This is why we grew to teach our children to value honesty instead of deceit, because it is useful and even required for a society to function.
This is not the same as me saying everyone would lie if the arbitrary rule against it were removed, this actually explains why we wouldn't lie. Namely, because it's not an arbitrary rule.
I'm not at all suggesting people only tell the truth and never lie, there are times -I even provided one- when telling a lie would in fact be required of a person.On the other hand if people told only the truth there would be so many offended people that social interaction would soon break down.
Reality is not a situation of only one or the other. Communication is a careful blending of both, couples with the ability to distinguish between the two.
Honesty is a subjective value. What one person holds as a truth another sees as a lie.
With your second statement I agree fully and have incorporated that into my moral philosophy.
These people are the exception and not the rule, clearly the removal of that value is progress.But then again people have valued murder throughout history. In fact it is only relatively recent history where the ordinary people have been able to defend themselves from being murdered at the whim of their betters. A few examples like the samurai of ancient japan had the right to kill any lower class person at a whim.
If it was the rule and not the exception, there would be no peasants to murder.Medieval europe was also a place where murdering peasants for sport was common practice. I could go on and name several civilisations where murder was a valued tool of those who could use it.
I wasn't intending to go into detail, I believed the concept was simple enough, certain values progress society and certain values diminish society. This applies to the extremes and the grays. In a society that faced drastic overpopulation, murder might very well be valued and even conducive of fulfillment. Eskimos regularly practice infanticide because they know they will not have the resources to raise certain children and are, in theory, protecting their children from a life of pain and bringing pain to others -as the child would only take up more resources-.The problem I have with both examples is that they are both good examples of a false dichotomy. It is not a case of either value life or honesty or go around lying and killing. There are various shades of grey in there.
They do have subjective value in the minds of those who value them, but they also have relative value as to the happiness they promote. In the same way that people have a subjective value placed on money, though it has a relative, but real, value in buying things. The things I'm speaking of are not meant to be absolute in that they are always right and always wrong, but universal as in where they are always the rule and never the exception, they diminish a society greatly.As both telling a truth and killing have had a subjective value placed on them throughout the various civilisations of history then neither can be said to be a constant and therefore not a moral absolute.
I'm sorry, but you have only committed abductio ad absurdum, you have not, however, proven me wrong. Please take that into mind and rethink my argument, in order to form a better of your own.
It is just as relevant as currency is.That they have existed in all civilisations is irrelevant. Many things have a commonality in civilisations that have nothing to do with moral absolutes.
I should hope they are not absolutes. Absolute rules suffer the weakness of potentially or actually contradicting themselves. One could easily create a hypothetical scenario where you must either lie or kill someone and have no other alternative.At best all you can do is make truth and murder such a bland generalisation that they become meaningless terms. Neither are convincing as absolutes because of that.
What I am looking for is not absolute morals, but an absolute rule or method to come to certain morals. This rule would, in some cases, allow murder and in other cases disallow murder. It would sometimes allow deceit and sometimes disallow it. There could possibly exist something the rule would apply to that would never be allowed or never be disallowed, though I do not know what it is -if it exists- it would only be a case of circumstance that such a thing just so happened to always adhere to or violate such a rule.
Absolute morality is extremely arrogant in that it doesn't take into account the situation on is in and cannot hope to.
As I have stated, I currently think my hypothesis of equalizing relationships is such a rule. It takes into account each specific situation and it replicates many of the already moral ideas we are taught to agree with -which necessarily have to have value in making a society function in order for us to begin subjectively valuing them to begin with-