Absolute Morals

[Vigile]

Every time this subject comes up I have to pull this response by an old poster (Joseph) up. He offers the most lucid debate on the subject I've encountered:

 

Responding to the statement "some morals are absolute," he responds (he is responding to the bolded sentances):

 

Name a single one.

 

After you have spent the greater part of a day and/or week trying to conditionalize a statement in order for it to become "absolute" in all given circumstances of that act, then you will realize that there are no absolutes and all acts are relative and are judge relatively.

 

For this very reason, law is inherently injust [it can not take account for all circumstances surrounding any given act] and must be guided by thinkers who look above it to gain a sense of what the spirit of it [law] meant to bring about.

 

An absolute is not applied relatively. Then you fall back into a philosophical oxymoronic statement.

 

Circumstances are judged relatively, we even conceptualize our world in a relative way due to the language systems we use. When we see a given act we do not see it outside of time and space and without reflecting upon other acts, that a given action was inherently evil. We say that a supposed act was more or less evil/good than another act. For such reasons our laws are extremely broadly written and are then brought into specific focus by the courts. You should not kill, becomes you should not murder, becomes conditionalized by more circumstances than I care to count (self defense, protecting an innocent third party, fleeing felon using deadly force to escape, and so on and so forth). For every single supposed "absolute idea" given to mankind it is nothing more than a relative viewpoint based idea which has been conditionalized so that the majority of humans agree with it. Whether in fact it is an absolute is not the case (it isn't)...unless you mean to base you idea of morality upon social majority rule, scarey.

 

Most people think that the moral systems can be very easily described and yet forget the complexity of situations that present themselves in our reality. Think for instance that we would normally choose to save the "most life" in any given natural disaster. Now you are given the case inwhich you can save a 1000 of one people or 100 of another. Instantly we decide to save the 1000, because that is 900 more lives to be saved. But what of the quality of life that you save? What if the 100 are people who benefit mankind while the 900 are serial killers? Who then decides which is the correct group to save? You? Me? The government? Is 900 serial killers death worth it to save 100 productive citizens? What if the 100 is all male and the 900 is half and half. Reverse that, the 100 is half and half and the 900 is all male? Is survival of the species to rule morality also? How many conditionalizations would it take to gain a viewpoint which we can agree upon?

 

How do you relate such ideas together in order to gain a moral stance?

Philosophical Moral Relativity because there are no moral absolutes to pull from.

 

Many Christians (and other faithful for that matter) attempt to place absolutes upon our reality. I have yet to read a single one that held especially in light that their own guidelines are not absolutes. None follow the entire levitical law through some way of saying that an absolute law can be over-ruled later on by their man-god. By definition an absolute law would stand forever. Many even do not realize the relative nature of the ten commandments. Remember that the ten commandments found in the KJV version are mistranslated.

 

 

It is the cirumstances, not a personal point of view, in my opinion, that determines whether or not any specific act is moral.

 

 

I want you to realize how silly a statement that is, and just so you will "get" it I will type it as a proof:

 

-It is the circumstances

-not personal view

-in my opinion (AKA: from my point of view)

-that determines whether or not any specific act is moral.

 

Your statement destroyed itself.

Very funny.

 

Just to clarify my point, I will use a simple example.

 

Temperature is discussed by a child as "hot and "cold." The adult knows that "hot" and "cold" do not in reality exist. Temperature runs along a continuum. While 98F is hot to many humans, it may not be to another species. In fact if a human was getting out of a hot steam, 98F might actually feel cold relative to the temperature he came from. This relative continuum based reality is the existence we are under. It works for almost anything you can think of. Light and the degree of it is along a continuum. What is "bright" for one person may simply be due to their exposure level at any given time. That we have "bright" and "dark" is not actually what exists. Light exists along a relative continuum, in varying degrees. "Bright" doesn't even really exist but is a term used by us as a concept of "this amount of light is uncomfortable." But "bright" for a concept is not set in stone, it is a relativistic term also based upon the continuum. Take for example if you just came out of a dark movie theatre. What is bright to you is not bright to someone who has been outside all the while.

 

Morality follows such a relativistic continuum system as well. In order to have an absolute statement about a given act we would need to describe every single point of view and bring them down to a single viewpoint and then have that viewpoint be the soul viewpoint. Such is not possible in a world of biased viewpoints, enculturated viewpoints, and imperfect knowledge viewpoints. Moral systems which attempt to place binary values upon reality fail completely in their description of what exists.

 

For example: A mother is with child. She has cancer. She can take the cancer treatment and save her life (killing the child) or she can not take the cancer treatment and have the child (killing herself as the cancer will then be too far along). Under a binary moral system you have a shutdown. A gray area which should not (and thus can not) exist. Under such a moral system, they ignore such instances outright because it can not be classified. Under a moral relativistic continuum based moral system it is simply put that the mother's life comes before any fetus life and it is the mother's choice to determine which life she wants to continue. Under such a system the relative evil of each act, and the relative good of each act is taken into concideration before any act is judged...and the decision of the woman is held to be a relative correct action, no matter which she chooses due to it being her body.

 

There are various points inwhich a binary moral system fails. The above is just one example. The Ten Commandments were not written on a binary scale nor were they meant to be placed in such a moral world view. The law reads, "thou shalt not murder" under original translation. The "absolutist" idea of "not kill" was a mistranslation of the King Jame's version. Due to this example, the absolutist (binary moralist) has a problem even claiming that the Biblical record calls for a binary moral system....because it does not.

 

Morality is a relativistic continuum based system in order to work in our relative reality as presented to our minds by our language systems (which many times attempt to instill a binary thought system due to language's biases: hot/cold, up/down, left/right). What if I told you that "up" does not even exist? Don't believe me? Point "up." Now, think of a person on the exact opposite side of the Earth at this moment. Which way is up? Do you have the egotism within you to claim that only your "up" is the correct "up?" If not I have just demonstrated that concepts are built upon relative viewpoint...and you just moved beyond a binary system into a world view which will fit much more easily into reality as it is presented to us.

[Skankboy]

Morality is a relativistic continuum based system in order to work in our relative reality as presented to our minds by our language systems (which many times attempt to instill a binary thought system due to language's biases: hot/cold, up/down, left/right). What if I told you that "up" does not even exist? Don't believe me? Point "up." Now, think of a person on the exact opposite side of the Earth at this moment. Which way is up? Do you have the egotism within you to claim that only your "up" is the correct "up?" If not I have just demonstrated that concepts are built upon relative viewpoint...and you just moved beyond a binary system into a world view which will fit much more easily into reality as it is presented to us.

 

I was going to chime in here about how all of the activities mentioned before have been sanctioned, and therefore deemed "moral", by various societies throughout time, and how morals are defined by the time and the society in which you find yourself. But the above quote really says it all. You'd make a wonderful buddhist Vigile...

[KT45]

I thought it over and I do agree that there can't be any absolute morals. There is always an exception where the act that is immoral can be moral and the act that is moral can actually be immoral. Examples are trying to find the "better of two evils" or a military man following orders or being forced to do something against your will. Moral values also change based on the culture like many have said and also may change based on the situation like in chaotic situations or war.

 

So living by absolute morals will in time fail due to it's inability to evolve. But what about living by virtues like love, joy, peace, meekness, ....... etc (the fruits of the spirit some of ya'll learned in sunday school)? Can these be things to live by or will they too in time fail?

[Ouroboros]

The "fruits of the spirit" are probably good guidelines to live by, and try to reach for.