

The same can be said of any claims of some moral absolutes, or views of reality.

 

Science is the best system for determining what is real, in the natural sense, but even that is not absolute. It's the best tool we have for any type of knowledge in this world, but even it cannot claim anything as an absolute. Now when you move away from the natural world into social behaviors.... there is far, far less objectivity you can hope to apply to it than questions of like “what is granite made of?".

 

Any system of logic may seem perfect in an Aristotelian sort of way, but the problem most often is in the premise. Saying that absolutes exists is a philosophical assumption that seems to try to support that premise in very much the same ways of religious logic in proving God. Like my signature says.....

 

Ahhh, the quest for answers!!!

[Amethyst]

"Insofar as mathematics is exact, it does not apply to reality; and insofar as mathematics applies to reality, it is not exact." Albert Einstein

 

There is individual morality and cultural morality. There is no more absolute objective morality than there is a God's absolute morality. 1+1=2 is only true because humans define it as true. Morality is "valid" because humans define it as such. Humans define morality individually and define it culturally. There is not ONE culture. There is not ONE morality. When the world has one culture than you can talk about something that loosely approximates "objective" morality (or truth, so called). Until then, it is relative. We create God in our own image, we create morality in our own image. I see little difference.

 

Morality is what works for the benefit of the individual and the society within that particular culture. It is not universal. Morality is not absolute. God does not exist.

 

Well said. This is what I am getting at.

 

No, murder is wrong because:

 

1. It's initiating force against another person.

2. We live in a society and we have established interdependancy in order to survive. Behaviours that disrupt that interdependancy are contradictory to social structures.

 

Then why is self-defense not immoral? Killing someone in self-defense is initiating force, and it disrupts interdependancy. I could also make the same argument for killing someone in war, or for abortion, or even stem-cell research if I wanted to.

 

Well then you should cite your source and be more specific.

 

My source is my memory. I don't remember where I read that. Probably in some class I took in school years ago or something.

 

If every culture just arbitrarily decides what is right and what is wrong, Amethyst, then this shouldn't be. The behaviour would be chaotic and random, with only a probabilistic similarity.[/b]

 

Then why don't all cultures have exactly the same laws, and why are the penalties worse in some cultures than others? And why do some laws have nothing to do with morality at all? If every culture didn't decide what was right and wrong, we would all have the same laws. The system isn't perfect, but it's not total chaos either.

[Asimov]

Well said. This is what I am getting at.

 

I'm going to comment on this in a second. It's not well-said.

 

Then why is self-defense not immoral? Killing someone in self-defense is initiating force, and it disrupts interdependancy.

 

Because self-defense is not initiating force, Amethyst. It's protecting yourself from someone else initiating force against you. It doesn't disrupt interdependancy, the act of someone initiating force against you disrupts interdependancy and you're just protecting yourself.

 

I can't believe I have to explain this....

 

I could also make the same argument for killing someone in war, or for abortion, or even stem-cell research if I wanted to.

 

Depends on the situation for war, fetuses have no moral rights, and neither do embryos.

 

 

My source is my memory. I don't remember where I read that. Probably in some class I took in school years ago or something.

 

Then please provide an actual relevant situation that doesn't rely on vaguery.

 

Then why don't all cultures have exactly the same laws, and why are the penalties worse in some cultures than others? And why do some laws have nothing to do with morality at all? If every culture didn't decide what was right and wrong, we would all have the same laws. The system isn't perfect, but it's not total chaos either.

 

Because some laws are arbitrary and some aren't. Some are based off of good solid reasoning, such as murder and stealing, others are just emotionalised bullshit like "gays shouldn't marry!"

 

I'm saying if laws are all arbitrarily decided then there wouldnt' be any congruency. And if they are arbitrary, why are there always ideas that murder is wrong, that stealing is wrong. Why do so many cultures exhibit the "wise men" saying "do unto others"?

 

There is individual morality and cultural morality. There is no more absolute objective morality than there is a God's absolute morality.

 

This is retarded. I'm not claiming that there IS, i'm claiming that the possibility is there that an objective moral code is out there.

 

Take ANY ethics philosophy class and there will be discussion about objective morality and discovering it.

 

1+1=2 is only true because humans define it as true.

 

So? It's a representation of reality, Antlerman....that's why they call it "abstract". It's not arbitrarily defined.

 

Morality is "valid" because humans define it as such. Humans define morality individually and define it culturally. There is not ONE culture. There is not ONE morality. When the world has one culture than you can talk about something that loosely approximates "objective" morality (or truth, so called). Until then, it is relative. We create God in our own image, we create morality in our own image. I see little difference.

 

No, that wouldn't be objective morality even IF there was only one culture. Just as there isn't cultural math and cultural physics, if objective morality existed (which as yet has not been discovered), then we wouldn't have "islam morality"...etc.

 

It isn't relative if it isn't objective, Antlerman. Just because morality is subjective does NOT mean it is arbitrary.

 

Morality is what works for the benefit of the individual and the society within that particular culture. It is not universal. Morality is not absolute. God does not exist.

 

So? An established moral system than an individual accepts by choice, that benefits each individual with no loss to society, that is BASED off of reason and logic is as objective as we will get right now.

 

I'm not fucking talking about God, jesus christ.

[Antlerman]

Well said. This is what I am getting at.

 

I'm going to comment on this in a second. It's not well-said.

 

It is both well said, and not well said. To her is what well-said, and I share her view. To you it was not well-said and that is true from your perspective. I of course, do not share your views. Its value is not arbitrary, but it is relative.

 

There is individual morality and cultural morality. There is no more absolute objective morality than there is a God's absolute morality.

 

This is retarded. I'm not claiming that there IS, i'm claiming that the possibility is there that an objective moral code is out there.

 

Take ANY ethics philosophy class and there will be discussion about objective morality and discovering it.

And your comments are double-retarded. I’m not sure what value that adds to the discussion, but I wanted to try it out as a style of communication to see if it fits me. It really doesn’t, but if it pleases you to speak this way to others, then by all means express yourself to other’s displeasure. I prefer Existentialism over Objectivism. “Hell is other people,” Jean Paul Sartre. We see ourselves reflected back at us through “the other”.

 

And your point about a philosophy class having a discussion about objective morality and discovering it means what? That it exists? That that is the only way to have a philosophy? That all philosophies hold it as true? Take any religion class and they will discuss the objectivist-type views of the great monotheistic religions too. So what.

 

What I have been trying to communicate in my equating this with belief in God is that the approach to finding, or believing in an objective truth, or morality, or whatever, is the same as those who believe in God. Substitute the name God for any system of objective truth and you have the same thing – exclusive truth.

 

How do you reconcile other’s who through rational thought and reason end up with a different morality? You conclude their reasoning is flawed? You conclude their God is a false god? You call their views retarded?

 

This is very much why I left Christianity and fundamentalism in particular. It left me in a position of being arrogant which displeased me. Plus, it was irrational to me that to try to belief in any sort of ultimate objective truth.

 

BTW, relativism does not equal “arbitrary”. That sounds like a straw-man argument.

 

So? An established moral system than an individual accepts by choice, that benefits each individual with no loss to society, that is BASED off of reason and logic is as objective as we will get right now.

I agree that there are many moral systems that are based of reason and logic, and all of them are valid from the perspective of those who believe them. There is no absolute, objective standard that can judge one wrong and the other right.

 

I'm not fucking talking about God, jesus christ.[/b]

If you’re talking about absolutes you are. God is just a religious symbol of that notion.

[NotBlinded]

And your comments are double-retarded. I’m not sure what value that adds to the discussion, but I wanted to try it out as a style of communication to see if it fits me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I tried not to laugh...really I did!

[Amethyst]

How do you reconcile other’s who through rational thought and reason end up with a different morality? You conclude their reasoning is flawed? You conclude their God is a false god? You call their views retarded?

 

This is very much why I left Christianity and fundamentalism in particular. It left me in a position of being arrogant which displeased me. Plus, it was irrational to me that to try to belief in any sort of ultimate objective truth.

 

That was one of the reasons I left as well.

 

Depends on the situation for war, fetuses have no moral rights, and neither do embryos.

 

Many people, and not all of them fundies, would argue that fetuses and embryos have moral rights because they are life. What if they're right and we're the ones who are wrong?

[Asimov]

Just taking a slightly extended leave from this discussion, I'll get back to it when I have a cooler head.

 

Antlerman, you sound like Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV when you insult people....it doesn't suit you.

[Antlerman]

Just taking a slightly extended leave from this discussion, I'll get back to it when I have a cooler head.

Sounds good. I always try to keep my emotions detached from discussions. It keeps ideas the most important thing, rather than personalites. At your disposal...

 

AM

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, you sound like Captain Kirk in Star Trek IV when you insult people....it doesn't suit you. [/b]

Good catch! It was a take off to the "well, a double-dumb ass on you" line. My favorite of the Star Trek films. (My other favorite line is from Spock to Kirk, "One damned minute Admiral".)

[KT45]

Many people, and not all of them fundies, would argue that fetuses and embryos have moral rights because they are life. What if they're right and we're the ones who are wrong?

In my mind, unless they can survive outside the womb the fetus' life is directly connected to the life of the mother. Since there lifes are basically one in the same they potential mother should be able to decide. I always wondered something. The human body can reject fetus' naturally (miscarriage) and this is not wrong or evil. Basically the body physically doesn't want the fetus and rejects it. But if the mother mentally decides to reject the fetus it is wrong all of a sudden? WTF

[Asimov]

<snip>

 

I'm going to briefly outline my points that I was trying to make here, Antlerman.

 

1. I'm not saying that morality exists objectively as a fact (like maths), I'm saying that the possibility is out there and has been discussed that morality might exist like math does, but that it hasn't been discovered yet.

 

2. There is an objective standard for morality that we can derive all moral thought from. The standard for morality is life. That is why we have morality.

 

3. Although the standard for morality is life, the observation of "cultural" morality does not exist. Cultures are not organisms that are cognitive. Cultures are comprised of individuals who are cognitive individuals with their own volition and moral responsibility. Cultures themselves have no moral responsibility because they are not cognitive beings. This leads to the idea that morality is contingent upon the individual to accept and apply as they see fit. This is proved by the fact that "cultures" are comprised of people who do things against the supposed ideologies of said culture and who have different ideas. How do cultures progress? Through the instability of what you would call "cultural norms".

 

4. What does this mean for morality? That each individual must choose to obey or disobey a moral code. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. Although these must be accepted by the individual, the fundamental values of Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem must be accepted in order for an individual to consider himself a moral being.

 

5. Absolutes do exist, they have to. The very statement "absolute truths do not exist" is a contradiction in terms. It's not exclusive truth, it's objective truth.

 

It's not exlusive to say: Existence is.

It's not exclusive to say: A=A

It's not exclusive to say: Consciousness exists.

It's not even exclusive to say: The standard of morality is life.

 

These ARE absolutes and they apply to everyone.

 

"A "right", according to Objectivism, is a moral principle that both defines and sanctions a human being's freedom of action in a social or societal context."

 

6. What can we build upon from the standard of morality being life?

 

1. That all individuals have a right to further their own life and they must accept this by choice.

2. That all individuals have a right to the products of their own effort.

 

I can't comment on the idea that someone could come up with another "idea" rationally and it be just as valid since I haven't found a moral idea that contends with mine that isn't arbitrarily based, Antlerman.

 

If you could provide an example, I would be happy to analyze it. This isn't about "exclusive truth", this is about analyzing how we as humans can make the potential for everyone to succeed and be happy. This isn't about making people happy or making everyone succeed, that comes with the product of individual human effort.

 

 

 

Many people, and not all of them fundies, would argue that fetuses and embryos have moral rights because they are life. What if they're right and we're the ones who are wrong?

 

They would have to provide adequate reasoning rather than arbitrary ideas. There are a number of good essays that I think you would enjoy, Amethyst.

[Amethyst]

Many people, and not all of them fundies, would argue that fetuses and embryos have moral rights because they are life. What if they're right and we're the ones who are wrong?

 

They would have to provide adequate reasoning rather than arbitrary ideas. There are a number of good essays that I think you would enjoy, Amethyst.

 

I'm sure I would enjoy them, if I had the time to read them.

 

My point, which I'm sure you're not going to like, is that you're being just as arbitrary when you say that you don't think it's wrong. Sure, you have a thought process, and I happen to agree with some of it, but everyone else has a thought process too. But you're not even being consistent with your own "morality is life" standard. Fetuses and embryos are alive. Just because they're in someone else's body doesn't mean they're not alive.

 

Do you see my point? I'm not saying you're wrong in your thought process. In fact, I agree, at least on the abortion issue. I'm just saying that everyone has different reasons why they choose to think of things as good or evil. It's all arbitrary.

 

And just so we know we're on the same page:

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=arbitrary

 

Arbitrary:

 

Subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one's discretion: an arbitrary decision.

[Asimov]

My point, which I'm sure you're not going to like, is that you're being just as arbitrary when you say that you don't think it's wrong. Sure, you have a thought process, and I happen to agree with some of it, but everyone else has a thought process too. But you're not even being consistent with your own "morality is life" standard. Fetuses and embryos are alive. Just because they're in someone else's body doesn't mean they're not alive.

 

I'm talking about a rational thought process. I didn't say that fetuses and embryos aren't alive.

 

Do you see my point? I'm not saying you're wrong in your thought process. In fact, I agree, at least on the abortion issue. I'm just saying that everyone has different reasons why they choose to think of things as good or evil. It's all arbitrary.

 

And just so we know we're on the same page:

 

No, capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

[Asimov]

Antlerman, I'm conceding point 3 for the obvious reason that cultural morality is simply a reflection of similar values between individuals.

[Antlerman]

I'm going to briefly outline my points that I was trying to make here, Antlerman.

 

1. I'm not saying that morality exists objectively as a fact (like maths), I'm saying that the possibility is out there and has been discussed that morality might exist like math does, but that it hasn't been discovered yet.

Where I have difficulty with this is that I hear stated that morality “might” exist objectively as a possibility, but then everything that follows is based on that possibility as being established. How is this different than someone saying God might exist, so therefore we must act upon this and become a follower of Him? Should we act on the idea of God because one day he might be discovered through some scientific or logical means?

 

2. There is an objective standard for morality that we can derive all moral thought from. The standard for morality is life. That is why we have morality.

You just said in point 1 that it is a possibility, now it is being stated as a fact: “There is an objective standard for morality”. I appreciate what you are saying as far as starting with a basic premise from which to try to establish a sense of reality, “I think therefore I am,” or in how you state it, “The standard for morality is life”. But what these are really starting points, not absolutes.

 

3. Although the standard for morality is life, the observation of "cultural" morality does not exist. Cultures are not organisms that are cognitive. Cultures are comprised of individuals who are cognitive individuals with their own volition and moral responsibility. Cultures themselves have no moral responsibility because they are not cognitive beings. This leads to the idea that morality is contingent upon the individual to accept and apply as they see fit. This is proved by the fact that "cultures" are comprised of people who do things against the supposed ideologies of said culture and who have different ideas. How do cultures progress? Through the instability of what you would call "cultural norms".

 

I see that you conceded this point already stating that, “cultural morality is simply a reflection of similar values between individuals”, but I wish to expand upon this to make a greater point of what I am saying.

 

Cultural in fact very directly teaches children and individual notions of right or wrong. There is no way that you or I can claim complete and utter automony and individuality in our values. Yes, of course you and I can examine and question what we have been taught in light of OTHER value systems, and may in fact find our culture’s values, or sense of morality, to be poor or needing to change. But 100% isolated communities may have very different ideas about notions of right or wrong.

 

I was just reading about Honor Killings in various Islamic communities. If a girl in a family dishonors the family’s name by doing something horrible like choosing her own boyfriend the family doesn’t approve of, they will appoint a brother of hers to put a gun to her head and kill her. Lately with greater social pressure coming from external cultures, they are getting around being arrested for murdering a family member, by collectively putting pressure through threats and intimidation for the offending female (male’s seem exempt from this apparently) to commit suicide in order to preserve the family honor.

 

Now you and I no doubt find this to be despicable! This is a violation of everything that you and I hold as sacred: the freedom of individual choice and action. But yet there is this inescapable question: how is it that the family members who can do this – as part of a culture – are not prevented from such a basic violation of the sacredness of human value? What you are seeing here speaks to the power of culture to create notions of morality .

 

As a free individual I am growing. I grow because I have exposure to other cultures, others points of view of “right and wrong”. I have exposure to other philosophies, innovative ideas, bad ideas, mediocre ideas, all of which I take a process in finding what makes sense to me as an individual, and what I feel is the best overall inclusive system that benefits human society at large – and here’s the caveat: at this time in our social evolution within a global society.

 

There is nothing absolute going on here. It’s all about what works best. Honor killings in a global society are horrible notions to the greater societies adopted values, yet it seems to have been an acceptable practice for millennia amongst more isolated cultures. Morality is what works best for the individual and the culture. Culture in fact is ironically, very much like an organism. We need it. We can’t survive without it. We feed it, it feeds us. This is why I have always said we create God, feed God with our ideas and values, so He can feed us.

 

We adopt its values we collectively feed it so we can participate in it for self benefit. It’s really weird in a way to conceptualize it that way, but in fact that is what happens. Ideas are like a living, evolving organism that we collectively give life to, which in turns influences our own evolution.

 

4. What does this mean for morality? That each individual must choose to obey or disobey a moral code. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality. Although these must be accepted by the individual, the fundamental values of Reason, Purpose and Self-Esteem must be accepted in order for an individual to consider himself a moral being.

We accept these things by choice out of a need for the society to accept us and protect us so we can survive. It’s that simple.

 

5. Absolutes do exist, they have to. The very statement "absolute truths do not exist" is a contradiction in terms. It's not exclusive truth, it's objective truth.

 

It's not exlusive to say: Existence is.

It's not exclusive to say: A=A

It's not exclusive to say: Consciousness exists.

It's not even exclusive to say: The standard of morality is life.

 

These ARE absolutes and they apply to everyone.

 

"A "right", according to Objectivism, is a moral principle that both defines and sanctions a human being's freedom of action in a social or societal context."

 

6. What can we build upon from the standard of morality being life?

 

1. That all individuals have a right to further their own life and they must accept this by choice.

2. That all individuals have a right to the products of their own effort.

 

I can't comment on the idea that someone could come up with another "idea" rationally and it be just as valid since I haven't found a moral idea that contends with mine that isn't arbitrarily based, Antlerman.

 

If you could provide an example, I would be happy to analyze it. This isn't about "exclusive truth", this is about analyzing how we as humans can make the potential for everyone to succeed and be happy. This isn't about making people happy or making everyone succeed, that comes with the product of individual human effort.[/b]

I will address these last two points later. I am out of time at this moment.

[Antlerman]

5. Absolutes do exist, they have to. The very statement "absolute truths do not exist" is a contradiction in terms. It's not exclusive truth, it's objective truth.

You are correct it is a contradiction in terms - using the language we have. Just like saying "I can't trust myself," is also a contradiction in terms. It is however a valid statement. It only is an example of the limits of our language, not in the concept that those words are attempting to convey. When the words are taken literally it becomes a curiosity of language, nothing more.

 

Why do absolutes have to exist for you? How do you envision a world that accepts there are none?

 

It's not exlusive to say: Existence is.

It's not exclusive to say: A=A

It's not exclusive to say: Consciousness exists.

It's not even exclusive to say: The standard of morality is life.

 

These ARE absolutes and they apply to everyone.

 

"A "right", according to Objectivism, is a moral principle that both defines and sanctions a human being's freedom of action in a social or societal context."

When I speak of exclusive, I am referring to someone laying claim to one out of many valid standards as the absolute one. At that point it is exclusive, in that it rejects all other beliefs that are different in favor of itself. That is to me, invalid.

 

In the examples above I can agree that having an agreed upon standard is beneficial, but I would be hesitant to make them absolutes, particularly the last statement. Would you ever say it is possible to say that death is also a standard of morality? Without death life could not exist. Life is dependent on death for its existence. Could there ever be a time that death would be the morally right choice? I suppose you could say it is when it has life as its ultimate purpose, but what about those who see suicide as preferable to life, those who are not mentally ill, but terminally ill for instance?

 

I am very hesitant to call anything absolute, as there are always exceptions (yes there's that little language blip again ). What I fear is that when people believe absolutes exist (especially morally), then they latch onto their "well reasoned" conclusions and become intolerant of others who conclude differently. If nothing is absolute, who then can claim “The Truth” and therefore judge, persecute, condemn, criticize, ridicule, and generally close their minds to possibilities? “All things are possible”, is a liberating philosophy that absolutes deny.

 

6. What can we build upon from the standard of morality being life?

 

1. That all individuals have a right to further their own life and they must accept this by choice.

2. That all individuals have a right to the products of their own effort.

 

I can't comment on the idea that someone could come up with another "idea" rationally and it be just as valid since I haven't found a moral idea that contends with mine that isn't arbitrarily based, Antlerman.

 

If you could provide an example, I would be happy to analyze it. This isn't about "exclusive truth", this is about analyzing how we as humans can make the potential for everyone to succeed and be happy. This isn't about making people happy or making everyone succeed, that comes with the product of individual human effort.

I can appreciate that the individual has the right to further his own life through choices and actions, and that they have a right to the products of their own labors. I would consider those sacred ideals. I just question hearing things spoken in terms of absolutes. It concerns me as being as potentially abusive a system and as stifling to freedom as religion is.

 

I want to clarify again that I don't see any standards of morality which are arbitrarily based anywhere. They are based on perceived needs. Granted, they can become traditions that no longer have relevance to the current culture and may seem "arbitrary" because we’ve lost touch with why they were created in the first place, but I can't think of any examples where some social rule just came out of no need whatsoever, "Let's make the color blue illegal for no reason". It doesn't work like that. There were percieved needs at the time, whether based on good information or not according to our standards today. That is not arbitrary or random. It is however relative, and there is a difference. It is the best judgement at the time for that situation. To make it absolute makes it irrelvant and robs people of their liberty.

[Knightley]

Good topic Kurari. I don't see any god forcing me to be "good" that's something that I choose to do on my own. I believe in moral relativism. Morality doesn't come from god, it comes from us, our society and culture. I think its also a social survival mechanism in a way. I think that Richard Dawkins video explained it much better than I ever will, but I too get tired of people saying that non-xians can't be moral and that we need the bible as a code to live by. No thanks.

[Amethyst]

No, capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.

 

Well, there you go. However, I still don't think that things are as simple as black and white, good and evil. That's what religious fundies think because it's how they've been taught to think. There are shades of gray depending on the situation. If killing a human was a moral absolute, then things like stem-cell research would be considered as universally evil as murder. Self-defense would also logically be considered evil if killing a living human was an absolute evil. No one's managed to prove to me that it's an absolute yet.

[Amethyst]

Could there ever be a time that death would be the morally right choice? I suppose you could say it is when it has life as its ultimate purpose, but what about those who see suicide as preferable to life, those who are not mentally ill, but terminally ill for instance?

 

See, that's just it. There are always exceptions to the rule, and thus no (or at least very, very few) absolutes because every situation is different.

[Asimov]

*bump*, I have been pretty busy, Antlerman. I'm still in this discussion.