Search this Topic:
Let's just agree to disagree on this one. We could chase each other around the topic forever.
Your example is fatally flawed.
The cop would shoot the gunman, not because his life is of less value, but because he is about to commit a capital murder.
You could reason it as morally acceptable because of the difference in value. I believe it is called discrimination.
Nope, it depends on the imminent threat to the lives of those around the shooter.
Ah, you have a PhD in neurology, I didn't know.
When the dots were moved around the fetus followed the lights,
So, it is the majority opinion that counts.
If we all acted in accordance with absolute morally we would have no need of prisons.
You have chosen the lesser of two evils. Breaking the speed limit is
always "evil", for lack of a better term, but allowing your spouse to
die s a greater evil.
Okay, Had2. Can we please keep this a serious discussion.
So, the ends justify the means? We cannot have absolute moral values because then I can't cheat for my kids?
Argy Lacedom wrote:Hi DJ,Yeah, it took us thousands of years to understand that the earth
spins and revolves around the sun. And we're still learning about
that relationship today.But, it was always true that the Earth goes around the Sun, while everyone thought otherwise.I think I understand what you are getting at, but I do not think physical things like orbits are in the same category as morals. What test can you apply to determine is we have discovered a universal moral absolute?
Yeah, it took us thousands of years to understand that the earth
spins and revolves around the sun. And we're still learning about
that relationship today.But, it was always true that the Earth goes around the Sun, while everyone thought otherwise.
I say there is none. Morals adjust to the threats and opportunities facing societies and so are fluid and context dependent.
Just so we're clear, you do realize that I agree that your presentation of Christianity (although incorrect) would be considered immoral, right? My dart throwing analogy still stands.That's good, you and I can agree that it is wrong. I think it is close to being a universal moral law, but maybe not quite there. For example, a teacher with a class of six year old students discovers money missing from her purse. She knows it is one of the students, but not which one. She detains the class until someone owns up. She has taught them a moral lesson. Was it good to punish all of them, or should she have let them all go for fear of breaking your moral law?
Just so we're clear, you do realize that I agree that your presentation of Christianity (although incorrect) would be considered immoral, right? My dart throwing analogy still stands.
The number of people thinking something is right, doesn't make it correct. See Nazis and slave owning south for examples.I have never said that was the case.
The number of people thinking something is right, doesn't make it correct. See Nazis and slave owning south for examples.
The problem is, until you can come up with a test for whether a moral law is a universal absolute, we can never know for certain if we have reached the destination.
So, my point here is that what is true is not based on popularity, nor is it based on the possibility that someone might think it is true. What is true is true, regardless of opinion. It exists as true.This is possibly the heart of our disagreement. I do not believe that morals exist outside of the social context. Take away society and you remove the need (and value) of morals. Because societies evolve over time and react to threats and opportunities, I do not think it is possible to develop fixed, universal, absolute moral rules.
So, my point here is that what is true is not based on popularity, nor is it based on the possibility that someone might think it is true. What is true is true, regardless of opinion. It exists as true.
Kind of a strange question. Truth exists. What is the source of the truth that the Earth revolves around the Sun? Actually, whether the earth rotates around the sun, vice versa or neither, depends on your perspective. It's just that the maths is far simpler if we assume that they both orbit about their collective centre of gravity!
Kind of a strange question. Truth exists. What is the source of the truth that the Earth revolves around the Sun?
Had2 wrote:Oh boy I'm so glad I stopped in. Well DJ I guess when you're talking about me you're not talking about somebody else.
If there were no measuring stick, there wouldn't be any way to reach a consensus.
far as morals are concerned, it is what we inherently know. We
inherently know that it is wrong to detain someone against their will.
We make laws reflecting that fact (right to a speedy trial for
example). It's what we recognize as "human rights".
Just because you can find reasons to break the law, doesn't mean the law doesn't exist. We keep coming back to this.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have argued that consensus was the yardstick on whether something was moral or not.
You seem to argue that as long as there are reasons to violate morals,
then said morals are not absolute and therefore okay to violate as long
as any reason to violate them exist.
While I argue that there are moral laws based on truth, what we
inherently know, and there needs to be sound moral reasons for violating
And if they are violated, they still exist.
> I still don't think you get it. How do you decide which is the lesser evil? In
some cases it is hard, in others easy. The gunman is about to kill a
hostage, the lives of the gunman and hostage are of equal value, but the
gunman is about to commit murder. You take the shot. The speed limit or
your wife should be easy. Hard ones might be those I gave from the
movie. In both cases the following of the code cost the lives of the
ones deciding. In the case of the navy seals sparing five cost them five
lives; in the case of the villagers they saved one and lost several.
In other words, for you, it is all or nothing. If there is an absolute
moral imperative not to take a human life, then if someone breaks into
your house to rape and kill your family, then you are obliged to take
care not to kill the intruder. Nice try, but it doesn't fly.
That seem to indicate that an absolute moral value would impair your
desire to do so, thus an absolute moral value would be inconvenient. Of
course one could still cheat to get their offspring ahead, but unless
one was caught ...
Time permitting I would be happy to do the research and list ALL
the absolute moral values for you, but there are two problems: 1) no
but more important perhaps 2) it would bog the discussion down
into, "why is that absolute and what about . . .."
But let me give you another besides the one under discussion: One should never commit perjury,
I have been giving this some thought and I believe the problem lies in our definition of absolute.
The Collins English Dictionary Definition is as follows: 1. complete, perfect. 2. free from limitations, restrictions, or exceptions. D.J. can speak for himself, but for me #1 is the definition that meets my criteria for an absolute moral value. It is the gold standard and exceptions should be rare.
For me, taking your world view, if a the majority of a society decides
to enslave a people, or commit genocide in a genuine belief that it was
crucial to their well being, then within that society it would be
morally acceptable, our "opinion" notwithstanding. Not the case.
It really doesn't apply. As a prisoner of war you are required to give
name, rank and serial number nothing more.
If they put you on trial you
simply refuse to take an oath, besides under my definition of absolute
there would be an exception.
As a soldier part of your job description
is not giving information to the enemy.
> The bolded contradicts definition #1. If there are exceptions to the rule then it is NOT complete or perfect.Of course it is. The exception is still evil, but the lesser of two evils.
the problem is that once you say it is okay to kill it becomes routine.
If society accepted an absolute moral value that says that you do not
kill, then it would be difficult to accept a policy that advocated
And exactly how does that give comfort to the survivors and their descendants?
It gets back to your assertion that a society decides what is morally
right under the circumstances. Either it is morally right or it isn't.
If a society decided that killing Jews was okay, then it was.
Morality in hindsight doesn't cut it.
An absolute moral value does not depend on the jurisdiction,
courts are recognized by international standards and the rule of law applies.
My motto is, "Go through life doing as much good and as little evil as possible."
> The one question you seem to want to ignore is "How do you recognise when an exception is required?". In
the case of our gunman going to kill a hostage there is already
protocols in place. The sniper tells command he has a shot, command, who
is often in contact with the gunman, decides whether to take the shot
or not. If they are not in contact they must choose, but the choice is
always n tough one. That is the point, it should never be easy to choose
to kill someone. In the case of a civilian, you make the choice you
believe is right and the law will decide whether it was the right one.
If an absolute moral value against killing was recognized by German
society in the 1930s the Holocaust would have been difficult to pull
I would suggest that there is something innate in our DNA that says that you do not kill other human beings.
I gave you seven ( my post is on the other page so I can't get to it)
and there are myriad others within those. Maybe you should see your
> What value does the concept of absolute morals have?If you have to ask that there is nothing more that I can say.
But you insist that society decides what is morally acceptable under the
circumstances, thus whatever that society decides is morally right. You
can't have it bother ways.
We have an international court at the Hague that adjudicates such matters. I believe Australia recognizes the court.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.