Moral relativism or absolutism

[Michael_UK]

Not sure if I posted this in the right place. A repub challenged me on this (as an atheist) and I wondered what people thought.

The question was without God, whether there can be moral absolutes. I'm not sure about absolutism (I wouldn't want a list of "Thou shalt not...), but at the same time, I don't like relativism (as you might excuse slavery by saying "well, those were the standards of the day".)

What do people (of all beliefs) think?

[TXlib]

1. Check this webpage

http://www.eskimo.com/~cwj2/atheism/moralath.html

BTW, welcome to DU!

[TXlib]

4. This one, too.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/moral.html

[Michael_UK]

2. Thanks

Good to meet kindred spirits.

By the way, I note that one of the authors (supporting subjectivism changed his mind to objectivism)

[gottaB]

3. I don't think you need God to tell you not to kill people

and judging from the record of human deeds, God's word hasn't had a lot of impact here on earth, has it?

Anyway, there are separate questions. One is Can you hold things sacred without a belief in God? The answer is absolutely yes.

Similarily, one can distinguish between good and evil without admitting to the existence of God.

The kinds of idealism which posit moral absolutes, are they on the same order of thinking as theologies? Perhaps. I couldn't answer that. Some argue that it is not a matter of faith, but of revealing the essential truth through dialogue. Is that kind of belief religious?

Well, there's another tack. Does the absence of absolutes mean that no constants exist? Do situationists adhere to or recognize any moral constants? Well, their account of ethics is arguably truer to the totality of human experience than that of the moral absolutists. That right there is pretty telling.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

6. FFS, sometimes God tells the exact opposite!

Didn't He get mad at Saul because, against His orders, he decided NOT to kill everybody at some battle?

[gottaB]

7. Oh, it's more repugnant/insane than that

Book of Samuel, Chapter 15. God tells Saul to kill all the Amalekites, all of them, men, women, children, infants, livestock.

Well, Saul gets all OldTestament in Amalek, men, women, children and itty bitty babes, but he spares the Amalekite King, Agag, and he allows his followers to take the livestock as spoils.

God didn't like that.

Thankfully, for the sake of humankind, Saul apologized, and Samuel hacked Agag to pieces, thus averting the wrath of God.

On Edit: Yeah, Saul spared Agag, but he also spared the livestock, and that was just an abonimation.

LIVESTOCK!!

[smada]

5. Here's a good read

The Science of Good and Evil, by Michael Shermer

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0805075208/qid=1081950383/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4_xs_stripbooks_i4_xgl14/104-8104571-6567130?v=glance&s=books

[Viking12]

8. False dichotomy

Even "with" g*d there are no moral absolutes. Morals are historically, culturally, and socially contingent. Anyone who argues otherwise is either fooling themselves or is trying to fool you.

[Vladimir]

9. Moral absolutism is ridiculous

IMO. What is right or wrong can only depend on the situation in question, not some rules inscribed in stone.

V

[GumboYaYa]

10. It depends....

[SOteric]

11. If there is a god,

then there are moral absolutes. There is something which is objectively good and something which is objectively not good regardless of how we, as human beings in a changing society perceive and interpret them.

If in the eyes of that god, nose-picking is evil and casual sex is good, then regardless of the social trends here in western society, nose-picking is evil and casual sex is good.

If there is no god, then likely, morality has developed as a means of mankind's living together in society. Over time, rules and law develop which observation shows will help the society live in better harmony. If we don't kill each other indiscriminately, take one another's stuff and do our neighbour's SO, we get along better. There is peace in the land. We hurt ourselves and each other less.

On the face of it, that would seem relative to the society. But some moral tenets have transcended time and society and are cross-cultural. Not murdering, stealing, sexin' up some other chicks' hubby, ...those seem to be in place no matter where you go. Those are the biggies, the relative absolutes, for want of a better term.

Personally, I believe that Atheists and Atheism can demonstrate just as much a sense of morality and perspective and can Theists. And Theists are just as susceptible to moral bankruptcy as is anyone else.

A good many Theists use the notion of moral absolutes to beat up on other people. Assuming the god in question is the one we've come to know in Christianity, I believe even god sees relative levels of morality. It's one thing to say that there is an absolute right and wrong, it's another to say that god holds us to those rights and wrongs in an absolute and non-negotiable fashion.

(Here is a link to a Mark Twain story that illustrates my meaning: http://www.classicreader.com/read.php/sid.6/bookid.263/ - In this story the aunts are moral absolutists with regard to behaviour, not with regard to existential philosophies of good and evil.)

Stealing is stealing, -true. But an omiscient being would likely know the difference between a batty old woman with a purse full of pilfered condiment packages and a gang of theives that swindle the hardworking, aged and ill out of their life savings (such as Enron and Ken Lay). Whether we as Theists believe there is an absolute right and wrong, good and evil is a different matter from how we interpret each and every instance of behaviour.

It's difficult to separate ourselves from the social mores that we've learnt. We perceive to the level of knowing that slavery is reprehensible. I'm not sure we can objectively look back on our society ages past and say that in that society, it was acceptable without our more current needs to judge slavery wrong getting in the way. Theoretically, I believe it's possible. Some great many things held immoral in the past are not now and vice versa.

[Spider Jerusalem]

12. Like it or not, moral relativism is the only same way to look at history.

Absolutism is at best absurd and at worst insane. And judging the past with the standards of the present is in itself a form of absolutism, as it seeks to impose modern values which have been in part shaped by progress in human knowledge and understanding on a situation where the principal actors LACKED that knowledge and understanding.