DOse the non-absolute nature of Morality even matter?

[Xen]

It occured to me that so many people challenge morality, trying either go into an estoic line of thought, or defend thie rown actions which might be considered "bad" by giving the argument that Morality, good and evil and all that is non absolute, and int he eye of the beholder as it were.

my main though is that the argument dosent matter; a fixed concept of morality (that is to say, do not harm others, unless they harm you; the basis for the golden rule, and a spring board for most other concepts of morality) is universal; not even "nearlly" so, but it IS, as least as far as humanity is concerned, and lets get this straight, that is what, and only what concers the argument. animals, aliens, nature and god can all have a good wank at the moment.

so my thouht is so; that morality, a base concept of it cenerteing on mutual treatment, even if not "absolute" is so universal amoungst man, as to make its technical status mute, and that for all intents an dpurposes, thier DOSE exist for man a central, and fundemantal moral principle that has been spread by culture to be a part of all societies on earth, and in so doing, is the "absolute" bar of morality for man.

 

[Xen]

with all the excuses for trying to justfy Genocidal actions, this is a thread that needs to be seen.

 

[Ayatollah So]

so my thouht is so; that morality, a base concept of it cenerteing on mutual treatment, even if not "absolute" is so universal amoungst man, as to make its technical status mute, and that for all intents an dpurposes, thier DOSE exist for man a central, and fundemantal moral principle that has been spread by culture to be a part of all societies on earth, and in so doing, is the "absolute" bar of morality for man.

Hey, as far as I'm concerned, you're preaching to the converted Let me give you some warmed-over Habermas to explain where I'm coming from.

To engage in moral debate is already to commit to mutual treatment. Reasoning together is morally loaded, because it presupposes that listeners are free to make up their minds, and are entitled to make their own points in reply. The only way to evade a commitment to mutual treatment is to stop conversing with the people you want to harm - and, in turn, everyone who is involved with them. But in today's world, as you point out, the moral conversation is global in nature. We're all talking to each other, trying to reason together.

Of course, genocidal dictators know this well enough to lie about what they're doing, rather than arguing that it's "OK by local standards."

 

[Perfection]

It sure does matter, try applying basic human rights ideas to the abortion debate, you'll get contradictory answer.

 

[cgannon64]

Of course it matters.

If morality is not absolute, then morality is just an extension of power.

 

[Perfection]

Of course it matters.

If morality is not absolute, then morality is just an extension of power.

Why do you say that?

 

[Irish Caesar]

Well, the ruling party would attempt to define morality. Of course, if morality is absolute, it's a limit of the power of the Man.

 

[Perfection]

Well, the ruling party would attempt to define morality.

Yeah, but it doesn't make thier view of morality any better.

Of course, if morality is absolute, it's a limit of the power of the Man.

So isn't it then just an extension of god's power?

 

[Irish Caesar]

I would say that if God is all powerful, whether something is an extension of God's power or not doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Of course, if you don't believe in God, there's still some absolute morality, like killing is wrong and stuff like that.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

We promote the moral code or codes that we view as most beneficial to ourselves. This is rooted not in objectivity, but in our own selfish desires.

It just so happens that most of us do not enjoy being murdered, and hence the commonality among moral codes that they tend to ban murder, genocide, etc. Of course, apart from basic levels like that (and even those aren't universal -- people with a high ability to defend themselves will often promote a moral code where such things aren't necessarily "bad") moral codes differ.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

Of course, if you don't believe in God, there's still some absolute morality, like killing is wrong and stuff like that.

Except that belief in objective right-and-wrong rests, like belief in god, entirely on faith. There simply is no big objective codex of right and wrong that states, in black-and-white, "murder is bad". There simply isn't. If you want to believe that, you are taking the exact same leap of faith as you are when you believe in a god.

Religion and morality aren't required for each other per se -- but they're very much equivalent in that sense.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I believe that there is Truth out there (in there?) (smewhere?) but so what? Humans would not follow it if they knew it. Those who claim to know it do not even follow what they claim is truth. There is no "global reality" for for us to dwell upon and contemplate. All we have is our interactions with others whether they be near or far. That is the only level at which behavior is important. If you (we) (me) cannot make it work at the personal level of how we behave every day, then give it up, the big picture is meaningless.

 

[cgannon64]

So isn't it then just an extension of god's power?

God's power is not his ability to beat us all up, it is his absolute goodness. God is absolute morality; it is not that he defines it, absolute morality is whatever brings you closer to Him.

 

[Birdjaguar]

God's power is not his ability to beat us all up, it is his absolute goodness. God is absolute morality; it is not that he defines it, absolute morality is whatever brings you closer to Him.

God's power is his goodness
God is absolute morality
Absolute morality is whatever brings you closer to God

I'm not sure what you mean by "absolute morality" but ...

OK. If I commit a heinous crime and because of whatever happens afterwards, I sincerely "find" god, is my crime morally justified?

 

[Irish Caesar]

If the crime is heinous, it can't be good, and if God is goodness, then your heinous crime can't bring you closer to him and is therefore immoral.

Your penitence is moral, but not the crime itself.

 

[cgannon64]

That's a tough question. I've often found one beautiful idea about God is that he can make all past sins into good.

That wouldn't, however, mean that you can commit a sin thinking that it will bring you closer to god. Clearly, if you sin with that in mind, you are planning to repent for those actions beforehand, which would make your repentence false.

So, yes, I suppose God could make murder not a sin - but you can't commit a murder with that in mind and expect to get that treatment.

 

[Pyrite]

"OK. If I commit a heinous crime and because of whatever happens afterwards, I sincerely "find" god, is my crime morally justified?"

No, your crime is forgiven. In the Judeo-Christian morality, if you sin, it is always wrong, but always forgivable if you find God afterwards. The crime leading you onto the path of morality isn't figured into the equation, it's sitll a sin.

I think that morality is, as cgcannon seems to be against, a complex, ingrained, reflex to the machinations of all of our different powers warring against each other. The common ground lies in the fact that we'd each like to go unopposed, and could possibly be injured if we were opposed.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If the crime is heinous, it can't be good, and if God is goodness, then your heinous crime can't bring you closer to him and is therefore immoral.

Your penitence is moral, but not the crime itself.

Can't god work through the evil deeds people do to bring them closer to him? Or is god only there for the already moral? What if the act wasn't a crime, but a terrible tragedy. How are they different? If it takes prison and the suffering of realization of what I've done to direct me to god, and it takes you having to undergo a tsunami that kills 175,000 people to find god, why does my crime not have any moral standing? Is the Tsunami morally neutral if god made the world?

Wasn't the crucifixion all about evil acts being the source of christian salvation?

 

[Pyrite]

"Can't god work through the evil deeds people do "

Well since God is absolute good, and evil is the absence of god, how could he work through it?

 

[Irish Caesar]

^

All the same, Jesus said at the Last Supper that it would be better for his betrayer that he(Judas) never have been born.