Are there "moral absolutes" ... or is morality relative?

[kweerwolf]

I had an argument recently in another online forum with a fundie-type who accused me of being a "moral relativist." My reaction to what she thought was a slam was basically, "yeah ... so?"

Everything she claimed was a moral absolute, I could find shades of gray in.

She said killing was absolutely wrong. I countered with killing someone for self-preservation or to protect one's loved ones.

She mentioned stealing. I countered with stealing so that one's family could eat.

She mentioned lying ... I told her I don't think anyone makes it through the day without lying to save another's feelings, etc.

You get the idea. ... But then I was thinking and it occurred to me that liberals and conversatives have an entirely different perspective on moral absolutes. The things we view as intrinsinctly wrong are things like genocide and "ethnic cleansing," discrimination, environmental decimation, and the like.

So here's my question: Are there such things as "moral absolutes" and, if so, what are your "absolutes"?

[mmonk]

1. Hard to say

but murder could pretty much considered immoral.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. only if you mean

'forbidden killing' when you use the word 'murder'. And that begs the question as then all you are saying is that it is universal that forbidden killings are forbidden.

Killing of humans is obviously not a moral absolute as it is accepted practice around the world.

[hippiepunk]

2. Any time you get into morals there will always be disagreement.

So some principles will always be absolute to some.

[MominTN]

7. Moral absolutes when it's easy

Most people have moral absolutes on things they think they can keep or situations they don't think they will have to deal with.
Sometimes, when something happens to them personally, the rules change. This is why we have judges. To interpret the laws for the common good. It can't be every man for himself.

[Malva Zebrina]

3. They think that the ten commandments are absolute

and would defend them up and down, insist they be put in classrooms or on the lawns of courthouses etc. However, we all know there is little that is absolute about the ten commandments.

[BrklynLiberal]

15. George Carlin does wonderful bit about the Ten Commandments.

He reduces them down to 2.
http://www.dvrbs.com/GeorgeCarlin-TheTenCommandments.htm

[leftofthedial]

4. don't covet your neighbor's ass

or your neighbor's wife's ass

oh. and never vote for a fucking republican

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I think you were right...and that may be the basic difference between "us"

and "them". They believe they are always right, and see everything in terms of black and white. "You are either with us or against us."

I believe what distinguishes us is that we tend to examine many facets of a story or concept.
That is why "Democrats" is such a big tent. It covers every shade of grey inclusive between black and white.
It is why the ACLU can defend Rush Limbaugh AND the Chicago 7.
I think that we very rarely can state moral absolutes, but tend to see mostly in relativistic terms.
That is what they hate about us, and what we cannot comprehend about them.

EDIT: Ask her about the absolute morals of Sun Hudson vs Terri Schiavo

[BlueEyedSon]

6. Throw "situational ethics" back at them re:

Delay
Iraq
SS
etc

Repubs do lie a lot

[BrklynLiberal]

8. Correct and Jesse Helms' black daughter, and Limbaugh's drug use

and 6 marriages, and all the marriages/infidelites of Gingrinch, Hyde, Barr,etc. Bill Bennett's gambling.
If she wants more hypocrisy, I can give you 2 pages of crap like this.

[LostInAnomie]

9. Morals are definitely subjective.

There has never been a universal taboo. You can name about anything that we consider immoral and if you look back in history you can find a culture that not only accepted it but in many cases considered it to be the norm. This includes rape, incest, infanticide, cannibalism, etc.

[Runcible Spoon]

10. there are no moral absolutes

morals by definition are personally held beliefs, perhaps fostered by a community like a church, but morality shouldn't be held up to the universality test. What you are debating is normative ethics, meaning what is the justifiable basis for moral judgments and can these morals be held as universals? Whether or not there are universal human rights such as food, shelter, rudimentary health care and education, etc. is an example of an ethical debate, whereas many of us morally support these rights.

[Wapsie B]

11. The most glaring instance of moral relativism on the right

is Iraq. People who call themselves pro-life are drooling over the thought of killing some brown people over there.
Moral absolutes? Ask her if she obeys the book of Leviticus.

[realisticphish]

12. well...

I've thought about this alot. I really don't think moral relativism is the way to go (and I've been flamed for suggesting that MR is anything but the absolute pinnacle of morality), but i dont like some arbitrary absolute values, either. Generally, i lean utilitarian, in that what is good for the greatest number of people is what is moral, but there are problems with that too. it's a weird situation, since any philosophy can be picked apart if you give enough cases (i submit rape as something which is absolutely wrong, for the vast majority of people).

i dunno. :shrug:

edit: speeling

[Finder]

16. As a MR, I see no other logical way to live...

I would love to discuss more on how you came to your conclusion. Are you sure you understand what MR is? I think sometimes definitions can sometimes confuse things. What is your definition of Moral Relativism?

[realisticphish]

18. well, i'm not so concerned with the absolute definition

that's what happened before, and people basically dismissed my concerns because "i didn't get it" :eyes:

My concern isn't what rational people believe MR to be. it's what IRRATIONAL people believe it to be. I think there is a danger in saying that morality is totally relative to the individual (which is of course an incomplete definition, but it's what people think when they see MR). I.e., someone could say it is "moral" to torture people to death. And, IMHO, since we live in a society that allows people to have their own beliefs (for the time being), it would not be democratic to interfere (though i suppose that the issue of the other person's individual rights complicates things). well, anyway, i just think that MR could be misused by those who wish to do what we would consider as evil.

if it was a perfect world, i would be MR in an instant. i am just scared of the whackjobs that might get free passes :shrug:

[Finder]

20. We are allowed to hold our beliefs WITHIN THE LAW

not outside it. It is when moral absolutes are imposed through law that we the people need to speak up(to represtatives) and revolt if necessary. For that reason, debate and honest discussion need to be open and available through the media and among society. Legistlature passed in the middle of the night or without debate is downright scary and not democratic at all.

Even absolutes are relative to those that hold them.lol

I do agree even torture is relative. Most would say it is absolutely wrong, but if your child was in danger and you needed info in order to save him/her, we all would do whatever was necessary to save them. If we needed to inflict pain to gain info, we would.

Protecting the innocent is an absolute, but is relative to the person determining who is innocent.

[realisticphish]

21. good point

but from whence are the laws drawn? many would say that laws are a form of common morality. i.e., stealing is against the law. If laws were based on MR, i would argue that saying stealing is against the law would violate MR

of course if a law is based on utilitarian theories, than the above holds no water.

and good point about absolutes being relative to those who hold them :D i find it interesting that absolute morality happens to coincide directly with what those people already believe

[LdyGuique]

14. Morality does tend to be relativist --

While there are some who both talk the talk and walk the walk on most everyday issues, it does get grittier when dealing with more unusual circumstances.

I can think of one moral absolute: pedophilia is wrong under all circumstances. But, I would define this as a pre-pubescent child with a pubescent or later child/adult. Once a child has entered into adolescence physically, there are too many cultures that activate marriages, etc. for that to remain an absolute.

As for lying, one can avoid lying most of the time by being willing to enter the realm of silence. Not every thought needs to be expressed. And, there are tactful ways of saying many truths. Lying does not need to be a lifeskill.

I cannot think of very many people, other than the Amish, Jains, and some Buddhists, who could not be pushed to killing another human being. Therefore, for the most part, killing another human being is a moral relative position.

Where Pro-lifers vs Pro-choicers run into the most difficulty is over determining when life begins. Since many pro-lifers are against contraception, morning-after medication, and abortion -- they leave no out with regards to the entire issue of human life; yet, most do support the death penalty and/or war. I sincerely doubt that most fundies would hesitate to utilize a weapon of choice if under personal attack to defend hearth and home.

[pretzel4gore]

17. that's why the ancients studied rhetoric

'i swear to you i'm telling a lie...do you believe me?'
knowlege is power, power corrupts

[johnaries]

19. I like Nietzsche's definition:

Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.

Another way to phrase the question is "Do the Ends justify the Means?"

If she replies no, then you can quote "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions". You can also point out the way so many Moralists tend to act as if they do. You can also ask her if "little white lies" are acceptable (telling a friend you like their hideous new hairdo or ugly new outfit, for example).

If she says yes, or sometimes, then she is a Moral Relativist.

Personally, I think everyone is a Moral Relativist, whether they want to admit it or not.

[porphyrian]

22. Not absolutes, but moral consenses.

Everyone has their own temporal morality. While a majority of people can agree generally about some moral codes for a period of time, such as the idea that killing other people is wrong, it is by no means an absolute. Claiming that any moral code is always absolutely true is just a good way to get into an argument.

[Catholic Sensation]

23. There's no moral relativity when it comes to rape, pedophelia,

or any kind of sexual assault.

[TahitiNut]

24. The phrase "when it comes to" is inherently relativistic.

Indeed, the very notion of sexual assault is relativistic, most obviously varying according to gender and, in differing cultures, according to age and manner of "assault."

All claims of moral absolutism rest on xenophobic foundations, imho.

[PowerToThePeople]

25. Most morality is relative

Rape, Pedophilia (and other forms of child abuse), Murder(not self defense) are three absolutes imo. Most everything else I view, "as no harm be done to anyone else, live as ye will." But the same time you can track most every activity we in the USA partake in which may have (most likely has) harmed someone along the path to us. Do we carry the sins of our ancestors? We certainly are living off the fruits of them.