The Basis for Moral Absolutism

In another thread, PatriotNews made the claim that

When I asked for an example, his reply was rape. While I would agree that rape is morally wrong, I hold no illusion that my belief is not based on any absolute standard. Since this would have been off topic in the other thread (and it was closed before I could respond) I thought I would bring it up here.

Does anyone wish to make a case for an absolute moral standard against which moral questions can be judged?

 

This is a topic that I am passionate about as IMO Moral Absolutism is a primary source of strife in our world. For morality to be absolute and universally applied to all humanity it has to be backed by an authority greater than the individual. The authority that most argue is firstly God, and secondly Government. Certainly Government does wield authority but it is hardly universal to all humanity nor are all laws moral by my measure of morality. Deity based religions argue that God is the final authority on morality, but as mankind worships many different Gods, that say many different things, which are then interpreted by man in many more different ways, this can hardly be a reasonable argument for moral absolutism by my measure of reason.

To me there is just something so self serving in one believing that their morality is the right morality for all humanity or in line with what some theological intangible (God) allegedly says. Some passionately argue that their morality is in line with a absolute morality... which to me is akin to the ego stroke of mental masturbation as it sure can feel good but accomplishes nothing. I argue that an objective moral truth in my head becomes nothing but a subjective opinion once I express it to another. Morality is relative to the individual.

On the question of rape I would agree that it is an immoral act by my measure of morality and would even be so bold to say that most people would agree with me on that. In America we have a higher authority (the Government) that has deemed that rape is wrong (immoral). But rape is an easy case to make... lets pick a moral argument that is not so clear cut... long hair on men. Long hair on men causes no actual harm to anyone but none the less some will pass a negative judgment upon a long haired man singularly based upon the fact that they have long hair. What is the source of this judgment? Speaking from my own experience as a man with long it is often based in ones interpretation of the Bible, while other times its based upon stereotypes.

Much of the strife in the world is in part caused by moral absolutism and those who want to force their morality upon others. As morality is relative to the individual strife becomes likely when two conflicting moral ideologies come in contact with each other. This can be two people locking horns like here on the forums, all the way up to Nations facing-off.

 

Once we move away from the fundamentals (which are mostly universal and certainly not limited to a single culture or religion - ie, killing, rape, stealing, etc), I'll wager that those who are for moral absolutism will have difficulty defining what these morals are. Not only because they don't necessarily know, but also because they know and recognise that said morals are completely bogus - and more rightly described as conditioned cultural mores, than universal, meaningful, moral absolutes.

 

judging others based on harmless trivialities (long hair, tattoos, clothing, etc) is an act of immorality, IMHO. yet another manifestation of the corruption of Jesus' message. were I of a superstitious disposition, it would about convince me that the dark one is winning the souls involved.

 

One would think killing would involve a moral absolute -- "Thou shalt not kill."

Except you can kill -- in self-defense, in wartime, in order to save the lives of others.

And there are shades of killing -- first-degree, second-degree, third-degree, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc. We recognize varying degrees of culpability and seriousness, even though the result in each case is a dead person.

People who are uncomfortable with the complex reality of the world like moral absolutes -- it seems to simplify things. But they don't work very well in the real world.

 

?
The absolute standard is that, "No behavior of your's should hurt innocent other people."

 

LOL

Morals exist based upon the rule that, no behavior of your's ought hurt innocent other people.

The government and the church both are institutions which want to enforce this.
But they did not make the rule.
Society makes the rule so we can all live together.

- - - Updated - - -

No behavior of your's ought hurt other innocent people.

 

Interesting OP. Absolute morality would require an absolute authority in order to enforce it and as there is no consensus that there is an absolute authority then absolute morality does not exist.

 

But what if we have to harm some innocent people in order to prevent other innocent people from being harmed? Is it still an absolute that any action which harms innocent people is morally wrong?

 

What about Mr Spock's " The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one"? Sometimes you must do harm for the greater good.

Edit:yes I know Spock isn't the originator of that quote. Humor can be fun kiddies.

 

An action is moral as long as the facets that surround said action are aligned with the divine attributes of God.

 

Indeed, but what constitutes harm is subjective and is relative to the individual. My long hair harms no one, yet I have been judged negatively based solely upon it a number of times in my life.

Society is a diverse mix of people that I doubt all agree upon any single thing thus the subjectivity.

 

Who gets to decide for all if an action is "aligned with the divine attributes of God"? I argue its the individual thus the subjectivity.

 

I agree. In a previous debate on morality I was perplexed that not a single person who was against women going braless could list a single harm that said action causes society... yet they would not back down from their negative judgment of braless women. It is baffling to me how one can make a negative judgment yet not be able to defend said judgment other than to say its wrong or something along those lines. If it is wrong then why cannot they explain WHY its wrong?! If I say a thing is wrong I can explain my position and defend it.

 

I thought god was unknowable.

 

that's what happens when your righteous indignation is wasted (on things which don't need it). you don't even know why you're wasting it - you just regurgitate someone else's petty mores. meanwhile, the stuff that desperately needs our righteous indignation passes unremarked.

 

I've never heard this. It would probably be beneficial to know what all of God's divine attributes are. Could you please list all of God's divine attributes so I, and others, could have a better idea of how to act morally?

 

Er, how does one know if they are aligned?

And what exactly are the divine attributes of god? Seeing as how god commits genocide, routinely administers collective punishment, and demands prostration and submission, amongst other wonderful attributes, which ones do you consider "divine"?

 

Which God?

 

moral absolutism is as nonexistent as any god you may try to use to set the standard with!

 

Triage is not an action against others, but a decision to help those who are best served by what we can do to help people.

- - - Updated - - -

Like "Love thy enemy" for instance?

 

Societies do make the rule to have no harmful behaviors that hurt innocent people.
Societies ought observe this morality, and most do not.

Long hair hurts no one, and it is immoral to reject people for having it.
But in restaurant service work, it is unsanitary and must be restricted, as an example when it morally behoves long haired people to cut it off.

 

Ethics might be a problem, but if the people behave in ways that hurt innocent others, then their acts are immoral and UNSOCIAL, too.

 

The Bible's "God" is Reality.

Reality has a son, called Truth.
Truth is the image of Reality.


The earliest Christians understood this and established the concept of Trinity in Rev 3:12:

For mankind, Truth and Reality are the same thing, because one explains the other, and images the other, and truth is born out of the Reality which unfolds, so men can not tell one from the other.
That is a Trinity.

 

Indeed, but not all in society agree upon the rules thus the subjectivity.