Relativism revisited

you can believe that there is a moral absolute, but that doesnt mean others share those same definitions of the absolutes with you.

Of course they do. Define courage. Do you believe that it is good to possess that characteristic? Or it is only good because a majority hold that belief?

the nazi''s slaughtered jews, but they thought it was OK.

The existence of absolute morals doesn''t mean that everyone follows them. That is the nature of free-will. And, as I said before, Auschwitz was born from moral relativism, not morals.

but then we kill animals every day. some peoples will argue that it is wrong to kill animals, even for food, and that we can survive and live healthy lives without meat. does that mean we shouldnt eat meat? im inclined to say hell no, and so are you guys, i''ll bet.
so that begs the question, who is right and who is wrong. we believe we are right, they believe they are right.

Morals, by definition, relate to human behavior, primarily in relation to other humans.

so who defines right and wrong? simple question and a simple answer:
The majority in power define what is right and wrong for the group.

How big a group? If four guys show up at your house and kill you and rape your wife, that is ''right''? They are the ''majority in power'' in your house. Hold a vote...and when it comes up 4-2, see if you don''t change your opinion.

Fang, you are failing to see that morals are a code of conduct about right and wrong. Killing a bomb-wielding terrorist is wrong but might very well be neccessary. They are not mutually exclusive.

I am not arguing that the existence of absolute morality means there is no sin. Only that there is a universal, objective, and unchangeable measuring stick that crosses all humanity telling us right from wrong.

If killing a home invader isn''t wrong, then why does that act haunt people who have to kill? It might be neccessary, but their conscience deplores the deed. Can you see the distinction?

the group being society.

Fang and Robear; I think I should have been more specific in my point that there are absolute moral truths.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Murder
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly

Fang, your situation about someone killing my mom because she has a bomb strapped to her and she''s about to kill a bunch of people doesn''t fall under the definition of murder. Was the person planning on killing my mom due to malicious intent, i.e. because they didn''t like her? Or did they kill my mom because when they walked out their front door, they thought ""hmmm, I think I''m going to kill someone today."" No, they were killing her to prevent her from murdering innocents. (However, if they did use one of the other motivations, like hatred or just the desire to kill someone, then yes, they murdered her and are guilty of that immoral act)

So again, murder = morally wrong. If it''s justified as an act of defense, it isn''t murder according to this definition (unless it''s illegal to defend yourself from a killer).

Steal
To take the property of another wrongfully and especially as an habitual or regular practice

Stealing is wrong. It''s not your property, thus it is not yours to take.

There are dramatic instances where theft is said to be right. For instance, in Les Miserables Valjean steals bread because he is starving and unable to feed himself otherwise. At the time, the French poor were destitute, and the nation was in an economic plight.

He weighed what was worse: theft, or starvation. Much like most of us would probably choose, he chose starvation as being worse. He knew it was still wrong, but like all of us, we make exceptions for ourselves under extenuating circumstances.

The debate then becomes: if the society was behaving wrongly (in this case, allowing uncounted numbers of the lower class to wallow in poverty without even having the opportunity to get food), does that justify certain crimes, like theft? That''s a sticky issue, and the fact we even debate it shows that we recognize the core action, theft, as morally wrong until we justify it to ourselves.

And my third question, I''m usually the currently applicable definition:

Rape
2 : unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

I cannot think of a circumstance that justifies rape. Period. Please, feel free to provide me with one.

Fang, you are failing to see that morals are a code of conduct about right and wrong. Killing a bomb-wielding terrorist is wrong but might very well be neccessary. They are not mutually exclusive.

However, the code and the action are different things. Essentially, you are arguing that people should be absolutist in belief (""killing is wrong""), but relativist in action (""I should kill the enemy when my unit is at war, but I should not kill my neighbor""). But in that case, how is the belief absolutist? The absolute ""killing is wrong"" becomes the relative ""killing is wrong except when..."". Absolutism becomes relativism in practice. Likewise, true relativism is impossible, for if two persons agree on an action, they''ve generated a common valuation of that action, and hence moved closer towards a universal understanding.

I believe we all balance a mostly absolutist belief in good and evil, but use that in a way that is relative to the situations we find ourselves in.

Robear

Killing a bomb-wielding terrorist is wrong but might very well be neccessary. They are not mutually exclusive.

I disagree. Murdering the bomber was morally right and necessary.

If killing a home invader isn''t wrong, then why does that act haunt people who have to kill? It might be neccessary, but their conscience deplores the deed. Can you see the distinction?

I think the people would be more traumatized by the whole event rather than feeling guilt over taking another life. If there was no other way I dont see anyone feeling remorse. But since the outcome is so traumatic, we have a need to second guess our actions and torment ourselves with a unanswerable question, ""there had to have been another way.""

I believe we all balance a mostly absolutist belief in good and evil, but use that in a way that is relative to the situations we find ourselves in.

I concur; the basis of our morality is pretty absolutist. This is more the ""big concepts"" or ""mission statements."" When you get down to the individual elements of morals, that''s when the relativism kicks in, as you have to take that mission statement and then apply it to a much more specific situation with all sorts of exceptions and extenuating circumstances cropping up.

If there was no other way I dont see anyone feeling remorse.

I do. That would be a terrible position to be in. I would be afraid of someone who could kill anyone, no matter what justification, and not feel a little guilty about it.

Murdering the bomber was morally right and necessary.

What if you could have stunned them instead of killing them? If not, then yes, killing was the best option you had to do the morally right thing.

But since the outcome is so traumatic, we have a need to second guess our actions and torment ourselves with a unanswerable question, ""there had to have been another way.""

Personally, I think the reason people second-guess themselves is because no good person likes to kill another person. They will do it out of necessity, but not because they want to take a life.

"Darsun" wrote:

the group being society.

So if whites decided to enslave blacks again in the US, that''s just fine? Whites being the majority and all.

"Robear" wrote:

Because in each case, we can imagine situations where the act would not be immoral in the situation.

Read my post above yours about situations.

If morality comes from man, then man can change it when he wants. That is the basis for moral relativism. If that is true, then all beliefs are equal. If I want to kill you and take your watch because I like it, then there is nothing ''wrong'' with that in a grander scheme because my belief is just as ''right'' as yours.

The ad hominem argument against moral relativism is the actual practice of the moral relativist. The relativist''s theory finds a self-contradiction in the relativist''s practice, i.e. the fact that relativists act like absolutists when you do them an injustice. They cry, ''No fair!'' just like everyone else. They don''t just say, ''I feel really bad about that''. They say there are no absolute principles to appeal to, but then appeal to them when they feel like they have been wronged.

I cannot think of a circumstance that justifies rape. Period. Please, feel free to provide me with one.

It''s rather ugly. It involves a gun and the certain threat of death for both parties unless the act is committed. Rape is presumably preferable to death, although some may disagree. Remember, we are doing thought experiments here, not Rorschach tests, okay?

I''d also like to point out that the use of dictionary definitions ignores the laws, traditions and beliefs of other societies that also have definitions of morality. Under some interpretations of Sharia, a woman cannot be said to have been raped if she was dressing or behaving out of the norm. Despite the fact that *we* would consider it rape, her countrymen would not. Which belief set, then, is the one by which the absolute definition is set? Even in the US until the 50''s or so, it was impossible for a husband to be charged with rape on his wife, or so I am given to understand. How can an absolute standard be so different, across a few years or between a few countries?

However, these acts also exist in the animal kingdom. Are animals, then, immoral? Are they moral? If morals are absolute, why do they not apply to animals?

The point I''m making is that if there are *any* exceptions to a particular absolute rule, it''s now relative to that situation. I can''t conceive of any particular act that could not be desirable under certain circumstances, despicable as they may be. Perhaps I''m more thinking of moral absolutism as a Platonic ideal, with all actions having a relative closeness to or distance from that ideal.

Robear

Farscry, as I said to JMJ I cannot argue definitions of murder, rape and that specific definition of stealing. They have morality built into the definition.

The definition of stealing I use is taking something that does not belong to you without permission of the owner. If there is a loop hole in it let me know.

My examples of moral stealing still apply with this definition in mind. I am quite aware of Les Miserables and the old adage of stealing bread because you are hungry and I purposefully decided not to use it. I find it a weak example as there are plenty of alternatives and such stealing is morally wrong in this instance. Theft vs. starvation is not an immediate decision. What would Valjean have thought if the day after he stole the bread, a kind bakery owner gave him a loaf of bread and a job? If he had just been patient he wouldnt have had to steal.

Which begs the point that impatience is not an excuse for immorality.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

If morality comes from man, then man can change it when he wants. That is the basis for moral relativism. If that is true, then all beliefs are equal. If I want to kill you and take your watch because I like it, then there is nothing ''wrong'' with that in a grander scheme because my belief is just as ''right'' as yours.

Not all moral relativism is normative. One can believe that there exists variation in morals across time and cultures, without subscribing to the belief that it''s wrong to pass judgement on the morals of others.

I am going to flip it around a bit. I''ll give a few arguments for absolutism, and let you refute mine.

The first argument is that of consensus, or ''common consent''. This is very simple: nearly everyone that has ever lived has been a moral absolutist. To be a relativist, you have to believe that nearly all of the human beings that have ever lived, especially the greatest sages and saints and prophets, have all based their lives on an illusion. You have to believe that ""we are the people, and wisdom was born with us"".

The second argument is one of data. Everyone has a conscience. They know intuitively what is good, what is right, and what ought to be. That is the private data. The second level of data is in interpersonal moral behavior - how we treat each other. We quarrel about these issues. Not fight but quarrel. If all we had were internal truths, then all conversations would quickly descend to fights. We praise each other for doing right, and blame each other for doing wrong. These are all human experiences, distinctly different from animal experiences.

The next level of data is in the nature of moral discourse. Moral experiences have words associated with them, and we all understand those meanings. Without commonality of morals, those words would be incomprehenible, like trying to explain ''blue'' to a blind man.

Finally, there is the basic law of logic - the law of noncontradiction. Relativism is self-contradictory. The alternative to an absolute morality is not some other kind of morality - because there is no other kind of morality - but no morality at all, just feelings, or conventions, or consensus, or social approval. The whole moral dimension is missing. So when you say ''absolute morality'' it is like saying ''three sided triangle''. If it isn''t three sided, it isn''t a triangle. Absolutism is inherent in the very essence of morality.

Show me I''m wrong.

It''s rather ugly. It involves a gun and the certain threat of death for both parties unless the act is committed. Rape is presumably preferable to death, although some may disagree. Remember, we are doing thought experiments here, not Rorschach tests, okay?

That is called the ''lesser of two evils'', and morality isn''t even remotely involved.

I''d also like to point out that the use of dictionary definitions ignores the laws, traditions and beliefs of other societies that also have definitions of morality.

Man''s laws have not always matched up with morality. Stating that fact doesn''t disprove my point.

However, these acts also exist in the animal kingdom. Are animals, then, immoral? Are they moral? If morals are absolute, why do they not apply to animals?

We would have to go into metaphysics to explain that, which is outside the boundries I set on this debate. The short answer has something to do with consciousness and the soul.

The definition of stealing I use is taking something that does not belong to you without permission of the owner. If there is a loop hole in it let me know.

As I said above, stealing is wrong. But situations can make the act of taking either stealing or not. There is no variation of the principle.

One can believe that there exists variation in morals across time and cultures, without subscribing to the belief that it''s wrong to pass judgement on the morals of others.

Then prove me wrong. Show me a new moral. I said right up front that different cultures have placed different weights on which morals were more important. But all morals have consistently appeared in all cultures as good. The nature of this discussion is whether morals are universal, and no one has refuted that point.

I have addressed cultural variations, situational and motive differences, and evolutionary arguments. So stretch a bit...prove the fallacy of my argument.

The first argument is that of consensus, or ''common consent''. This is very simple: nearly everyone that has ever lived has been a moral absolutist. To be a relativist, you have to believe that nearly all of the human beings that have ever lived, especially the greatest sages and saints and prophets, have all based their lives on an illusion. You have to believe that ""we are the people, and wisdom was born with us"".

I would not say that nearly everyone who ever lived has been an absolutist. I''d say they were a blend of both absolutist and relativist. Probably mostly absolutist in the abstract, and mostly relativist in practice. Of course here we speak of moral people, implicitly.

The belief that morals are relative is not one without it''s own constancy. A simple example is that of killing. Most cultures decry it - but most of them have some exceptions under which killing is moral. That''s relativism; it''s found even in hardcore Christianity, which you''d argue is absolutist.

The second argument is one of data. Everyone has a conscience. They know intuitively what is good, what is right, and what ought to be. That is the private data. The second level of data is in interpersonal moral behavior - how we treat each other. We quarrel about these issues. Not fight but quarrel. If all we had were internal truths, then all conversations would quickly descend to fights. We praise each other for doing right, and blame each other for doing wrong. These are all human experiences, distinctly different from animal experiences.

Some people have no conscience; others lose is when they suffer brain damage. Conscience appears to be an inhibitor on behavior. It could be the *enforcer* of moral beliefs, or immoral ones. It''s not the source.

Some animals have distinct societies. Chimpanzees, for example, show a kind of morality, in their reactions to killings designed to change an individual''s social standing. In some instances, it''s welcome; in others, the killer is driven out or killed himself.

The next level of data is in the nature of moral discourse. Moral experiences have words associated with them, and we all understand those meanings. Without commonality of morals, those words would be incomprehenible, like trying to explain ''blue'' to a blind man.

It''s well-known that language meaning is closely tied to social and cultural background. There are many words that are hard to translate from one language to another. It''s not at all clear that just using the same language means we all think the same way on each moral issue. Just as language is universal, but there is no universal language, morality is universal, but there is no universal morality. It''s all shades and variants on an ideal.

Finally, there is the basic law of logic - the law of noncontradiction. Relativism is self-contradictory. The alternative to an absolute morality is not some other kind of morality - because there is no other kind of morality - but no morality at all, just feelings, or conventions, or consensus, or social approval. The whole moral dimension is missing. So when you say ''absolute morality'' it is like saying ''three sided triangle''. If it isn''t three sided, it isn''t a triangle. Absolutism is inherent in the very essence of morality.

Again, if this is true, then there is no possible debate. I''m simply always wrong in my position, as is anyone who disagrees with you.

I instead argue that moral behavior occurs in the intersection between absolute ideals and situational circumstances; that no act is always inherently moral, and no act absolutely evil (although many come extremely close to one end or the other), and that the essential struggle of man''s life is to hold to the moral path he has chosen as well as he can. (Please consider my statement as that of abstract extremes; don''t start off on a list of absolutely evil or good acts, that''s not the point, since the act cannot be removed from it''s context.)

Moral values can certainly spring from the mind of man; they can even be embedded in the brain as a result of evolution. They don''t need to be handed down from on high to be consistent, able to be passed on, and beneficial to all.

Robear

That is called the ''lesser of two evils'', and morality isn''t even remotely involved.

Really? So, the act is only immoral in the circumstances, and some circumstances render it moral, or at least neutral? How is that not relativism?

We would have to go into metaphysics to explain that, which is outside the boundries I set on this debate. The short answer has something to do with consciousness and the soul.

And the soul?

Then prove me wrong. Show me a new moral. I said right up front that different cultures have placed different weights on which morals were more important. But all morals have consistently appeared in all cultures as good. The nature of this discussion is whether morals are universal, and no one has refuted that point.

But the discussion as you phrased it refers to absolute morals, which are completely unchanging in all situations, and relative ones, which are completely mutable. Did I miss something? Morals can be universal without being totally absolute, or completely relative; they merely have to be commonly held across societies and time, regardless of their ultimate source.

A new moral...Okay. Killing is wrong. Depriving a creature of it''s life is immoral, because a conscious animal has no right to harm another animal, knowing that it would itself not wish to be harmed. Likewise, killing a person invites not only the same harm to the killer, but is absolutely wrong because it deprives the community, the country, the human race, of the individual who was killed, who may have proven to be valuable in the future.

Two sound reasons, common to most belief systems, yet not based on ""God said don''t kill anyone"". These beliefs could have pre-dated religious belief; we don''t know. But the fact that they can be justified completely on either self-interest (if I kill, I may be killed) or benefit to society (if I kill, I harm my community) shows that alternate moral systems can exist, and can come from the mind of man.

I''m concerned that ""universal"" equates to ""God-given"" in your argument. I don''t believe that''s so. I believe I have no soul, and yet I live a moral life, because I have a strong belief that others are like me, and don''t wish to be hurt. I do believe that that is inherent to most people, although not all.

Robear

I''m going to pack it in for the night, so no rush on replies. PM me if you want to take this that way.

Robear

I must say that this is a fabulous debate topic.

"Robear" wrote:

I instead argue that moral behavior occurs in the intersection between absolute ideals and situational circumstances; that no act is always inherently moral, and no act absolutely evil (although many come extremely close to one end or the other), and that the essential struggle of man''s life is to hold to the moral path he has chosen as well as he can. (emphasis mine)

On this topic, Robear, I think you might find common ground with JMJ here if you truly mean what you have stated here regarding "absolute ideals". I would posit that these ideals are, in fact, what JMJ has termed "absolute morals". A semantics issue. And your situational circumstances are the application of those absolute morals. When these two concepts meet in reality is when action is taken in the circumstance. At that point is when the "absolute ideals" or absolute morality would either be properly adhered to or misapplied and not followed. The absolute still stands, an action is freely chosen (free will), but judgment of the person is based ultimately upon the action and it's adherence to the absolute.

Now, I may be getting a bit crazy, but here is an interesting train of thought. It seems there are two issues here: 1) the origins of an absolute morality and 2) the mere existence of an absolute morality. JMJ's boundaries for this debate seem to center mostly on the existence question as in leaving out the metaphysical aspects of the argument, you cannot possibly approach the issue of origin. Now, metaphysics covers much ground, including (but not limited to :))Deity, Karma, other planes of existence, naturalism, exclusionary scientific justifications :P, etc"… The origins debate is seems to be the juicier one, by far.

But, I would also make the point that it is difficult to even discuss the existence of absolute morality by removing the metaphysical question from the debate. Because here, it becomes a bit hazy depending on definitions and your view of reality. If you state that moral absolutes exist outside of the mind of man, having not been created by man, in what category of knowledge or truism do they exist? Do they exist as part of the character of a Deity? Are they merely part of the "natural order of the universe"? Or both, meaning that the Deity, who creates the universe, puts a bit of himself/herself into it; a bit of his own character or morals as a law of the universe as natural as gravity. (Man created in God's image)

Either way what JMJ is getting at is that morality is much like gravity. It is a natural law of the universe. It can be resisted and even overcome (with a cost), but that does not mean that it doesn't exist or that it lacks the ability to be known. Our sixth sense is not ESP, it is our conscience that helps us "feel" our own weight in the moral "gravity" of our universe.

The thing that strikes me about many of these examples of ""moral relativism"" is that they involve no morals. Morality implies a choice between at least two options. If you are given no option, you have no choice, and hence there is no morality in that instance, other than the moral choices of the person who set up the moral puzzle.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

To be a relativist, you have to believe that nearly all of the human beings that have ever lived, especially the greatest sages and saints and prophets, have all based their lives on an illusion. You have to believe that ""we are the people, and wisdom was born with us"".

But you *know*, that there is another solution to this riddle, although you dont believe in it and maybe subconscieusly avoided it - its called ""upbringing"". Culture around us shapes us. What we are told from early days, burns deep into our brain cells and shapes our reality.

I have a test for your arguments and it partially tests your next statement as well:

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:

Everyone has a conscience. They know intuitively what is good, what is right, and what ought to be.

What about cannibalism? I`m not talking about modern days Hannibals, but cannibalism in...lets say ""primitive tribes"" where it was part of the culture?
Did they feel gripes of conscience as well? I doubt it. If they didnt - were they absolutely evil from the very beggining? I very much doubt it.
Your arguments stand firm as long as we talk about western culture (and expansion of our culture is massive enough to easily assume it is worldwide), but it doesnt work right as soon as we step into the jungles or deserts.
I see it as an argument in favour of moral relativism.

On this topic, Robear, I think you might find common ground with JMJ here if you truly mean what you have stated here regarding "absolute ideals". I would posit that these ideals are, in fact, what JMJ has termed "absolute morals". A semantics issue. And your situational circumstances are the application of those absolute morals. When these two concepts meet in reality is when action is taken in the circumstance. At that point is when the "absolute ideals" or absolute morality would either be properly adhered to or misapplied and not followed. The absolute still stands, an action is freely chosen (free will), but judgment of the person is based ultimately upon the action and it's adherence to the absolute.

Well put. With the relativist position meaning that adherence to the absolute is completely dependent on circumstance and the person''s judgement, and the absolutist position being that that judgement never comes into play (man cannot create morals).

I indeed believe JMJ and I have common grounds, but differ from him on the source of morals.

Robear

The thing that strikes me about many of these examples of ""moral relativism"" is that they involve no morals. Morality implies a choice between at least two options. If you are given no option, you have no choice, and hence there is no morality in that instance, other than the moral choices of the person who set up the moral puzzle.

There is however a purpose to this. Consider: each action must carry a moral weight. If the morals come from a deity, then the moral weight cannot be changed by man. But if it comes from man, the question arises, why can not it be different every time?

Thus, if you can assert that there are situations where an immoral value is changed to neutral or even moral by circumstances, you are taking a relativist stand, to some degree - the person involved decides the moral value of the action. If there are no situations that can change the moral value of an action, then you are asserting a perfectly absolutist position - the deity will decide, it''s my job to hew to the moral law no matter what.

I hold that most people follow a mix of these beliefs related to their actions (whether or not they believe in a deity, I''m using that as an example). Thus the extremes of both positions are nearly untenable.

Robear

Either way what JMJ is getting at is that morality is much like gravity. It is a natural law of the universe. It can be resisted and even overcome (with a cost), but that does not mean that it doesn't exist or that it lacks the ability to be known. Our sixth sense is not ESP, it is our conscience that helps us "feel" our own weight in the moral "gravity" of our universe.

I believe actually that our standard moral code is an outgrowth of the evolution of society. That is, I believe we can find a biochemical explanation for every system of behavior that has evolved. I tend to reject dualist arguments, but that''s just me (my example using Platonic ideals was more of a picture of how people think, than an actual acceptance of Plato''s ideas that float around waiting to be grabbed).

I would hold that the origin of morals is to be found in the social and hence behavioral changes that first allowed our ancestors to cooperate and live together. As we evolved, so did our moral sense.

Robear

Thus, if you can assert that there are situations where an immoral value is changed to neutral or even moral by circumstances, you are taking a relativist stand, to some degree - the person involved decides the moral value of the action.

Give an example.

BC, as always, you wonderfully extract my point and communicate it clearly. As I have said all along, my point in this is that there are absolute morals. The adherence to those morals is imperfect because man is imperfect. That does not change the morals. Killing is wrong. A man might be put in a situation where he has to kill, but that never makes killing ''right''. And every society in history has held to that tenet.

The fact that the situation changes does not change the moral law. It changes the application of that law. The relativist position says that killing is only wrong for as long as I think it is wrong, and then I can make it ''right''.

If morals are truly just an outgrowth of society, explain the fact that every culture in history shares the same morals, even when they have never had contact with each other. How do Eskimos and Egyptians both recognize love, and honor, and courage as ''good'', and lying, and betrayal and hate as ''wrong''?

The absolutist position says that morals are a natural law, like mathematics. 2+2=4 everywhere in the world. Culture doesn''t make 2+2=7. No society in history has ever changed the natural law of morals, any more than they have changed the natural law of math.

What about cannibalism? I`m not talking about modern days Hannibals, but cannibalism in...lets say ""primitive tribes"" where it was part of the culture?

Your arguments stand firm as long as we talk about western culture (and expansion of our culture is massive enough to easily assume it is worldwide), but it doesnt work right as soon as we step into the jungles or deserts.

Anthropology shows enormous amounts of evidences that cannibalism is a myth with no clear basis in fact. Although starving individuals have been driven to eat human flesh from time to time, evidence shows that cannibalism may never have existed anywhere as a socially accepted practice.

Historically, charges of cannibalism were used by European nations to help justify their colonization efforts. During the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, when Europeans invaded the New World, they saw cannibalism as the quintessential expression of savagery and evil, and used this as a justification for employing violent means to subjugate native people. This theme dates back to Columbus'' accounts of a supposedly ferocious group of man-eaters who lived in the Caribbean islands and parts of South America called the Caniba, which gave us the word cannibal. In the 16th century, Pope Innocent IV declared cannibalism a sin deserving to be punished by Christians through force of arms and Queen Isabella of Spain decreed that Spanish colonists could only legally enslave natives who were cannibals, giving the colonists an economic interest in making such allegations.

Primitive tribes, such as the Wari tribe, ate human flesh as a funerary rite, to honor the dead. They believed that by consuming the heart of a loved one, that loved one would live on within them forever. This also doesn''t disprove the existence of a natural moral law. They didn''t breed babies just to kill them and serve them as appetizers.

Different mores, same morals.

"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:
Every society has the concepts right and wrong, but this is hardly proof for moral absolutism. It shows us two things: a) mankind is a social species, and b) in order for a society to function it needs rules.

But if these ''rights and wrongs'' aren''t universal, how do you explain that all societies throughout history share the exact same sets of moral beliefs? As I said before, different cultures have placed different levels of precedence on those same values - but all cultures share a common morality.

Practicality and human nature. Certain behaviours and characteristics are more or less hardvired into us. Running a group where indiscriminate killings are killings are tolerated would be impossible, it''d descend into anarchy before you''d be able to bat an eye. And I do believe a certain degree of empathy is built into us, leading us to value things like compassion and such.

Slavery: in ancient Rome slaves weren''t necessarily from a conquered people, a man fallen on hard times could sell his children, or even his wife, into slavery. And slaves could purchase their freedom, or be set free as a reward for loyal sevice. The christian church, preacher of brotherhood an equality in the eyes of God, even aquired a fair bit of slaves itself, later on. Slavery disappeared as a practice in europe when it ceased to make economic sense. The mores shifted because the social and economic dynamic had changed, not because people started seeing each other as equals all of a sudden. To me, this indicates that morals are something constantly shifting, changing with the circumstances people find themselves in rather than some blueprint being discovered.

And yes, I do believe morals come from man, and the relative merits would naturally depend on which criteria you judge them by. Some systems might be better at eforcing behaviour that is conductive to a stable society, for instance. Of course, nothing says that that *is* the criteria by which to judge moral systems. And, yes, someone killing my mother for fun is technically of equal value, if he for instance follows a code that puts instant gratification as the highest possible value. Of course, then he''d have to acknowledge my bashing his head in with a rusty pipe to be a completly moral act. And honestly, which man''s idea of what''s moral is better comes down to who''s able to enforce his system, either by getting other to accept it on its own merits, or by gunpoint.

In the end, I think moral relativism is impractical but true, and moral absolutism is practical but false, and a mix of both is needed to get things running smoothly.

"Farscry" wrote:

My faith leads me to believe that moral truth originates from God; thus providing certain absolute moral truths that haven''t changed over the course of history.

I have one huge problem with this outlook. If God is the source of right and wrong, what happens if God changes? What if one day proclaims that all women are dirty womb-sluts there only for men''s pleasure and the continuation of the species, and raping them is Good and Just? Or that men should be locked in little torture-boxes except when pleasuring women? Or that all blondes are an affront to his presence and must die? Or...well, I think you get the point.

Also: Kant''s categorical imperative is rubbish. He took a perfectly servicable maxim for human interaction, and made it hopelessly general in an attempt to justify what he was taught at sunday school. Bah.

If God is the source of right and wrong, what happens if God changes? What if one day proclaims that all women are dirty womb-sluts there only for men''s pleasure and the continuation of the species, and raping them is Good and Just? Or that men should be locked in little torture-boxes except when pleasuring women? Or that all blondes are an affront to his presence and must die?

I would have to say to this, that depending on how the proclamation reaches you, you might want to listen.

Give an example.

Killing is morally wrong. As you note, morals in the abstract are ideals. We agree on that (and I might point out on nearly everything else, as BC correctly noted).

The fact that the situation changes does not change the moral law. It changes the application of that law. The relativist position says that killing is only wrong for as long as I think it is wrong, and then I can make it ''right''.

I hold that it''s the application of the morals, not the knowledge of the ideal, that decides whether one hews to an absolutist or relativist view. Take killing. If it''s it''s wrong, then as the Quakers believe, army service is immoral. That''s an absolutist position; Quakers strictly speaking would rather die than kill. However, most people interpret this absolute stricture in a way relative to the situation. Killing in war, or for judicial punishment, is actually viewed as a moral act. This has been argued by Church authorities and others over many centuries; the dogma of the Christian ""Just War"" (I think that''s it''s name) actually brings forth this notion in some detail.

Where you might say application is secondary, I believe it''s primary. Your actions are your primary moral indicator that the world can read. If you judge the same *act* differently in different situations, then you are acting *relative* to that situation, no matter what your ideal may be. If you tend to judge an act the same way regardless of circumstances, you have taken an absolutist stand on the morals of that act. Each act has a moral weight according to the situation, and not just the act itself.

For me, the act is more important than the belief, because an act affects the real world. A belief is an internal push to a certain behavior that can be modified or resisted; an act cannot be undone.

Morality should be judged based on a person''s acts in context to the situation, rather than by deviance from a perfect standard regardless of the situation. For me, that is relativism versus absolutism.

The absolutist position says that morals are a natural law, like mathematics.

But mathematics is an entirely human construct. It''s rules are in some ways descriptive of nature, but not prescribed by nature. And it cannot completely describe the world; for that, other tools beyond classical mathematics have been invented, and we are still not there yet.

What exactly is a ""natural law""? Is it the effect of a part of the brain? Is it a basic rule of the functioning of any society? Is it the innate understanding of the Will of God inherent in every soul? The idea of a ""natural law"" actually strikes me as pretty 19th century, part of the doctrine of religious humanism, I think? The idea that God''s will is expressed through the relations of natural things to each other, and the study of that can yield insight into His Design. That''s the forgotten parent of what we now call Secular Humanism, and stood in opposition to Fundamentalism as one of the two major Christian religious movements of the 19th century.

So what exactly is a natural law? How are they discovered and measured?

---end current argument---

---begin bonus argument---

A man might be put in a situation where he has to kill, but that never makes killing ''right''. And every society in history has held to that tenet.

As a side topic, this would be very interesting to debate. I doubt that many societies held to that tenet in a way that modern man would recognize. The Mongols, for example, had a very different attitude towards killing. So did the Vikings. The Maya believed that only the letting of blood in deliberately painful circumstances, as well as suicide by hanging, would hold back the onslaught of the dark forces from Xibalba, the underground hell to which every person was doomed eventually. I put it to you that their understanding of even the value of life would be nearly unrecognizable to us.

Someone earlier mentioned that societies that don''t share our view of morality end up ""on the dustbin of history"". Since most societies that have preceded us are there, I''m not convinced. Morality has changed widely over the 3000 years we have records for, and that''s an interesting topic all on it''s own.

Feel free to ignore this side issue in the interests of brevity/sanity/time.

Robear (edited for typo)

I gotta say, quite an interesting topic. Kudos to JMJ!

Robear

For those of you that think morals come from man/society, please explain the fact that societies create many rules for their own governance that carry no moral weight at all. For example, speed limit laws are laws for the protection of society, for preservation of the environment, conservation of fuel, and public safety. Driving too fast endangers those around you. And yet, no one ascribes any moral weight to how fast you drive.

If all morals come from within man, how do you explain societal values that don''t carry moral weight?

Also, no one has addressed the universal nature of morals, only discussed the different weighting applied to them. Remember, my argument is not that different cultures don''t apply the rules differently, only that there is a universal set of rights and wrongs that encompass all of humanity - like gravity, as BC put it.

But mathematics is an entirely human construct. It''s rules are in some ways descriptive of nature, but not prescribed by nature

Mathematics is a method for describing physical reality. It is completely objective, universal and unchanging. Just because someone doesn''t understand the math, doesn''t mean it doesn''t apply: if I give 2 apples to a 2-year old, and then I give 2 more apples to that same child...the child has four apples. His ignorance of the arithmatic doesn''t change the underlying truth.

I owe responses on sex and slavery. More later.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:
"JohnnyMoJo" wrote:
Every society has the concepts right and wrong, but this is hardly proof for moral absolutism. It shows us two things: a) mankind is a social species, and b) in order for a society to function it needs rules.

But if these ''rights and wrongs'' aren''t universal, how do you explain that all societies throughout history share the exact same sets of moral beliefs? As I said before, different cultures have placed different levels of precedence on those same values - but all cultures share a common morality.

Practicality and human nature. Certain behaviours and characteristics are more or less hardvired into us. Running a group where indiscriminate killings are killings are tolerated would be impossible, it''d descend into anarchy before you''d be able to bat an eye. And I do believe a certain degree of empathy is built into us, leading us to value things like compassion and such.

If certain behaviors and characteristics are hardwired, this almost implies an absolute. The question that you are wrestling with is whether or not these morals are immutable (unchanging). If they ""evolved"" in the traditional sense of the word, that would imply that they developed or changed over time. Here is the difference in origin. You can agree that at this instant there is a shared set of basic morality that applies across the board. But is it absolute and immutable? Can it change, be affected? If it can, it is not truly absolute. The term absolute implies immutability. You cannot hold that there exists absolute truth or absolute morality if you, at the same time, say that it can change over time.

If it follows that morals are not absolute because they do change over time or have developed through an evolutionary process, you fall into a relativistic cycle that degrades to nothing just like the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If absolutes do not exist outside of the mind of man, then there is nothing that we can truly know. There can be no grey. There are no half-absolutes. Either they change or they do not. If morals change across time as they develop, they are bound to the whim of man and cannot be relied upon as a guidepost or measuring line, and are thus useless.

You cannot measure your neighbors hand with your own because he will measure yours with his. And then, when you both grow up, your hands will have grown or changed, then your frame of reference has changed and can no longer be compared to the first measurement.

This is insanity. The process of doing things the same way you''ve always done them... while at the same time, expecting different results.

"Alien Love Gardener" wrote:
"Farscry" wrote:

My faith leads me to believe that moral truth originates from God; thus providing certain absolute moral truths that haven''t changed over the course of history.

I have one huge problem with this outlook. If God is the source of right and wrong, what happens if God changes?

Now, I know I''m breaking the rules a bit here by slipping into metaphysics... but I just can''t resist

This would be a problem if God changed as time passed. Time, as we perceive it is a very strange thing. It exists, it is observable, it is actually a dimension that changes, stretches, and is inconstant itself. Now, God with a capital ""G"" implies Creator and original causation. By definition, God must exist outside of time as we perceive it because he created time itself, he IS the beginning from which every chain of effect has been caused.

If God exists outside of time, he is not affected by it, nor does he ""change"" along with it. If God were to ever change in the sense that we understand it, we would not notice because all of time and the laws of the universe would change right along with him instantly. The entire timeline would instantly shift. Perhaps there are higher dimensions of reality like time that God exists and changes through, but there is no frame of reference for us. It is as dissimilar to time as 2D is to 3D (or very much more removed). It is pointless for us to conjecture because we are not equipped to perceive it.

So, right and wrong, that we can know and perceive, does not change from our frame of reference. It remains constant throughout the timeline from beginning to end.