Absolute Morality Contradiction

[Phanta]

So, as some of you know, I'm new to this whole reading the Bible thing, and am spending a lot of time in the OT. I also read a fair amount of Christian apologies for various OT scriptures that moderns find shocking.

 

I find many of the rules (for instance about slaves and women) shocking. Surprisingly, I often find my shock softened by "it was a certain time and place" apologies that put things in a historical and cultural context. I often find these arguments outright convincing or at least softening...but this is because I believe less and less in absolute morality as time goes by.

 

What I don't understand is religionists who claim that morality is absolute in the same breath that they apologize for something we currently find abhorrent as being right in a particular time/culture. It is so strange.

 

Phanta

[oddbird1963]

It is inconsistent. Not so much that people behaved that way, but as a reflection of God's morality.

 

If slavery, rape and kidnapping are wrong now, then why did this GOD, the source of absolute morality, supposedly create a body of law that contradicts these absolute wrongs.

 

Sure, it may be said that he "made allowances" for the sinfulness of humanity. In other words, he allowed it because it would so go against global societal norms that people couldn't tolerate it. But this doesn't really help. Because this is still compromising on morality on the part of a supposedly all knowing, all powerful god with providential control over human history.

 

The very Bible Christian conservatives and fundamentalists uphold as the conveyor of absolute moral truth demonstrates anything but absolute morals. On the one hand, they have their moral arguments for the existence of god that try to scare people into believing in god. But then they have a "that was then this is now" relativism when pressed on the Bible's treatment and tacit approval of the worst moral issues that we confront today.

[Ouroboros]

What I don't understand is religionists who claim that morality is absolute in the same breath that they apologize for something we currently find abhorrent as being right in a particular time/culture. It is so strange.

 

Welcome to the twilight zone.

[Legion]

I don't believe in "absolute morality", whatever that may mean. I think we live in a conditional and ever changing universe. But I do understand some people's desire to cling to a notion of rigid morality. It's all too easy for us to rationalize or excuse our own inconsiderate, selfish, or hurtful behavior. It's easier just to say with relative certainty that it's always wrong to steal, lie, kill someone, etc. This is not always the case however. In some circumstances the moral thing to do is to steal, lie, kill someone, etc.

[Ouroboros]

"Rigid morality," I like that term. It's more useful. It means a view on morality that can change, but doesn't change on a whim.

[Legion]

"Rigid morality," I like that term. It's more useful. It means a view on morality that can change, but doesn't change on a whim.

I think the problem with "moral relativism" is that although it may be "true" in the sense that everything is conditional, it makes it easier for individuals to bend the "rules" and degrade the trust which a smoothly functioning society depends upon.

[Ouroboros]

"Rigid morality," I like that term. It's more useful. It means a view on morality that can change, but doesn't change on a whim.

I think the problem with "moral relativism" is that although it may be "true" in the sense that everything is conditional, it makes it easier for individuals to bend the "rules" and degrade the trust which a smoothly functioning society depends upon.

That's right. And that's why there's an opposition to it. One philo teacher I heard, called it "vulgar relativism," meaning that it was extreme and unattractive. Rigid is a good word. Hopefully, I'll remember it next time morality is discussed. (Brain going ... what's the word?...)

[Phanta]

It is inconsistent. Not so much that people behaved that way, but as a reflection of God's morality.

 

If slavery, rape and kidnapping are wrong now, then why did this GOD, the source of absolute morality, supposedly create a body of law that contradicts these absolute wrongs.

 

Sure, it may be said that he "made allowances" for the sinfulness of humanity. In other words, he allowed it because it would so go against global societal norms that people couldn't tolerate it. But this doesn't really help. Because this is still compromising on morality on the part of a supposedly all knowing, all powerful god with providential control over human history.

 

While the bolded is a line of reasoning I might able to get on board with due to my observance of how change occurs for humanity/cultures, I must then take any law given by a higher power as law applicable to that time/place/cultural context, and not some sweeping ideal that always applies, unless certain specific things were outlined as always/constants... I can't imagine there would be very many of those, though! And I also can't imagine they would include "never divorce" and "never engage in homosexual activity". Perhaps (and that's a big, fat perhaps) any allowance of those spell doom in certain cultural contexts at a certain time, but I do not see that is true for all cultural contexts at all times.

 

Along these lines, I don't see that certain qualities associated with Nazis power inevitably result in fascism and genocide. How those allowances/characteristics interact or blend with others within that culture and without effect the result. The characteristic alone does not necessarily spell doom.

 

What I don't understand is religionists who claim that morality is absolute in the same breath that they apologize for something we currently find abhorrent as being right in a particular time/culture. It is so strange.

 

Welcome to the twilight zone.

 

I know you've brought this kind of thing up to me repeatedly. I had to suss it out on my own, in my own way. It's the anti-authoritarian/doubting Thomas in me. Thank you for your patience. *grin*

 

I don't believe in "absolute morality", whatever that may mean. I think we live in a conditional and ever changing universe. But I do understand some people's desire to cling to a notion of rigid morality. It's all too easy for us to rationalize or excuse our own inconsiderate, selfish, or hurtful behavior. It's easier just to say with relative certainty that it's always wrong to steal, lie, kill someone, etc. This is not always the case however. In some circumstances the moral thing to do is to steal, lie, kill someone, etc.

 

I understand the desire as well. It is difficult to live with our own hurtful behavior and that of others. I also agree with the idea that sometimes the moral thing to do is to steal, lie, or kill, as much as I find those things repulsive (I make very few exceptions).

 

I also like the term "rigid morality".

 

Thanks, guys.

 

Phanta

[Phanta]

"Rigid morality," I like that term. It's more useful. It means a view on morality that can change, but doesn't change on a whim.

I think the problem with "moral relativism" is that although it may be "true" in the sense that everything is conditional, it makes it easier for individuals to bend the "rules" and degrade the trust which a smoothly functioning society depends upon.

 

Good stuff...

[XcaliburGirl]

I don't get it either. I think it's a really good point to bring up when the subject of morals comes up.

 

You've got three categories of sins:

 

1. Stuff that's always wrong.

2. Stuff that we* find wrong today, but that God was OK with in the OT (or NT).

3. Stuff that we* think is OK today (or in the NT), but God forbade in the OT (or NT).

 

If someone points out items in category 1 as an example of the Bible as a guide for morality, we can point out 2 & 3. The standard answer to 3 is "Jesus fullfilled the law, so we don't have to obey that one anymore." I think that still contradicts the idea of absolute morality, but not as clearly as category 2.

 

The claim is that the Bible (or sometimes an innate sense that God gives us, not sure how that jibes with the idea of a debase "sin nature") is the basis for morality. If you make exceptions for culture, then can't we have exceptions nowadays for things that are becoming culturally acceptable? Maybe homosexuality? Also, by the "cultural exception" logic, wouldn't that mean God was basically mimicking the morals of the day. If it was nothing new, what's the point of the law then?

 

As for the argument that they couldn't accept a law so foreign to their primitive sensibilities, it seems a little silly that they are OK with super strict and specific ceremonial laws that had to be actively followed vs. "don't own other people".

 

At least many Christians are more moral than their god, even if they won't admit it.

 

* "We", meaning modern day humanists AND most modern day Christians.

[★ Citsonga ★]

What I don't understand is religionists who claim that morality is absolute in the same breath that they apologize for something we currently find abhorrent as being right in a particular time/culture. It is so strange.

 

Precisely. It's impossible to believe in the whole bible and still believe in "absolute morality," no matter how much one touts it as a fact. I've pointed this out to some christians and have never gotten a reasonable reply.

 

As for the argument that they couldn't accept a law so foreign to their primitive sensibilities, it seems a little silly that they are OK with super strict and specific ceremonial laws that had to be actively followed vs. "don't own other people".

 

One person I pointed it out to made such a claim about them being "primitive" people that couldn't understand like we do today. There is a serious problem with that, though, in that it simply is not biblical. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit in Genesis 3, gawd proclaimed that they had become "like one of us, knowing good and evil." If they had an understanding of right and wrong on par with gawd, then they were not primitive in their moral understanding.

 

It's amazing what hoops christians have to jump through to try to justify the buybull.