If moral absolutes exist, on what are they based?
Jim in SC
2012/05/07 03:27:55
|
|
|||||
|
11 votes
|
|
55% | |||
|
4 votes
|
|
20% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
5% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
5% | |||
|
0 votes
|
|
0% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
15% | |||
So... they're based on words that refer only to themselves.
They're most often based on dogmatic beliefs, religious or other, ego and power struggles. They're often used as a social tool to whomp others over the head with, whether they fit reality or not.
I'd like to challenge you with a thought, and get your opinion on it, if you don't mind. When you say they are often used as a social tool to whomp others with, does the way a moral absolute is used determine if it is valid or not, or does the absolute stand on its own for validity? I guess what I am getting at is, if something is absolutely valid (how I would define an absolute), then shouldn't that be held as true, regardless of how people go about treating others in light of the absolute?
I hope my question isn't too vague or rambling. I've enjoyed reading your replies to a couple of my other questions, and like your thought process, so I'd like to get your thoughts on this as well.
Thanks.
The important thing is that we're capable of living our lives according to what we view as the law of the land and rules of morality in a way that still allows for both freedom of and from religion. That's the important thing.
Does your question wittingly or unwittingly have false, disputed, or question-begging presuppositions behind it?
See loaded question: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/l...
You asked:
"When you say they are often used as a social tool to whomp others with, does the way a moral absolute is used determine if it is valid or not, or does the absolute stand on its own for validity? I guess what I am getting at is, if something is absolutely valid (how I would define an absolute), then shouldn't that be held as true, regardless of how people go about treating others in light of the absolute?"
The first problem is that different peoples define moral absolutes or absolutism differently (for starters, see "Descriptive vs. normative relativism" and "Moral absolutism" on http://rationalwiki.org ) and then filter debates over such through a variety of different reality filters. Moral absolutes differ from culture to culture and from religion to religion, or from one interpretation of atheism to another. When examined, debates in this area are largely fuele...
The important thing is that we're capable of living our lives according to what we view as the law of the land and rules of morality in a way that still allows for both freedom of and from religion. That's the important thing.
Does your question wittingly or unwittingly have false, disputed, or question-begging presuppositions behind it?
See loaded question: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/l...
You asked:
"When you say they are often used as a social tool to whomp others with, does the way a moral absolute is used determine if it is valid or not, or does the absolute stand on its own for validity? I guess what I am getting at is, if something is absolutely valid (how I would define an absolute), then shouldn't that be held as true, regardless of how people go about treating others in light of the absolute?"
The first problem is that different peoples define moral absolutes or absolutism differently (for starters, see "Descriptive vs. normative relativism" and "Moral absolutism" on http://rationalwiki.org ) and then filter debates over such through a variety of different reality filters. Moral absolutes differ from culture to culture and from religion to religion, or from one interpretation of atheism to another. When examined, debates in this area are largely fueled by (often unspoken) undercurrents of religious and cultural presuppositions, ideologies, and/or theologies. This quickly becomes a deep, deep topic that can suck up even lifetimes of debate. Okay, so there's that.
Also, many supposed moral absolutes are sound and only revealed as conditional in extreme (!) and often probably-never-going-to-happen in your life situations that can and do come up for someone out there
Other moral absolutes can turn out to be really dumb in just too many situations.
For these reasons, it's best to discuss on a case by case basis to see just what exactly what's on the table.
Key Point: Moral absolutes are not the same kinds of absolutes that we might see in science. There's a difference so we should treat them accordingly.
Again, the important thing is that we're capable of living our lives according to what we view as the law of the land and rules of morality in a way that still allows for both freedom of and from religion and robust, egalitarian (representational, in our case) democracy.
You are right that different people or groups hold to what they believe to be different absolutes. I would add to that the comment that what a person or group believes and what is actually in fact true may differ greatly. But regardless, what people believe to be true definitely shades their thinking, and forms their worldview. That is often done at a subconscious level, so we are often unaware of our own presuppositions. Failure to understand or acknowledge one's own presuppositions is definitely a killer to moving forward in a debate or discussion.
If you don't mind, I'd like to dig a bit deeper. How is common sense determined? Is it universal or cultural (or a combination of both)? If two groups hold different sets of "common sense" that are at odds with each other, then which one is more valid (how do you determine which one is more valid)?
I think we all agree that murder is wrong, pretty much all races, nations, creeds, cultures, etc. agree on that. What about other types of killing? Accidental, self defense, heat of the moment, etc.
There could be a laundry list of "what if's", but I'd be interested in hearing your thought process on how to determine the validity of common sense.
Basicly everyone should live by the Golden Rule
http://cheerleadinginfocenter...
then Logic plays a role
Religion Vs Logical Ethics which is better?
http://www.sodahead.com/livin...
Good vs evil.
What is good? What is evil? Can we truly ever know? Purveyors of religion feasts on the concept of the devil to empower their faith. In the end, we are all just lambs to the slaughter
the Ten commandments say Thou shall not kill another Hebrew
not Thou shall not murder these were laws only for the HEBREWS not the rest of mankind
I recently acquired what is supposed to be a copy of the first of the ten commandments as they were reported to be given to Moses..
The wordings are as follows and one can see how they changed over the centuries....
The Deuteronomists ignored the Yahwists decalogue and used ..Yahweh spoke those words from the middle of the flames and the steam and the volcanic ash.. The he engraved them on two tablets and gave them to me (Deut. 5:22 The decalogue that preceded those words 5:7-21 were as Follows..
1. you are to admit no foreign gods into where I gaze.. (there had to be other gods)
2. You are not to make yourself carved representations of any shape found in the skies above or in the land below or in the water on which the land floats, and Kowtow in homage before them and honour them. (No craven images)
3. you are not to swear in Yahweh your Gods' name that which is false.
4. You are to slave for 6 days completing all of yur chores, But the seventh day is Yahweh your gods' seventh, your're not to do any chores..
5. Worship your father and your mother so that you will live a lo...
the Ten commandments say Thou shall not kill another Hebrew
not Thou shall not murder these were laws only for the HEBREWS not the rest of mankind
I recently acquired what is supposed to be a copy of the first of the ten commandments as they were reported to be given to Moses..
The wordings are as follows and one can see how they changed over the centuries....
The Deuteronomists ignored the Yahwists decalogue and used ..Yahweh spoke those words from the middle of the flames and the steam and the volcanic ash.. The he engraved them on two tablets and gave them to me (Deut. 5:22 The decalogue that preceded those words 5:7-21 were as Follows..
1. you are to admit no foreign gods into where I gaze.. (there had to be other gods)
2. You are not to make yourself carved representations of any shape found in the skies above or in the land below or in the water on which the land floats, and Kowtow in homage before them and honour them. (No craven images)
3. you are not to swear in Yahweh your Gods' name that which is false.
4. You are to slave for 6 days completing all of yur chores, But the seventh day is Yahweh your gods' seventh, your're not to do any chores..
5. Worship your father and your mother so that you will live a long time and prosper...
6. You are not to Retsakh (Kill a Fellow jew.) (No mention of anyone else)
7. You are not to Naf,,(ejaculate sperm in the wife of a fellow jew)
8. You awre not to Goniv (rob a fellow Jew)
9,, You are not to give testimony against your fellow jew...
10..You are not to lust after your fellow jews wife, nor after his dwelling, his farmland, his slave, his slavegirl, his ox or his ass, or anything your fellow jew owns...(anybody else was OK)