Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Morality And Ethics Without Absolutes


webmdave

Recommended Posts

Unfortunately, the citizens of Nazi Germany did believe they were behaving morally. And as a matter of fact, most of Europe agreed that there was a "Jewish problem."

 

In the Middle East a great number of people believe that killing Jews is not only a moral thing to do, but divine.

 

Do I personally agree with that? No. However, I'll lay you odds that if you and I had happened to be born in the Middle East into fundamentalist Muslim families, we would have a completely different viewpoint of morality.

 

And if we acted according to that "morality" by committee, we would be wrong and immoral. Part of the responsibility for our humanity is to stand against injustice, even in the face of being outnumbered. Relative morality has you defending genocide and slavery for those societies that deem it to be moral.

 

Animals have no imperative for morality, because they are innocent. They can neither defend their ego nor force it on others, because they have no ego.

 

"If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

— Mohandas Gandhi

Who or what decides that we are wrong and immoral? Who determines the responsibility of humanity, and is it the same for everyone? I tend to agree with the relativists, but that does not mean I defend genocide and slavery; it means I examine the situations individually according to various factors. Animals have no imperative for morality because they don't have the ability to think through their actions and see consequences; they act instinctively. Though we are also animals, we have evolved beyond that (somewhat; I do believe we act instinctively/impulsively at times) and are able to struggle with the results of our actions. We just haven't evolved enough to have a settled human-wide view of what is ethical.

 

I knew that conservative Christians always had trouble with "situational ethics", I guess they're not the only ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • webmdave

    9

  • The Paineful Truth

    8

  • Vigile

    7

  • Dhampir

    6

  • Admin
Unfortunately, the citizens of Nazi Germany did believe they were behaving morally. And as a matter of fact, most of Europe agreed that there was a "Jewish problem."

 

In the Middle East a great number of people believe that killing Jews is not only a moral thing to do, but divine.

 

Do I personally agree with that? No. However, I'll lay you odds that if you and I had happened to be born in the Middle East into fundamentalist Muslim families, we would have a completely different viewpoint of morality.

 

And if we acted according to that "morality" by committee, we would be wrong and immoral. Part of the responsibility for our humanity is to stand against injustice, even in the face of being outnumbered. Relative morality has you defending genocide and slavery for those societies that deem it to be moral.

 

Animals have no imperative for morality, because they are innocent. They can neither defend their ego nor force it on others, because they have no ego.

 

"If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth."

— Mohandas Gandhi

 

 

 

 

Uhm, we do act by committee. People may stand up for a better, or different interpretation of right and wrong, but for the most part we all act by committee. That's my point. Slavery is a sin... NOW. But for thousands of years, it was an accepted and moral practice.

 

We've evolved a new morality when it comes to slavery.

 

Genocide was practiced by every people group on the planet. It was considered moral to wipe out every man, woman and child, and take their goods and land. Again, every people group practiced this behavior and many claimed they did so on the commands of a god. The Hebrews claimed the atrocities they committed were commanded by god -- the universal law giver.

 

When Christianity ruled the western hemisphere, they imposed their version of morality on everyone. Divorce didn't exist. Heretics were burned. Torture was rampant. Their universal absolute law of morality (as they saw it) kept western civilization in the Dark Ages for centuries.

 

I'm afraid we will always disagree on this Paineful. There is no way in hell that there is one standard universal truth on what is right and wrong. And I would be nervous about living in a place where the bulk of people believed that there was such a thing. Why? Because that group would gladly impose their version of right and wrong upon everyone. Islamics believe they have the ultimate expression of an absolute right and wrong. If they ever gain the upper hand here, you'll have your wish of absolutes.

 

Part of the responsibility for our humanity is to stand against injustice, even in the face of being outnumbered.

 

Huh? Who says that? I think that's a noble expression. I wouldn't argue its merits. But who or what do you think has assigned us with this so-called responsibility?

 

I'm out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.