Moral absolutism v.s. Moral relativism [Archive]

View Full Version : Moral absolutism v.s. Moral relativism

Pendergast

11-01-2005, 12:07 PM

[From Wikipedia.org]Moral absolutism is the position that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act. "Absolutism" is often philosophically contrasted with moral relativism, (i.e. situational ethics) which holds that the morality of acts depends on the context of the act.

According to moral absolutists, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutists regard actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery, war, dictatorship, the death penalty, or childhood abuse to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

[From Wikipedia.org]In philosophy, moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect absolute or universal truths but instead are relative to social, cultural, historical or personal references, and that there is no single standard by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or the context of individual preferences. An extreme relativist position might suggest that it is meaningless for the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group to be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.

So are you with the opinion that a set of absolute or objective morals exists, that transcend the boundaries of region, race, religion and culture, or that all morals are relative, in that they are subject from region to region, and that no moral code is better than any other?

ZyFeR___mlg_

11-01-2005, 12:37 PM

I am a more of a moral relativist. We can all see, that depending on the region, and culture, moral and values are different. In many civilized cultures, these values they hold and the morals they follow and believe are right, work well in the society they live in. However, that only works in those regions where there is a standard, and everyone is part of the same culture. Its difficult in a country such as ours where there is a diversity of cultures, and not ever person holds the same values. To some, abusing a child for discipline might be justified, while to others it may be an extremely horrendous Act. So in conclusion, i believe that it all matters depending on the region, culture, race. etc. Moral Relativism. (If that made any sense)

-ZyFeR

5ky

11-01-2005, 12:57 PM

absolutism. to me, relativism just seems like a weakness of character, as you allow yourself to make decisions based on the world around you, instead of on intrinsic beliefs.

Pendergast

11-01-2005, 01:20 PM

absolutism. to me, relativism just seems like a weakness of character, as you allow yourself to make decisions based on the world around you, instead of on intrinsic beliefs.

What you don't understand is the concept known as the 'Looking-Glass Self.' Basically, it means that your core inner self is for the most part a reflection of the world around you. You are influenced by a variety of forces that stem from society. These forces act upon your malleable inner self; chipping parts of you away, attaching parts to you in a constant stream. In essence, it means that society has a profound impact on who you are as a person. To attest that little or none of the decisions you make in your life are not as a result of social forces is quite ignorant, in fact. For instance, the fact you are on this forum probably indicates that you have an interest in video games. Why do you have an interest in video games? You may think that it has nothing to do with society, and that they are fun, addicting, etc. but these are all false notions, hiding the truth that it is in fact society that largely coerces you in decision making.

Mental_Block

11-01-2005, 02:35 PM

you got the names close but both are a bit off.

its cultural relativism and moral realism

moral realism (MR) holds that morals (read good and evil) are physical tangible things. to some extent. and that they physically exist somewhere somehow. this is usually not thought to be possible with out god. and this is the position held by christians.

cultural relativism (CR) imo is a way better theory. it basically states that moral values are determined by groups (small societies or whole cultures and everything in between) and that they change over time. it also holds that they do not exist at all. and are mind dependant.

mind-d, or mind dependant describes anything that is perceived by the mind but that does not have a physical, emperical, tangible etc. existence. basically if it is mind-d it is a figment of your imagination. like emotions, or ideas. and if i had the desire i could show how things like time, location, color, and ton of other things are actually mind-d.

mind-i, or mind indepenent however describes the total opposite. things that actually exist. depending on what theory we are talking about some things that might be called mind-i could include quantum particles, or even physical objects.

the point is CR calls morals mind-d

personally i believe that CR is correct. the idea that any action inherently posses a physical value or charge or whatever of either good or evil in varying degrees is absurd.

take any action you can think of and break it down into all its parts. take shooting a gun for example.

there were alot of things that led up to the gun being fired.

first off the materials for the gun had to be found and harvested.
then the gun had to be designed.
then it had to be made and put together.
and then it was shipped off.
then it was displayed and eventually sold. (in way or another)

where in those actions is any amount of good or evil?? nowhere

so lets move on. to the point where our gunman has the wepon.

so he decides to carry the gun today having no specific intent to use it (for whatever reason)
eventually he does decide to use it and he shoots a pregnant lady

but he doesnt just shoot her. this to is a series of several actions.

he loads the gun
then tucks it away
he pulls out the gun. (for whatever reason but here well assume its a mugging)
then he cocks it (maybe he turns off the safety)
then he aims
then pulls the triggger

which of those actions has a good or evil value? none of them do. or atleast each of them has the same amount of good (g) or evil (e) in any circumstances where that action is taken.

for example a soldier might go through all of those steps when engaging in firing practice. no one would argue that that act is g or e in and of itself.

all of what happens next is a result of his actions and not a part of the actions themselves. so clearly no g or e value can exist in any of the actions themselves.

so the bullet leaves the gun and hits the woman in the stomach ruptures her spleen and she bleeds out. thus her and the unborn baby are killed.

now everyone would say that the mugger is an evil man, and that this was an evil action.

now if we were to examine all of the mans circumstances and motives we would discover that he was not an evil man. atleast not completely.

and we have already shown that the actions themselves are not evil.

not to mention the idea that this action itself can be viewed as both good and evil from various perspectives. which begs the question which perspective is correct?

the answer and the logical conclusion is that neither perspective is actually correct. rather both are just a perspective. just a figment of the imagination. just one more experience of some thing that is mind-d.

SnaKKer

11-01-2005, 02:36 PM

I think there are basic, general morals that apply to everyone... relativism leads to conflict, when one person tries to enforce his morals on someone else.

Costa___mlg_

11-01-2005, 05:04 PM

absolutism. to me, relativism just seems like a weakness of character, as you allow yourself to make decisions based on the world around you, instead of on intrinsic beliefs.

Exactly. Things like slavery, war, and abuse shouldn't be accepted in any culture.

MalaysianMafia

11-01-2005, 05:04 PM

sometimes war is nessesary...

Gambolpuddy

11-01-2005, 05:20 PM

relativism.

morals are directly related to humanity, and the human race is represented differently in different regions. yeah i'm definately leaving the forums for a few hours because i'm way too lazy right now to form coherent arguments.

Overswarm

11-01-2005, 05:20 PM

If you are a religious (by religious I mean one of the dominant religions that follow the "worship God" ideal) person, right off the bat your answer is "Yes, there is a set of moral beliefs that is better than any other", just to give you a heads up.

However, there either IS a set of moral beliefs that is true and natural that rises above all else, or there is no real "set" and morals are merely a creation of society.

If there is, it is only because a deity of some sort (i.e., God, Allah) made it so. If God made the earth, then God made the rules for living on Earth. If he made the rules, no matter what any human says, God's rules are the trump card. There is no argument; God created the rules, you can't argue against them. If God is perfect, he created perfect rules. No way around it.

However, that can't be proven scientifically or historically, so not everyone agrees.

If a religious deity did not create the world (and thus the rules), then there could be no "set" moral guidelines, because there are no guidelines at all except those created by man.

There could be a set of moral guidelines that could create (and flourish in) a perfect society, but they aren't the "best" or "perfect" moral guidelines. There's no reason to follow them if you believed differently. Without an absolute, there is no possibility of absolute morals.

MuR-DaH

11-01-2005, 06:08 PM

So are you with the opinion that a set of absolute or objective morals exists, that transcend the boundaries of region, race, religion and culture, or that all morals are relative, in that they are subject from region to region, and that no moral code is better than any other?

Well John, I guess you leave me no choice!

Pendergast

11-01-2005, 10:43 PM

Overswarm, just to let you know, it is possible for an absolute set of morals to exist without the need of a supreme being.

Overswarm

11-01-2005, 10:58 PM

Overswarm, just to let you know, it is possible for an absolute set of morals to exist without the need of a supreme being.

Prove it.

Human beings themselves are not absolute; we cannot create anything that is absolute in itself lest we are aided by an absolute.

Mental_Block

11-02-2005, 12:05 AM

wow its so cool how i took the time to make a good argument, that i learned in my college philosophy course and type it out all clear an ****. and then you all just ignore it

gg ****ers

Pendergast

11-02-2005, 07:27 AM

Prove it.

Human beings themselves are not absolute; we cannot create anything that is absolute in itself lest we are aided by an absolute.

Your apparent lack of knowledge is staggering. =sigh= I'll post it when I have time. Or maybe you can just look it up...

mtrip

11-02-2005, 08:01 AM

What you don't understand is the concept known as the 'Looking-Glass Self.' Basically, it means that your core inner self is for the most part a reflection of the world around you. You are influenced by a variety of forces that stem from society. These forces act upon your malleable inner self; chipping parts of you away, attaching parts to you in a constant stream. In essence, it means that society has a profound impact on who you are as a person. To attest that little or none of the decisions you make in your life are not as a result of social forces is quite ignorant, in fact ... hiding the truth that it is in fact society that largely coerces you in decision making.

This isn't exactly true. We don't consist of a 'malleable inner self', or at least, it makes up a minority of our inner self. We're not blank slates that society writes its values and ideas on, which we simply reflect back.

Our 'inner selves' are, to a much greater degree, a product of genetics and thus evolution. If you raise a chimp alongside an infant, the chimp isn't going to start speaking english. Studies have consistently shown that twins seperated at birth have extremely close IQ's, while step-siblings raised in the same house and family vary a great deal more. Read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" or "How the Mind Works" for the full breakdown of all of this.

The 'blank slate' idea is old and pretty much totally discredited at this point. Genetics determine our lives to a greater degree than most people give it credit for.

And our biological makeup is static and objective (in the here and now, not over a great deal of time). What most people overlook is that, in all of these various religions and cultures, over all of these epochs, there is a common factor, and that is human beings. And there are basic human traits, probably based and derived from our genetic makeup, that remain constant over all of these variable factors. A mother's love and protection of her children is one that comes to mind (a mother who doesn't feel this is seen as a aberration by any religion or soceity you can think to name). This moral trait is universal, and if you think about it, it extends even to other animals (mammals for instance). Therefore, morality is based on a objective standard, which is human beings. The social trappings are different, but the core is always the same, and this is what provides the basis for objective morality.

MuR-DaH

11-02-2005, 08:03 AM

Prove it.

Human beings themselves are not absolute; we cannot create anything that is absolute in itself lest we are aided by an absolute.
:-s It's called an independent existence, we simply discovered them. (not that I believe in it)

SPQRAlpha

11-02-2005, 08:19 AM

Inescapably, the entire existence of the universe is relative

And by philosophical definition, morals are relative

The only absolute morals are religious ones, but even those are relative in that they are subjective to you obeying God.

Mental_Block

11-02-2005, 09:35 AM

SnaKKer

11-02-2005, 11:15 AM

honestly you all sound freaking stupid as hell. none of you are talking about actual theory youre just making **** up.

for the love fo god read what i wrote its actual theory that smart people discuss.

how the hell is it possible for no one to have read what i wrote?

I replied to it in the other thread.

thats strange rekkans, considering you posted right under it

heres the link
http://mlgpro.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32397

Wow, your post is great, except almost meaningless.

No, there's nothing wrong with pulling a trigger.

What's wrong is pointing a gun at a pregnant woman and shooting a loaded weapon at her with the intent of hurting her. That's wrong.

You're just looking at simple actions and not motives or behaviors, thus completely removing any responsibility from the shooter about his actions. "All he did was pull a trigger" - the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at a pregnant women fired with maliscious intents.

Apollyon___mlg_

11-02-2005, 11:31 AM

Without a god morals are all relative, no one human being can say that any other human being has better morals than another, that would just be stupid. It would be like me saying that I have better morals than you cause my mother said so, all you have to say back is that your mother says that you have better morals than I do. Who's right?

Mental_Block

11-02-2005, 11:32 AM

I replied to it in the other thread.

Wow, your post is great, except almost meaningless.

No, there's nothing wrong with pulling a trigger.

What's wrong is pointing a gun at a pregnant woman and shooting a loaded weapon at her with the intent of hurting her. That's wrong.

You're just looking at simple actions and not motives or behaviors, thus completely removing any responsibility from the shooter about his actions. "All he did was pull a trigger" - the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at a pregnant women fired with maliscious intents.

well then rekkans i was not talking about you

Overswarm

11-02-2005, 12:04 PM

"honestly you all sound freaking stupid as hell. none of you are talking about actual theory youre just making **** up.

for the love fo god read what i wrote its actual theory that smart people discuss.

how the hell is it possible for no one to have read what i wrote?-Mental Block"

Grow up. Your argument had little, if anything, to do with the current discussion. Not only that, but all that stuff that you wrote out was unnecessary. It all boils down to "it is all in perspective".

"Your apparent lack of knowledge is staggering. =sigh= I'll post it when I have time. Or maybe you can just look it up...-Pen"

I'm assuming you are new to discussion forums. Stop attacking the poster. Attack the argument instead. Calling someone stupid, ignorant, or anything of the sort and then actually taking the time to write out "sigh" without putting down ANY sort of evidence at all... that's absurd.

The argument is currently whether or not morals can be absolute without an absolute being. No one has said anything about it yet, other than "no, they can't". You are on the "yes they can" side, but have said nothing to back it up.

The universe, and everything in it is relative. Because we are all relative ourselves, non-absolute, we cannot create an absolute.

God, however, IS an absolute. He is perfect, and therefore anything he creates is perfect by definition.

It's been said by a few people many times, and no argument has come up the contrary. Add to that.

I've posted this 4 times now, and it's becoming more and more poorly written each time. Forums keep freezing. :(

Edit: It wouldn't let me use the quote option, kept freezing. Weird.

mtrip

11-02-2005, 01:32 PM

The argument is currently whether or not morals can be absolute without an absolute being. No one has said anything about it yet, other than "no, they can't".

I've posted that they can a little further up.

The universe, and everything in it is relative.

What do you mean by that? Please explain how the universe is relative. Reality is objective, what is, is.

God, however, IS an absolute. He is perfect, and therefore anything he creates is perfect by definition.

It's been said by a few people many times, and no argument has come up the contrary. Add to that.

A contrary argument to a non-argument? Or did I miss the argument proving that God is perfect? Really, that's just a baseless statement you seem to take as granted, but I don't see where it comes from or how you can prove it.

Overswarm

11-02-2005, 02:40 PM

Geez. My posts keep getting deleted because the browser freezes up when I try to quote someone. :(

Anyway, here's what I had just tried to post shortened.

Mtrip. You posted an opposing viewpoint, but you did not back it up; I have no argument against it.

By relative, I mean it is dependent on something else; i.e., experiences. To say "murder is wrong. That is morally absolute" is a false statement. While many societies disagree with murder and find it wrong, it is not agreed upon by everyone, and no one would ever view it as an absolute. It is not a moral absolute.

God IS an absolute, if he exists. The argument isn't whether or not God exists, or if he is perfect. If the God in question, the one from the bible, DOES exist, then he IS perfect. All written documentation says thus; to say that God isn't perfect is to say you are talking about a different God. If God ISN'T perfect, then there is no moral absolute period.

If God exists, and it is a perfect God, all his doings are perfect. Therefore, all his rules are perfect, and therefore absolute.

The question remains; if God does NOT exist, could there be any moral absolutes?

It was better written before, I apologize :(

MuR-DaH

11-02-2005, 04:00 PM

Well what is perfect(ion)?

Overswarm

11-02-2005, 04:29 PM

Pure, without flaw. No matter what anyone says, it cannot be disputed through anything but flawed logic.

Pendergast

11-02-2005, 06:49 PM

Essentially, the moral quality of an act is inherent in the quality of the act itself, regardless of the consequences that result from the act. The rules under which the formalist acts have inherent worth in themselves and are not justified by other considerations. The rules may be the 10 Commandments, the natural laws of the universe, or that of a old, yet pure country or social group. The reasons for the moral value of actions are based upon a code of laws or principles that are a recognized standard for moral conduct. Note that not everyone has to agree upon the inherent moral standing of any particular act. You may think to yourself "aha!" "That is an indication that morals are in fact relative." Think again. I may reason that water is not good for me, and that I should not drink it. Does the cognitive act make the statement true? Of course not, because water is good for me, and I would be wise to drink it often. God's existence is not dependant on my thoughts regarding it, no matter how much I ponder the subject. If I choose to not believe in God, and he does exist, my disbelief doesn't undo God's existence. In the same way, if someone chooses to believe that killing isn't wrong, and kills another human being, his rationale doesn't make the act right. Even if he fervently believes that killing another isn't wrong, the man still committed murder - an act judged to be wrong. This clash of moral values occurs quite often, even today. The terrorists responsible for the September 11th bombings believed that they were striking at infidels. They believed that what they were doing was right, and that they would be rewarded in heaven by their God, Allah. Was killing thousands of innocent people the right thing to do? In most every case, good consequences flow from good actions that follow the code of laws. And, ultimately, bad consequences flow from bad actions that violate the code of laws. Good actions are not good just because good results typically follow from them; good actions are inherently good just as massive objects are inherently heavy. It's just naturally so.

[C.S. Lewis]

“Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties don’t matter; but then, next minute they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they wanted to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong—in other words, if there is no Law of Nature—what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature (absolute standards of right and wrong) just like anyone else”

Lewis’ point is that the very fact the relativist would be upset about someone breaking a promise to him shows that he is not consistently living out his relativistic beliefs. A true relativist could not be upset about this because there would be no absolute standard saying one must keep his promises or treaty. Right and wrong would be determined by each individual person, and if one did not believe he had to keep his promises, no one could hold it against him. Now, I never question what a person tells me regarding his or her personal beliefs, unless I have a valid reason to think otherwise. If someone tells me that truth is a relative matter, then I accept that that is what that person believes. I then consider that person's actions to see if they are consistent with the beliefs stated. And that is where the "rubber meets the road," so to speak. I find that those who claim "all truth is relative" may spout that belief, but they never act as if its true. Similarly, I find that those who say they believe in moral relativism never act as if they really do. In fact, I find them to be moral absolutists, not moral relativists. Belief is one thing; actions are another. And it is in the realm of action that moral relativism takes the fatal "hit."

I could continue with many other examples of the "moral absolutist" masquerading as a "moral relativist." But brevity forbids it. And, besides, I want to make another important point. The pseudo-moral relativist (because that's what they really are!) do not really want to convince you that his or her philosophical position is correct or true by engaging in an intellectual discourse. Rather, in American society, the pseudo-moral relativist wants to appeal to the legislative bodies (Congress, et al) or the judiciary bodies (the Supreme Court, etc.) to have their "beliefs" encased in law. This means that what is "legal" is the same as what is "moral," and nothing else. And this is the final nail in the coffin of the moral relativist. Okay, let us accept that for the sake of the current argument: What is "legal" is equivalent to what is "moral," as a defining example of moral relativism. The so-called moral relativist is dead in the water. Because if "legality" is to define "morality" then any outrage against such phenomena as the Nazi Holocaust or the circumcision of little girls in many black-African countries or the abuse of women in Taliban Afghanistan or the practice of owning black slaves in 19th-century America is misplaced and unfair. These are or were "legal." Therefore, according to the logic of this type of moral relativists, all these practices are or were "moral."

The essential thing to understand about moral absolutism is that we discover moral values, we do not merely invent moral beliefs. I would have to say the largest discrepancy and problem with moral absolutism is the famous tale of Corrie ten Boom. Let's assume that it is absolutely wrong to kill another human being, and also absolutely wrong to lie. People like Corrie ten Boom hid Jews in their homes during WWII; because of their empathy, they chose to try to save lives. When asked by the Nazis if there were any Jews in their home, they emphatically replied "No." So doesn't that indicate a breach in the absolute moral code? If faced with the choice of doing murder or lying - both of which are generally accepted to be "wrong", which would be the proper choice to make under the circumstances? Utilitarianists would argue for the greatest good for the greatest number. Basically, do the means justify the end? Isn't it cool when various philosophical debates tie in with each other? The Utilitarianist would definitely argue that lying would be considered a justifiable choice in this situation. Please understand that although this issue is very difficult to answer, it does not prove that moral absolutes do not exist. The fact that someone is asking the question of whether or not it would be okay to lie in these situations shows that one believes in some standards of right and wrong. Otherwise these questions would not be raised.

[From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]

Distinguishing knowing that from knowing how

Suppose that Fred says to you: "The fastest swimming stroke is the front crawl. One performs the front crawl by oscillating the legs at the hip, and moving the arms in an approximately circular motion". Here, Fred has propositional knowledge of swimming and how to perform the front crawl.

However, if Fred acquired this propositional knowledge from an encyclopedia, he will not have acquired the skill of swimming: he has some propositional knowledge, but does not have any procedural knowledge or "know-how". In general, one can demonstrate know-how by performing the task in question, but it is harder to demonstrate propositional knowledge. Michael Polanyi popularised the term tacit knowledge to distinguish the ability to do something from the ability to describe how to do something. Gilbert Ryle had previously made a similar point in discussing the characteristics of intelligence. His ideas are summed up in the aphorism "efficient practice precedes the theory of it". Someone with the ability to perform the appropriate moves is said to be able to swim, even if that person cannot precisely identify what it is they do in order to swim. This distinction is often traced back to Plato, who used the term techne or skill for knowledge how, and the term episteme for a more robust kind of knowledge in which claims can be true or false.

Consider someone saying "I know that P, but I don't think P is true". The person making this utterance has, in a profound sense, contradicted themselves. If one knows that P, then, amongst other things, one thinks that P is indeed true. If one thinks that P is true, then one believes P.

There has to be at least one rational, objective standard by which human beings can judge the rightness, the correctness, or the appropriateness of human actions. There may be more, but there has to be at least one. It is the discovery of this rational, objective standard that is the object of what we call moral philosophy or ethics.

MuR-DaH

11-02-2005, 06:49 PM

Interesting, so does perfection exist independently of situations or is it an applicable concept? Meaning perfection is something or it is for something. Also, does perfection exist in any form, if so where? Is perfection a human construct and if it is; is it therefore doomed to the imperfection of subjectiveness?

Pendergast

11-02-2005, 06:53 PM

I wanted to type more, but I guess there is a 10000 max character limit. My response was at 15234 before I had to cut some of it out ...

MuR-DaH

11-02-2005, 06:57 PM

Sign on more often, no one, especially myself wants to read your eNovels.

Pendergast

11-02-2005, 07:00 PM

**** off Matt.

Overswarm

11-02-2005, 07:37 PM

(I apologize, using the quote option STILL makes my browser freeze, but only in this thread. I don't know why.)

That was a long post Pender, but none of it really answered the question, you just brought up a totally different point.

The essential thing to understand about moral absolutism is that we discover moral values, we do not merely invent moral beliefs.

How is this possible? That is like saying we "discover" language. If morals are not created by God, then they are created by human civilization. We didn't find them floating about in the air, we created standard social codes based off of what we didn't like. Most people didn't like being killed, and there was never more than one "strongest man" out there, so generally killing was considered wrong across the board. It wasn't "discovered" that it was the right thing to do, it was created because it meant the best quality of life.

That points even more towards moral relativism. Not every society came up with the same cultural or social codes because different things worked for different socieites based off of all sorts of variables.

I would have to say the largest discrepancy and problem with moral absolutism is the famous tale of Corrie ten Boom. Let's assume that it is absolutely wrong to kill another human being, and also absolutely wrong to lie. People like Corrie ten Boom hid Jews in their homes during WWII; because of their empathy, they chose to try to save lives. When asked by the Nazis if there were any Jews in their home, they emphatically replied "No." So doesn't that indicate a breach in the absolute moral code? If faced with the choice of doing murder or lying - both of which are generally accepted to be "wrong", which would be the proper choice to make under the circumstances? Utilitarianists would argue for the greatest good for the greatest number. Basically, do the means justify the end? Isn't it cool when various philosophical debates tie in with each other? The Utilitarianist would definitely argue that lying would be considered a justifiable choice in this situation. Please understand that although this issue is very difficult to answer, it does not prove that moral absolutes do not exist. The fact that someone is asking the question of whether or not it would be okay to lie in these situations shows that one believes in some standards of right and wrong. Otherwise these questions would not be raised.

Okay, that was a really long story that started "let's assume". That is assuming that it is wrong to lie and wrong to murder, and not only that but that it is wrong to be the person that allows murder to happen. Even past that, that is ignoring the possibility of it being wrong for people to put others in danger (like the Jews putting her in danger). That story is nothing more than dozens of baseless assumptions in an attempt to create a false paradox for an argument that hasn't even been brought up in this thread.

The argument still stands.

Can non-absolute beings, like humans, create moral absolutes without the aid or direct influence of an absolute being?

Interesting, so does perfection exist independently of situations or is it an applicable concept? Meaning perfection is something or it is for something. Also, does perfection exist in any form, if so where? Is perfection a human construct and if it is; is it therefore doomed to the imperfection of subjectiveness? -Mur-Dah

Perfection is an adjective, not an entity. Perfection as a term is a human construct, and yes, the term is imperfect of itself.

We can call many tangible things on Earth "perfect", but only when we, as humans, define perfection to certain terms. Say that someone said throwing a baseball at a 90º angle at 90 mph is perfect. If someone then did that, an observer could say "wow, he threw that perfect" and in that context the word perfect is being used appropriately, but it is being used to describe something that was relatively defined as perfect, which makes it therefore NOT perfect.

Perfection in ideas is impossible in itself; if we define perfect (the most fun, the most challenging, the most anything), we are doomed to be labeling things falsely.

The only way something could actually BE perfect is if a perfect being said that "perfection is this" and showed specific guidelines. If that was the case, then human beings could potentially emulate and therefore become perfect or do perfect things.

It's tricky in the language, but long story short, if we call something perfect, it is relative and therefore not perfect.

Mental_Block

11-03-2005, 12:47 AM

please really just keep ignoring my argument so i can laugh at you guys for how foolish you sound.

i dont hink any of you can possibly realize how frustrating it is to take the time to post something and then have everybody in the thread keep talking to each other without ever even mentioning what you said.

please for the love of god read what i wrote and reply to it.

what i wrote is is all direct stuff from my intro to ethics in philosophy course that i am currently in. we just had the midterm and i got a perfect 400 out of 400 on our essay test.

im not bragging i just want you to know where my info comes from, im not making it up or thinking it up as i go. its real legit hard facts type stuff (as much as there is in philosophy)

i know you guys opinions matter but honestly there comes a point where you need to acknowledge the information as it is presented in professional philosophy.

im pulling my hair out trying to avoid flaming and freaking out on you kids. honestly if youre not going to read all the posts in a thread and participate in the discussion than just quit posting.

you guys sound so foolish and i dont need to refute your nonsense opinions since ive already explained everything in one post.

so respond ot what i wrote

Apollyon___mlg_

11-03-2005, 11:53 AM

pendergast thank you for quoting c.s. lewis i was just going to go back and find some good quotes from him but you just did it for me :=)

SnaKKer

11-03-2005, 12:20 PM

Mental_Block

11-03-2005, 02:27 PM

im sorry but when i see ppl talkig about ppl and absolutes in the wrong context, and i see a post of mine that no one has talked about. it realy is frustrating. you know this topic is for this discussion in this topic you havent said anything about my post.

and that was not flaming or spamming and neither is this.

flaming involves an attack. spamming is of topic. this and my other post aer neither.

now stop getting all mad because no one agrees with your crazy right wing moral inferiority complex.

<3,
me

and btw kthxbye was played out in the old forums, you might want to stop saying it over and over and over and...

SnaKKer

11-03-2005, 02:37 PM

im sorry but when i see ppl talkig about ppl and absolutes in the wrong context, and i see a post of mine that no one has talked about. it realy is frustrating. you know this topic is for this discussion in this topic you havent said anything about my post.

I didn't post about it in here? You quoted my post in here about it.

please really just keep ignoring my argument so i can laugh at you guys for how foolish you sound.

you guys sound so foolish and i dont need to refute your nonsense opinions since ive already explained everything in one post.

That sounds like an attack to me. Saying someone is foolish and their arguments are nonsense certainly isn't friendly.

now stop getting all mad because no one agrees with your crazy right wing moral inferiority complex.

Stop getting all mad about people "ignoring your professional philosophy".

and btw kthxbye was played out in the old forums, you might want to stop saying it over and over and over and...

That's the first time I've ever said it here, and it's not exclusive to MLG forums...

Since you seen to be having a hard time locating my reply to your first post, I will paste it here for the third time. Please reply to it.

"Wow, your post is great, except almost meaningless.

No, there's nothing wrong with pulling a trigger.

What's wrong is pointing a gun at a pregnant woman and shooting a loaded weapon at her with the intent of hurting her. That's wrong.

You're just looking at simple actions and not motives or behaviors, thus completely removing any responsibility from the shooter about his actions. "All he did was pull a trigger" - the trigger of a loaded gun pointed at a pregnant women fired with maliscious intents."

Overswarm

11-03-2005, 04:18 PM

Mental Block.... what you were talking about has little, if anything, to do with what we have been talking about since the first few posts.

Next time I see you talking in a halo thread, I'm going to come in and give a lengthy explanation on the inflation that occurs when banana sales drop, then I'm going to get really pissed when people don't respond. That'll put it into perspective for you.

Pendergast

11-03-2005, 04:27 PM

Mental Block has contributed nothing to this thread thus far.

Pendergast

11-04-2005, 05:23 PM

Ganes

11-04-2005, 06:07 PM

Pendergast, everything you have said makes sense.

My only question is, if there is an ultimate Law of Nature as Lewis said, what is it? I believe in the idea that there can be moral absolutes without some Supreme Being, but as you said, we must discover it for ourselves. To quote you:

There has to be at least one rational, objective standard by which human beings can judge the rightness, the correctness, or the appropriateness of human actions.

Have we discovered that standard?

I ask this from complete ignorance and curiosity. This isn't something I have yet to study or understand. :/

Stormo

11-08-2005, 07:37 AM

This is going to be quick.

1. Mental Block, stop whining, if you post was ignored there was a reason and people arent going to reply just because you typed a lot.

2. This is the first time I will say this, but Pender, I believe you are wrong. YOu are taking the morals of this one culture that we live in and transfering it over accross the world. You give the example of Terrorist attacks. To us, those are morally repugnant and should be rejectable under any culter, however, in their culture, the attacks are more that just right, they are necesary, and make you exhalted. Morally what many Americans do is wrong in their culture, and killing them is right. Same with killing jews, or anyone they deem an enemy of the church/state/mosque.

Would you please name me some things that under moral absolutism would be rejectable. Such as murder, or lying, or adultry, maybe honoring a God other than the christian God, or badmouthing your parent. All are morally rejectable under the christian faith, and 99.7% of christians would say those are morals you should follow and are absolute, who are you to say they are wrong.

Pendergast

11-08-2005, 07:49 AM

What you don't understand is that I don't agree with moral absolutism. I'm a relativist. It's just that Overswarm made some comments about it being impossible for an objective morality to exist without the aid of a supreme being, so I strove to prove him wrong, or at the least, shed some light on 'other' side of the issue.

Stormo

11-08-2005, 08:59 AM

My bad, I got that from your first post, but that last one didnt click for me. Speed reading/skimming intellegint posts in the wee hours of the morning is a bad idea. I have learned from my mistakes. If I disagree with you, something must be wrong and I will go back and re read everything.

Have a nice day.

Overswarm

11-08-2005, 09:36 AM

Pendergast

11-08-2005, 09:48 AM

This isn't exactly true. We don't consist of a 'malleable inner self', or at least, it makes up a minority of our inner self. We're not blank slates that society writes its values and ideas on, which we simply reflect back.

Our 'inner selves' are, to a much greater degree, a product of genetics and thus evolution. If you raise a chimp alongside an infant, the chimp isn't going to start speaking english. Studies have consistently shown that twins seperated at birth have extremely close IQ's, while step-siblings raised in the same house and family vary a great deal more. Read Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" or "How the Mind Works" for the full breakdown of all of this.

The 'blank slate' idea is old and pretty much totally discredited at this point. Genetics determine our lives to a greater degree than most people give it credit for.

And our biological makeup is static and objective (in the here and now, not over a great deal of time). What most people overlook is that, in all of these various religions and cultures, over all of these epochs, there is a common factor, and that is human beings. And there are basic human traits, probably based and derived from our genetic makeup, that remain constant over all of these variable factors. A mother's love and protection of her children is one that comes to mind (a mother who doesn't feel this is seen as a aberration by any religion or soceity you can think to name). This moral trait is universal, and if you think about it, it extends even to other animals (mammals for instance). Therefore, morality is based on a objective standard, which is human beings. The social trappings are different, but the core is always the same, and this is what provides the basis for objective morality.

mtrip, the most effective and simple rebuttal I could possibly give for this is quite simple. The degree of variance amongst the entire human population on Earth is less than 1%. Variance amongst cultures, on the other hand, is much more than 1%. The genetic difference between an upper-class white American from Michigan is less than 1% from a tribal chieftain of a South African bushmen tribe. So what could possibly account for the huge deviance between their culture, and ours. What can possibly account for the huge variance between their morals, values, social taboos, outlook on life, death, etc.?

Gunslinger___mlg_

11-08-2005, 10:36 AM

If god is necessary for morality, then whatever god deems moral is moral. Therefore, why praise god for what he has done if he could have just as likely done the opposite, and it would have been equally moral. If whatever god says goes, then if god decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible. If things are neither right nor wrong independently of god's will, then god cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if he does choose one over another, his choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not worthy of worship.

That's like saying "Why reward the good student for doing good, after all that's what he would have done anyways."

God should be praised because he is worthy of praise because of what he has done. The fact that he would not, (he could have done otherwise) is beside the point.

In another world God might have deemed murder acceptable. If he had created a world like Halo in which after dying you respawn 5 seconds later somewhere else and do not experience any pain in the process murder (and suicide) might not be against the law. In fact suicide might be the meathod of choice to use to travel back home (to your "base") every evening after work. You might think that this is proof that morality is an inherent part of the world, but rather it just demonstrates that God is a logical God that creates laws and morality that fits the circumstances.

If goodness is a defining attribute of god, then god cannot be used to define goodness. If we do so, we are guilty of circular reasoning. That is, if we use goodness to define god, we can't also use god to define goodness.

So we can't call the sun yellow if the sun is the only thing we've ever seen that is truly that color? Actually you are right, what we call good is not purely good. God is the only thing that is pure goodness, thus we call him God, not good.

Pendergast

11-09-2005, 12:07 AM

That's like saying "Why reward the good student for doing good, after all that's what he would have done anyways."

No, actually it's not like that at all. You see, the student isn't the fount and source of morality; he/she isn't the 'True Source' for the 'One Power.' (WoT RoxorZ) You obviously missed my point entirely. The "good student" isn't without flaws and a sinful nature; god supposedly is. The good student cannot possibly always make the 'right' decision in every circumstance. My point is that if morality essentially stems from god, whatever he deems to be 'moral' is moral: his Word is Power. That is why your analogy of the good student ultimately fails.

God should be praised because he is worthy of praise because of what he has done. The fact that he would not, (he could have done otherwise) is beside the point.

God could have easily inflicted pain, suffering and agony upon you, deemed it to be 'right', and you could do nothing about it. He could easily destroy our planet, our species, and our solar system. He could then create another, identical Earth complete with an identical solar system, and recreate man in his image. The point is that whatever he decides upon to be moral is moral. And thusly, he is not worthy of praise if he is the source of morality.

In another world God might have deemed murder acceptable. If he had created a world like Halo in which after dying you respawn 5 seconds later somewhere else and do not experience any pain in the process murder (and suicide) might not be against the law. In fact suicide might be the meathod of choice to use to travel back home (to your "base") every evening after work. You might think that this is proof that morality is an inherent part of the world, but rather it just demonstrates that God is a logical God that creates laws and morality that fits the circumstances.

Although I found this to be quite humorous, the fact remains that you tried to incorporate Halo into a morality debate. lol.

Ganes

11-09-2005, 12:13 AM

Let me take a moment to reinforce Pendergast's claim that, in fact, WoT does RoxorZ. That is all.

/Let the Dragon Ride Again on the Winds of Time/

Pendergast

11-09-2005, 01:59 AM

Let me take a moment to reinforce Pendergast's claim that, in fact, WoT does RoxorZ. That is all.

/Let the Dragon Ride Again on the Winds of Time/

"The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again. In one Age, called the Third Age by some, an Age yet to come, an Age long past, a wind rose.... The wind was not the beginning. There are neither beginnings nor endings to the turning of the Wheel of time.
But it was a beginning."

I also second that Berserk is an amazing anime. Definetely one of the best out there; although I wasn't entirely satisfied with the ending of the anime, although they are supposedly making a second series.

-Way off topic

Stormo

11-09-2005, 03:53 AM

God could have easily inflicted pain, suffering and agony upon you, deemed it to be 'right', and you could do nothing about it. He could easily destroy our planet, our species, and our solar system. He could then create another, identical Earth complete with an identical solar system, and recreate man in his image. The point is that whatever he decides upon to be moral is moral. And thusly, he is not worthy of praise if he is the source of morality.
.
God has actually inflicted pain, suffering and agony upon earth and christians do deem it to be right. They say that it is OK, because it was circumstantial, meaning it is OK to wipe out a town, as long as you think that they do something wrong.

I never thought about that last sentence before, but it is kinda right. Given you are saying he is not worthy of praise of doing good because he is the one who says what is good. He is, however, worthy of praise by choosing what should be moral and immoral properly. If he would have said murder is OK and people did reject him for it, then he is not worthy, but because he chose the route he did, he is to be praised for good choices of what is deemed morally right.

Kyrene

11-09-2005, 08:33 AM

Kyrene

11-09-2005, 08:41 AM

I once went out to lunch with a guy and we started talking about relativism, of which he was for and i was against. I asked him if it was wrong to murder someone. He had to said no it wasn't because from the other person's perspective it could have been right. I then asked if killing his little sister would be wrong. Again, he had to say no. Then he got up to go to the bathroom and i ate his sandwich. When he got back i asked him if he was angry, to which he responded yes because he was quite hungery. Graciously i reminded him that he had no right to be angry with me because relative to me what i did was the right thing to do. Maybe that is why we always go out for coffee now...

Point being, it is impossible to be a true relativist. People instead pick and choose what matters they want to be a relativist about to ensure they can live their life in whatever fashion they choose with all measures of control removed; even a moral conscious.

Gunslinger___mlg_

11-09-2005, 09:08 AM

God has actually inflicted pain, suffering and agony upon earth and christians do deem it to be right. They say that it is OK, because it was circumstantial, meaning it is OK to wipe out a town, as long as you think that they do something wrong.

If you are talking about wiping out Sodom and Gamorrah you've gotta understand something about God is that he's gonna obey the laws he sets up. He said that murder and ****, etc is punishable by death. EVERYONE is Sodom and Gamorrah did crap like this. God gave them more chances than they ever deserved. He even told Abraham that is there were even 10 innocent people in the whole city he'd spare it. As it was Lot was the only innocent and God rescued him from the destruction of the cities. God doesn't just go around wiping out towns unprovoked, just like the USA doesn't execute innocent people, it executes criminals (as well as it's imperfect human justice system can decide who is or is not guilty.)

Oh, and you can't possibly be saying that natural disasters are inflicted by God, God set up the natural laws, and he follows them to a certain extent because they are his laws. In fact in the world before the Flood there were no such disasters, but mankind commited terrible crimes that warranted the Flood, and hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanoes etc. are the aftereffects of this global cataclysm. We're still reaping what our great x100 grandparents sowed.

If you're talking about the "Holy Wars" of the Middle ages, etc. Then I agree, murdering innocent people in the name of God does not make it not murder, but you shouldn't blame God for this. Do you blame Allah for 9/11? You shouldn't.

Pendergast

11-09-2005, 09:11 AM

The point is that god doesn't have to make a choice. He doesn't have to make a conscious decision about any moral issue. He could randomly pick any action such as murder, ****, etc. out of a hat, and it would be moral regardless.

Pendergast

11-09-2005, 12:05 PM

(1) Moral standards can only come about by a decree
(2) To be truly objective, moral standards must originate from an absolutely supreme source
(3) The only 'true' absolutely supreme source is god
(4) If an absolute standard of morals exists, god exists

This is an example of the theist's POV regarding objective morals, their origin and relation to their god. On the surface, it may seem to be a perfectly sound argument. This is in essence an example of Overswarm's logic and deduction that an objective morality can only exist with the aid of a supreme source, e.g. god. This is a common misconception, and upon further review, it is proven to be false; as I have attempted to show throughout my most recent posts in this thread. My fervent hope is that this post finally shows you all that an objective moral standard can exist without a proceeding cause of a supreme source, and that objective moral standards are perfectly compatible with the philosophy of atheism.

The premises of this proof are unsound. The issue with it is that standards do not necessarily need a standard-giver to exist. The first falls to the Euthyphro objection. Standards by decree cannot be objective, because they presuppose the objectivity of the standard giver, but if the standards come from such a source, they cannot be objective because there is no reason to believe that a standard-giver would give objective standards, without assuming external objective standards. So external standards are needed, and the first argument fails.

Consequently, if god doesn't exist, this proof indicates that an objective moral standard cannot subsequently exist. All you can prove in actuality is that if god doesn't exist, there is no god-given set of absolute 'right' and 'wrong.' Some theists, especially calvinist christians object to this argument because it is not divine commands which form objective morality, but rather the divine nature of god. But what would be the case if the nature of god were the standards of morality, assuming that god exists? It would mean that omnibenevolence would only mean "god is what god is." While it is certainly true that god is what god is, it is not the case that omnibenevolence is just what god is. Omnibenevolence itself presupposes that there is an independent standard by which God is morally perfect; to deny this denies any meaning to the word. So this argument also does not give any reason why an atheist should not accept an objective morality.

This can be shown by the following proof of consistency, where "<>" means "it is logically possible that," and "-->" is strict implication.
if [<>(A & C) & (A & C) --> B], then <>(A & B)

It must be noted that neither A, B, or C need be true; they only need to be possible. Now let us let A be "there is an objective morality," B mean "there does not exist a deity" and C mean "the amount of evil in the world is so much that God does not exist"[4]. Now it is certainly the case that even if one does not exist that an objective morality is possible, and so is it possible, even if it is not the case, that the amount of evil in the world is so much that God does not exist. It is also the case that A and C in this case are consistent: it is possible that there is an objective morality and there is a large amount of evil in this world. But as these two premises together imply that God does not exist, then it must be the case that atheism and moral objectivity are consistent.

Kyrene

11-09-2005, 12:19 PM

(1) Moral standards can only come about by a decree
(2) To be truly objective, moral standards must originate from an absolutely supreme source
(3) The only 'true' absolutely supreme source is god
(4) If an absolute standard of morals exists, god exists

This is an example of the theist's POV regarding objective morals, their origin and relation to their god. On the surface, it may seem to be a perfectly sound argument. This is in essence an example of Overswarm's logic and deduction that an objective morality can only exist with the aid of a supreme source, e.g. god. This is a common misconception, and upon further review, it is proven to be false; as I have attempted to show throughout my most recent posts in this thread. My fervent hope is that this post finally shows you all that an objective moral standard can exist without a proceeding cause of a supreme source, and that objective moral standards are perfectly compatible with the philosophy of atheism.

The premises of this proof are unsound. The issue with it is that standards do not necessarily need a standard-giver to exist. The first falls to the Euthyphro objection. Standards by decree cannot be objective, because they presuppose the objectivity of the standard giver, but if the standards come from such a source, they cannot be objective because there is no reason to believe that a standard-giver would give objective standards, without assuming external objective standards. So external standards are needed, and the first argument fails.

Consequently, if god doesn't exist, this proof indicates that an objective moral standard cannot subsequently exist. All you can prove in actuality is that if god doesn't exist, there is no god-given set of absolute 'right' and 'wrong.' Some theists, especially calvinist christians object to this argument because it is not divine commands which form objective morality, but rather the divine nature of god. But what would be the case if the nature of god were the standards of morality, assuming that god exists? It would mean that omnibenevolence would only mean "god is what god is." While it is certainly true that god is what god is, it is not the case that omnibenevolence is just what god is. Omnibenevolence itself presupposes that there is an independent standard by which God is morally perfect; to deny this denies any meaning to the word. So this argument also does not give any reason why an atheist should not accept an objective morality.

Your arguement seems to be more of an attempt to try and make the shoe fit the foot. If God exists he would by nature have to be an objective entity, and there can be no external "sources" from which to derive any level of relativity since he would have made them all. There is no reason not to believe such a God would create anything, but an objective universe which by all accounts he has.

Why are you a relativist?

Pendergast

11-09-2005, 01:10 PM

Largely, the motivational force behind religious morality is the threat of punishment, usually in the form of an eternity in hell. "If I commit murder, I will go to hell." This logic doesn't coerce people to "do the right thing" for rightness' sake, but instead because of a stimulus (fear of punishment) that generates a conceivable response which by and by is generally morally wealthy. (making the 'right' decision) Please recall for a second the last time you were tempted to do something 'wrong.' What, if anything, persuaded you to instead do the right thing? (if you ultimately chose 'rightness') Almost assuredly, your decision was reached by a series of thought processes such as "what if I get caught?", or "what if someone sees me doing this?", or "will I feel guilty afterwards?" or perhaps "will I regret this?" Perhaps the thought of cheating, lying, stealing or killing has never occurred to you -- you were socialized to be an honest person, so you lead an honest life (for the most part) ... period. Thusly, there are by and large many motivational forces at work that have nothing to do with religion. So to say that we need religion to act morally is mistaken; indeed it seems to me that most of us, when it really gets down to it, don't give much of a thought to religion when making moral decisions. All those other reasons are the ones which we tend to consider, or else we just don't consider cheating and stealing at all. So far, then, there seems to be no reason to suppose that people can't be moral yet irreligious at the same time.

Far from providing a shortcut to moral understanding, looking to revelation (word of god) for guidance just creates more questions and problems. It is much simpler to address problems such as murder, abortion, capital punishment, and **** directly than to seek answers in revelation. In fact, not only is religion unnecessary to provide moral understanding, it is actually a hindrance. My own belief is that often those who are most likely to appeal to scripture as justification for their moral beliefs are really just rationalizing positions they already believe.

Far from religion being necessary for people to do the right thing, it often gets in the way. People do not need the motivation of religion; they for the most part are not motivated by religion as much as by other factors; and religion is of no help in discovering what our moral obligations are. But others give a different reason for claiming morality depends on religion. They think religion, and especially God, is necessary for morality because without God there could BE no right or wrong. The idea was expressed by Bishop R. C. Mortimer:

"God made us and all the world. Because of that He has an absolute claim on our obedience. ... From [this] it follows that a thing is not right simply because we think it is. ...It is right because God commands it.

SOCRATES. Well, then, Euthyphro, what do we say about holiness? Is it not loved by all the gods, according to your definition?

EUTHYPHRO. Yes.

SOCRATES. Because it is holy, or for some other reason? EUTHYPHRO. No, because it is holy.

SOCRATES. Then it is loved by the gods because it is holy: it is not holy because it is loved by them?

EUTHYPHRO. It seems so.

SOCRATES. ...Then holiness is not what is pleasing to the gods, and what is pleasing to the gods is not holy as you say, Euthyphro. They are different things.

EUTHYPHRO. And why, Socrates?

SOCRATES. Because we are agreed that the gods love holiness because it is holy: and that it is not holy because they love it.

Having claimed that virtues are what is loved by the gods why does Euthyphro so readily agree that the gods love holiness because it's holy? One possibility is that he is assuming whenever the gods love something they do so with good reason, not just arbitrarily. If something is pleasing to gods, there must be a reason. To deny this and say that it is simply the gods' love which makes holiness a virtue would mean that the gods have no basis for their opinions, that they are arbitrary. Or to put it another way, if we say that it is simply god's loving something that makes it right, then what sense does it make to say god wants us to do right? All that could mean is that god wants us to do what he wants us to do. He would have no reason for wanting it. Similarly "god is good" would mean little more than "god does what he pleases." Religious people who find this an unacceptable consequence will reject the divine command theory.

But doesn't this now raise another problem? If god approves kindness because it is a virtue, then it seems that god discovers morality rather than inventing it. And haven't we then suggested a limitation on god's power, since he now, being a good god, (possessing the inherent characteristic of omnibenevolence) must love kindness and command us not to be cruel? What is left of god's omnipotence?

Stormo

11-11-2005, 10:10 AM

But doesn't this now raise another problem? If god approves kindness because it is a virtue, then it seems that god discovers morality rather than inventing it. And haven't we then suggested a limitation on god's power, since he now, being a good god, (possessing the inherent characteristic of omnibenevolence) must love kindness and command us not to be cruel? What is left of god's omnipotence?
You lost me here. I understand that God discovered kindness instead of inventing it. Easily understandable although I could argue it isnt really a discorverable thing because it is a course of action. It would be like saying you discovered sadness, its not discovered, it just happens. It didnt need to be discovered to happen, it just does in the natural course of things. Like kindness, god didnt invent it, but it would have just happened. It was "kind" of god to give us earth. Did he give us earth because he was kind, or was he kind because he gave us earth?

You say that God posesses omnibenevolence, which I assume to mean perfectly good, and you say there is a limitation because he cannot do bad. The reason I dont consider this a limitation, is because he can still do anything, it is just when he does it, he becomes good. There is no physical or mental thing that God cannot due, but a mere perceptional thing that God cannot do. I believe that God has commited evil by killing indiscrimately, but because God did it, it would not be evil. Meaning from my perception he can still do everything except be perfectly good. But now we are just getting into wordplay, like he cannot create a rock he cant lift.

By the way, I agree with your standpoint, I just like to ask questions when I dont fully understand a concept.

Thank you and have a great week.

OneShotx22

11-13-2005, 12:30 AM

this is the best thread i have ever seen on this forum. not sarcasm what so ever. gg whoever made it.

Onecoolstorm

11-13-2005, 07:58 AM

Pender is my hero too. ****in genius if you ask me.

Pendergast

11-15-2005, 11:21 PM

god's omnipotence vanishes in this scenario not because of his inability to do bad, but rather because he isn't the fount and source of morality. The dillemna is that if he is the source of morality, he isn't worthy of worship.

Onecoolstorm

11-16-2005, 08:17 AM

He isnt worthy of worship for that one reason. He isnt worthy of worship from a morality standpoint because he "is" morality. That doesnt mean he doesnt deserve worship.

Also, Clear up the second paragraph of mine for me? Name one thing he cannot do? It is just a perception that he cant do bad. I would say he can do bad, but right after he does bad it becomes good.

Pendergast

11-16-2005, 09:44 AM

If God is morality, that is to say, if morality's preceeding cause is god, than whatever god does, whether it is flooding the Earth and killing the entire human race, destroying Earth, or allowing a devout believer to die a horrible death from cancer, regardless of what he does, it is moral and good. In other words, god can do no true harm. Thus, being omnipotent and omnibenevolent god can do no evil.

Onecoolstorm

11-16-2005, 10:56 AM

What I am saying is that it is immoral to kill the first born of an entire city. We can agree on that. God did kill the first born of an entire city, but in that instance it was deemed moral. Meaning God can commit an immoral act, but upon doing so, in hindsight, it become moral.

My question is...

Which came first, God commiting the act, or the act becoming moral?

Give me a timetable of when the switch from immoral to moral happens. Is it the exact moment God commits the act, or instantly after the act is commited.

In my mind it is kinda muddled, I am kinda nitpicking but this is just to straighten it out for me.

Pendergast

11-16-2005, 09:55 PM

YoU_GoT_OwNeD___mlg_

11-16-2005, 11:26 PM

I think he is asking for your opinion, not a factual response.

In my opinion, I think it becomes moral after God commits the act. As Pender said, God can truly do no evil in the eyes of believers, therefore whatever act he commits becomes moral and justified.

Kyrene

11-16-2005, 11:27 PM

Despite having extensive knowledge regarding the bible and christianity as a whole, I don't feel qualified to answer your question, namely because I don't believe in god anymore.

Used to, but I'm afraid I've lost my faith. Perhaps Kyrene can answer this ...

I read my name. What specific question needs answering?

I'm rather sorry i've missed this thread over the last few weeks, looks like a good one.

Again no personal offense intended Pender, but it is impossible for someone to truely be a relativist. People only choose relativity on various issues that they want to be flexible on, are we limiting personal relativity to morality or expanding it beyond?

Onecoolstorm

11-17-2005, 06:51 AM

Kyrene, Relativity is saying that we get to pick and choose what we believe. Obviously we cannot make up our own morals being as there is two sides to every issue and we have to choose one. Absolutism makes you follow one person all the way through, even if you disagree with it.

Pender, I also do not believe in God, but that does not stop discussion. I realize you have extensive knowledge on nearly everything but this was for your opinion specifically. I contend that God can commit an evil act, but upon doing so it becomes moral. You conteded that God cannot commit an evil act making him omnibenevolant, but not omnipotent. I would contend he is deemed as omnipotent and incorrectly deemed as omnibenevolant.

The question was in my last post, Kyrene.

What I am saying is that it is immoral to kill the first born of an entire city. We can agree on that. God did kill the first born of an entire city, but in that instance it was deemed moral. Meaning God can commit an immoral act, but upon doing so, in hindsight, it become moral.

My question is...

Which came first, God commiting the act, or the act becoming moral?

Give me a timetable of when the switch from immoral to moral happens. Is it the exact moment God commits the act, or instantly after the act is commited.

In my mind it is kinda muddled, I am kinda nitpicking but this is just to straighten it out for me.

Pendergast

11-17-2005, 11:27 AM

Here is my opinion:

Because god is omniscient, he knows all of his decisions in advance. He knew thousands of years in advance that on 9/11/01 terrorists from the Al-Quiada terrorist network were going to bomb the WTC in NYC. By allowing this event to happen, god allowed an evil act to occur. Obviously there is a difference between allowing something evil to happen, and actually doing something evil, but I hope you can see where I'm going with this.

All of god's actions are morally right. They have been morally right since time immemorable, when the universe and everything in it hadn't even been created yet. If god's existence had a beginning, all of his decisions became moral then; if, like christian dogma suggest, god is divine, meaning that his existence has no beginning or end, it becomes impossible to theorize when the decisions became moral, because, to put it simply, they always have been and always will be.

PI3

11-17-2005, 11:54 AM

Wow I thought we as humans where moving forward, after this I c nothing but narrow mindness still reigns in the land of ignorance, what we call home face it kids your god dont exist your born you die you dont go to heaven or hell how can people think that, that is an option. Kids we have to start moving forward open your ***** eyes.

Daskro

11-17-2005, 01:25 PM

Surprised noone brought up the modernism vs. post-modernism debate since this is essentially at its core what this debate is about.

devolution

11-17-2005, 01:52 PM

Surprised noone brought up the modernism vs. post-modernism debate since this is essentially at its core what this debate is about.

I read some of it, it's seems to be mostly about a larger deity. However, morality exists due to socialization. I came in half-way so are we arguing about social morals, religious morals or morals in the aspect of laws?

SnaKKer

11-17-2005, 02:01 PM

Pendergast

11-17-2005, 04:40 PM

Let me break it down for you what we are arguing about. The argument is two-fold, it began with the absolutism v.s. relativism stance, then shifted to an argument about whether an absolute morality can exist without the existence of god debate.

I think we should get back to the subjective v.s. objective morality issue: does an absolute set of morals exist?

Onecoolstorm

11-17-2005, 07:50 PM

Before we make the shift back. I userstand what you are saying now, and I would have to agree with you. Because God knew that genocide was going to be commited, it was moral before our earth was formed. Makes sense for an all knowing God. Given he knew everything instantaniously upon his creation.

Shogun___mlg_

11-17-2005, 08:14 PM

Here's how I feel:

Relativism is logically and practically broken. Those of you who believe relativism is the correct theory should learn a bit more about philosophy and ethics.
I believe that there is a universal (not absolute) moral standard against which we can judge actions to be right or wrong. An absolute standard holds true regardless of circumstance, whereas a universal standard weighs the circumstance.

Personally, I am a Kantian with a Utilitarian twist. I believe that the Categorical Imperative is best standard to judge actions. The first formulation of the Categorical Imperative being, in Kant's words, "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Insufficiently summarized as whenever you consider an action with moral bearing, determine whether the action would be right or wrong by imagining your action creating a universal law.

The second formulation of the Categorical Imperative being, once again in Kant's words, "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." In other words, never treat another rational human person as a means to and end.
The Utilitarian twist I add to this is that all sentient things have value, not just rational humans. Also, in addition to following the Categorical Imperative we should try to maximize happiness and minimize suffering.

If that makes any sense to you, congradulations. If not, I can further explain the Categorical Imperative or Utilitarianism.

Pendergast

11-19-2005, 08:55 AM

Any of you ever hear of epistemology? In relation to what we are talking about, essentially what it means is that if the means for judging moral values arises, and we have the capacity to 'measure' the validity of any moral act; an global set of values must exist.

Onecoolstorm

11-19-2005, 09:23 AM

First, explain the relation ship here
In relation to what we are talking about, essentially what it means is that if the means for judging moral values arises, and we have the capacity to 'measure' the validity of any moral act

Second explain why it means there is a global set of morals. There are clearly a societal set of morals which define our laws. Possibly global which define global laws, such as child labor, child sex, slavery, murder, war etc.
Absolutism would require universal which we cannot say that on mars it would be bad to kill someone, or steal candy.
I know for a fact you believe in aliens. Would it be moral for one creature to consume all shadows leaving none for their neighbor? :)

I would contend that our capacity to measure comes from our personal scale of bad. I dont think it is terribly bad to steal a can of beans from Walmart to feed a starving family. Others may believe stealing is bad in general. I dont believe smoking pot is bad even though it is illegal, I dont consider that immoral. Some do. As individuals, our capacity to judge comes from within. That is why we have a jury in court cases, so one set of morals doesnt rule all. It is a collection of societies morals that create laws etc.

That was kinda rambling but, hey, I think you got the drift.

MuR-DaH

11-19-2005, 12:48 PM

if the means for judging moral values arises, and we have the capacity to 'measure' the validity of any moral act; a global set of values must exist.
I feel like I'm taking some sort of bait here but what the hell- I couldn't resist.
Isn't the means for judging moral values the capacity to measure the validity of a moral act? Do attempts to 'measure' 'validity' presuppose moral truths? Of course a global set of values must exist if we presume the existence of objective truths, especially if we're the ones setting that standard 'because we can'.