Moral Relativism

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Athena Isn't self defense a universal? Who would argue people do not have the right to defend themselves?

The ones trying to kill them.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I am amazed at the obtusity of your understanding of the term relativism. Absolute standards can protect the weak as a matter of course, for the purposes of justice and righteousness to be fulfilled. Relativism allows for the weak to be savaged because they don't have the correct ethnicity, religion, language or ruler. US moral relativism is what allows events like the Iraq War...

I disagree. Moral relativism allows for anyone to be savaged, depending on the circumstances. Moral absolutism allows for people to be savaged if they meet certain specific criteria. But nobody has a claim on absolute goodness, because people are not always good. Even those who purport to be moral.
George Bush is not a moral relativist. He is a moral absolutist, and what his morals tell him is that Americans are better than Iraqis, and so any reason that gives him an excuse to dominate Iraqis is good enough -- because he himself doesn't need an excuse. His absolute morals are enough for him.

At least, that's how I see him. Maybe I'm wrong.

Quote by: PatrickHenry Here's a Buddhist perspective: From Wikipedia...

Do you think I'm arguing against this because I'm not Christian? This is just what I think, and if the Buddhist perspective disagrees with me, then the Buddhist is wrong, too. And he is. I could imagine a strict, unquestionable morality helping the world to be moral if that morality was actually reflective of what truly is good in an absolute sense, but that is impossible, because we humans cannot know any absolute truth about universal morality; there isn't one. We all think we're right, and none of us can prove it; that's why I call myself a moral relativist.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: zynner One more thing to add to the definition of “moral” is the idea that it is based on what one “should” do. It’s not just any old decision-making process, but it is to determine what is right vs. wrong. So, “morality” is: a set of ideas and principles, which people use as a code for making decisions of what actions they “should“ take. Agree?

Yah.

Quote by: zynner You say that such a thing is relative. If your only point is that people differ as to what *they think* is moral, then of course that’s true. But so what? That does not mean they are right or wrong in their views. It just means it’s their opinon. Can they prove their morality is right? If there is such a thing as moral absolutes, then many people might be wrong. For example, if the Christian version of right and wrong is actually true, then everybody who believes something else is wrong. But we don't need religion. We can use the scientific method. If moral absolutes exist, then they have to be proven to be true, which means they have to be consistent and true for everyone. If they do exist, then the fact that a lot of people think and act differently would mean that those people are wrong. It doesn't mean that morality is subjective. It just means that people can make a choice to be immoral, or that they can just be wrong.

But what evidence is there of moral absolutism? Subjectivity exists, whereas a metaphysical force of morality is unsupported by evidence. Until there is evidence of absolutism, a belief in It is no more credible than a belief in God.

Quote by: zynner If we take a principle like “do what you like” and examine if that is a moral absolute, then we have to look at the effects in the real world of what would happen if everybody did pursue such a moral ideal. After all, we are talking about principles that tell us what people *should* do. It doesn’t matter that some people don’t accept it as valid. If it *is* valid -- a moral absolute -- then people *should* pursue it. That’s the point of morality.

Again this is based on if it is an absolute. You have yet to demonstrate that it is.

Quote by: zynner If what you like to do is debate, but I like to put people in prison and I put you in prison, then you can’t debate. So, “do what you like” cannot be a moral absolute. It's not possible for it to apply to everyone.

Exactly. It’s just a difference in moralities.

Quote by: zynner If “stealing is good” is a moral absolute, and everyone applied it, then nobody would steal, which contradicts the proposed principle. If everybody pursued the moral good of stealing, then as soon as you stole from me, someone else would steal from you -- and you would be immoral if you were *not* stealing. Nobody would be able to keep the loot they stole, so people would give up and would not steal. That’s what would happen if everyone accepted this as a moral ideal.

Right, but “stealing is good” is not a moral absolute and neither is “stealing is bad”, hence the existence of thieves. "Stealing is bad" is a moral majority, but until it is shared by everyone, it is, by definition, not absolute.

Quote by: zynner However, if “don’t steal” were a moral absolute, and everyone applied it, then nobody would steal, which is consistent with the principle. Everybody would respect each other and we would have a (more) civilized society. Since morality has to do with the context of living within a society, the whole idea is how we interact with one another so that we can all enjoy our lives. Therefore, “don’t steal” *is* a moral absolute.

Absolutism can mean one of two things. It can either mean that there is one set of morals which is 100% correct, and anyone who does not conform to these standards is wrong. This would suggest morality exists as a metaphysical concept, rather than simply a societal construct. Is that what you are suggesting?

Alternatively, absolutism can mean that there is one set of man made morals which everyone in the entire world shares. This is obviously not the case, otherwise Volconvo would not exist.

Quote by: zynner The moral absolutes do exist and can be identified with the scientific method. They revolve around the basics of property rights, starting with our bodies as our property. Things like don’t murder, don’t rape, and don’t steal are all moral absolutes because if applied to everyone, we would have a civilized society. The fact that not everybody follows them is *why* we do not have a civilized society.

The fact that not everyone follows them is why we don’t have moral absolutes. The moralities of “don’t rape, don’t murder, don’t steal” are moralities which are shared by the vast majority, but not be everyone. Moral asymptotes; not absolutes.

[zynner]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy But what evidence is there of moral absolutism?

You want to debate this subject, right? Why?

It's because you have used "a set of ideas and principles, which you use as a code for making decisions of what action you *should* take -- namely, that you want to seek truth (and correct me if you think I am wrong).

The very fact that you are engaging in this debate is evidence that *you* seek truth. Look around you. Everybody seeks truth. *That* is a morality everyone accepts. They differ in the subject mater of what *is* true, but the fact remains they *do* seek truth. Absolutely. ;-)

Subjectivity exists,

So does objectivity.

whereas a metaphysical force of morality is unsupported by evidence.

What metaphysical force supports gravity? It is reality itself. We look "out there" into the world. We use our ability to reason. We come up with concepts that might explain the world we experience. We test those ideas and we arrive at knowledge of the world we experience.

There is no "force" (like a god) that rules over the physical laws of nature. Nature just is, and we observe and we figure things out.

Humans are a part of nature. Our brains are, too. Our complex social structures and our interactions with one another are, too. Morality deals with these concepts and, therefore, is also a part of the world we experience.

...set of morals which is 100% correct, and anyone who does not conform to these standards is wrong. This would suggest morality exists as a metaphysical concept...Is that what you are suggesting?

Yes.

Alternatively, absolutism can mean that there is one set of man made morals which everyone in the entire world shares. This is obviously not the case, otherwise Volconvo would not exist.

Agreed.

The fact that not everyone follows them is why we don’t have moral absolutes. The moralities of “don’t rape, don’t murder, don’t steal” are moralities which are shared by the vast majority, but not be everyone. Moral asymptotes; not absolutes.

Morality, as such, is a set of ideas and principles ... about what we *should* do. *Should do* based on what, exactly? Based on ideas and principles. Who's ideas and principles? Just anybodys? The individual in question? Charles Manson?

If we use your view, then there is no such thing as morality or immorality. Go ahead. Try to give just one example of someone being immoral. You can't do it because, according to your view, the person committing the act -- murder, rape, whatever -- is acting moral in *their own* view. Therefore, according to this view, there is no such thing as morality or immorality. If so, you cannot have a conversation about it.

It seems self-evident that people *do* attempt to identify morality. *You* are seeking truth in this debate. *You* are attempting to use a moral code in doing so.

So ... morality must be something other than simply any old thing anybody thinks it is. Humans are part of nature, etc. Morality, if it is to be a meaningful concept at all, must be about what a person *should* do, based on ideas and principles that we can demonstrate -- in the real world -- that following such actions actually result in some sort of desired result.

What else can morality be?

Is gravity subjective? Is the fact that humans exist subjective? Is the human brain's existence subjective? Is the fact that we interact with one another subjective?

Is the fact that we *should* take or not take a particular action, based on ideas and principles, subjective? If so, why?

Most humans once thought that the Earth was flat. Did that make it so?

Some people today think murder is fine. Does that make it so? If it does, why?

Does the fact that you seek truth, as do everyone I know, subjective? If so, why?

~ zynner

[Zinkovich]

To all the theists out there: If you want to understand the "goods" and "evils" of the common atheistic mindset, it is best to view things in terms of consequences and not in terms of nebulous opposing forces.

Now then, here are some of my lame half-ass opinions. Feel free to tear them apart

Concerning my current ethical ideals

Good and evil are invalidated when used as symbolic of nebulous opposing overarching forces that cause certain actions when considered under the naturalistic mindset I possess. Good and evil also might not even be able to be proven as true when using intention as one of the identifiers, because what constitutes "Selfless" and "selfish" acts in some person's mind is often "wrong" in nature, or at least harmful in the long run.

To elaborate, when a man thinks it would be beneficial to propogate the cause of fascism in the name of governmental stability, is it "Good" because his motivations are selfless, and he's doing it out of care for others? When a selfish man uses capitalism for his own ends, but benefits society on the whole with his actiosn anyways, is he "bad" in what he has done? A man views homosexuality as a cause of many societal ills, and thus attempts to marignalize or prohibit the growth of homosexual culture; is his action "good" because of his intentions?

There are many issues I see with such a definition-firstly, people have a habit of extending these intentions as proof of their ideals under their definition- for example, one might begin to view the fascist man as a man with "good ideals" because he sacrifices his time and effort towards others, because we tend to equate ideas with people in our subconcious. Secondly, and this one is equally important in my mind, is the defining point of "mindlessly" and "mindfully" in your definitions-if one delibrately helps other after much introspection, how does that take away the "good"? If one mindlessly hurts others, how does that take away the "bad" of his action?

BUT, "Good" and "Evil" function well as a categories of relation in my opinion. Relations are things that can be analyzed, and explicated when it comes to their qualifiers, and thus something that could be divided into "good" and "evil" with a slight reworking of the original definition's connotation.

Anyways, to get back on track here, keeping my usage of the word "evil" as a category of relation than judgement or desription of some sort of nebulous collective force, there are many things that are beyond a doubt "Evil", and egoistic crimes that are wasteful in nature and harm another human being are in my opinion one of those things.

By destroying another person you deprive the world of his part as one of the collective; such actions literally have the potential of harming the future of society and it's ability to move forward. To go further, no one can kill a man and fully know his destiny or fullest potential, or how he may affect the very own person's future; because of this, murder, in many respects, is irresponsible, irrational and completely indefensible unless done in the defense of a geater number of potential holders(and even then only when it is absolutely necessary is such a thing even easily justifiable in utility).

What I said can also extend in some respects to other aspects of comitting crimes towards another member of the human collective; theft of monetary goods/means, for example, may derive a charitable man of doing a better good then your own towards society, and may prevent you from benefiting from his future service; lying, for another example, may derive someone from their path to truth all due to one's own deceptive nature, and may even go as far as to deprive society of it's chance to realize a totally revolutionary idea thanks to his realization. All things have consequences, and one must keep in mind the possiblity of certain results if one really wants to further explore the subject of ethics.

Concerning absolutism

Making a positive stance != making an absolute stance, in the realm of ethics.
When something is described as "non-absolute" in ethics, that means it is a system that is situational rather then dogmatic or static in nature. When "absolutist", it has a static, rigid code with several stingent standards/qualifiers

Which brings me to the primary issue of most absolutist systems(I'm bringing this up just in case anyone is interested): most of them lack a heirarchy when it comes to the importance of certain static moral laws and how one is thought to commit them. To use the ten commandments as an example, killing a few to save many seems to go against the ideal of "Thou shalt not kill", and yet it seems to be intuitionally right; for another example, when a man is asked to implicate someone of some sort of ill act they actually commited in a hostile setting, and would cause the death through his lies, or cause another(an "innocent third party" they might use for further leverage, for example), he is torn between "Thou shalt not kill", and "thou shalt not lie". In other words, without degrees, all absolutist systems are internally inconsistent. Such inconsistency often make these absolute laws self-defeating or contradictory in nature when coupled with certain events that might occur in reality.

The issue is not one in ethical systems such as utilitarianism, because degree is central to the system in and of itself, and because utilitarianism is situational in nature.

So, a question for everyone here: Can anyone think of an absolute law that does not possess internal incosistencies when coupled with reality? One that, perhaps, has an established heirarchy of degree concerning "rightness" and "wrongness"?

On relativism

Relativism in the non-ethical, anthropological sense is a limited claim when it comes to ethical implications, and is simply the acknowledgement of a simple anthropological truth about human perception and ethical judgement(i.e., that relativism in the anthropological sense is not saying that "morality is absolutely relative, and all is equally valid" just that "morality seems to be relative in culture, and is often a issue influenced by one's personal anecdotal experience").

In fact, a very clear distinction needs to be made here. To my knowledge, there is "moral relativism", the ethical stance, and then there is just plain relativism, which is a broader, less accusatory claim. I think we need to avoid conflating the two because the distinction between relativism as an acknowledgement and relativism as an ethical stance is often a source of confusion in debate.

[JohnMK]

Quote by: zynner It seems self-evident that people *do* attempt to identify morality. So ... morality must be something other than simply any old thing anybody thinks it is. Humans are part of nature, etc. Morality, if it is to be a meaningful concept at all, must be about what a person *should* do, based on ideas and principles that we can demonstrate -- in the real world -- that following such actions actually result in some sort of desired result.

This has been a very interesting discussion to follow. It is self-evident that humans are intensely curious and thoroughly enjoy the pursuit of knowledge. I shall have to return to my home planet and discuss this finding forthwith.

In comment to your statements here, zynner, what sort of "desired results" have been historically chosen, and what is the desired result at present?

[zynner]

Quote by: JohnMK This has been a very interesting discussion to follow. It is self-evident that humans are intensely curious and thoroughly enjoy the pursuit of knowledge. I shall have to return to my home planet and discuss this finding forthwith.

LOL.

In comment to your statements here, zynner, what sort of "desired results" have been historically chosen, and what is the desired result at present?

It's late and the brain cells aren't firing 100%.

But, are you asking about the granddaddy of 'em all? The grand pooh-bah of ultimate desire in a human's life? Ok...

Happiness.

~ zynner

[LogicaLunatic]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Listen Isherwood. If you are a moral relativist, you must agree that others have as much right to make moral choices as you, and that theirs are as valid as yours. Therefore you must agree that it is OK to rape kids if that is the person's choice...

I agree with you. Like you've been told, morals are subjective. Given that, any moral decision anybody makes is ok...subjectively. If somebody wants to rape a kid, I can't stop them from wanting to and I have no right to tell them that they shouldn't want to.

And besides, you're taking moral relativism and discussing only the extremes of it.

Take many things to the extreme and they become something that we know we can't deal with. Like Christianity.

But what about stealing from somebody who's holding you captive? How about killing somebody that's trying to kill you? Is killing somebody ok under some circumstances and not ok under others? If so, you're a moral relativist. As environment/situation changes, so do 'morals'.

[samsara15]

Situational Ethics, in other words?

[JohnMK]

You can talk morals and ethics till the cows come home. Bottom line is, in my neighborhood, we have laws against murder, and rape, and so on, and if you wanna come here and violate those laws, just try to get away with it. When we passed these laws, I don't recall the word "moral" coming up even once. So watchyou talkin' 'bout Willis?

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Zinkovich To all the theists out there: If you want to understand the "goods" and "evils" of the common atheistic mindset, it is best to view things in terms of consequences and not in terms of nebulous opposing forces. Now then, here are some of my lame half-ass opinions. Feel free to tear them apart

Oh, hush up. They're beautifully written and quite elegant, and you know it -- or at least you should.:)

Quote by: Zinkovich BUT, "Good" and "Evil" function well as a categories of relation in my opinion. Relations are things that can be analyzed, and explicated when it comes to their qualifiers, and thus something that could be divided into "good" and "evil" with a slight reworking of the original definition's connotation. Anyways, to get back on track here, keeping my usage of the word "evil" as a category of relation than judgement or desription of some sort of nebulous collective force, there are many things that are beyond a doubt "Evil", and egoistic crimes that are wasteful in nature and harm another human being are in my opinion one of those things.

This confuses me, a bit. You are describing these wasteful, harmful crimes as evil beyond a doubt, yet you see no nebulous force called "evil." How can something be unquestionably evil if there is no absolute evil? Can you explain the "category of relation" more?

In point of fact, I don't believe there is any evil in the world, because I don't believe in a higher power -- I assume that's what you mean by the nebulous force of evil, the idea that all badness derives from one quintessential source of evil, e.g. Satan. If there is no Satan, there can be no Evil, because without an absolute power there can be no absolute laws, IMO. But when you describe any category of actions as always evil, aren't you approaching this idea of absolute evil, albeit from a different tack?

Quote by: Zinkovich By destroying another person you deprive the world of his part as one of the collective; such actions literally have the potential of harming the future of society and it's ability to move forward. To go further, no one can kill a man and fully know his destiny or fullest potential, or how he may affect the very own person's future; because of this, murder, in many respects, is irresponsible, irrational and completely indefensible unless done in the defense of a geater number of potential holders(and even then only when it is absolutely necessary is such a thing even easily justifiable in utility). What I said can also extend in some respects to other aspects of comitting crimes towards another member of the human collective; theft of monetary goods/means, for example, may derive a charitable man of doing a better good then your own towards society, and may prevent you from benefiting from his future service; lying, for another example, may derive someone from their path to truth all due to one's own deceptive nature, and may even go as far as to deprive society of it's chance to realize a totally revolutionary idea thanks to his realization. All things have consequences, and one must keep in mind the possiblity of certain results if one really wants to further explore the subject of ethics.

I have to ask: why is promoting the progress of the collective absolutely good? Is society inherently good? Is progress inherently good?

Quote by: Zinkovich Concerning absolutism Making a positive stance != making an absolute stance, in the realm of ethics. When something is described as "non-absolute" in ethics, that means it is a system that is situational rather then dogmatic or static in nature. When "absolutist", it has a static, rigid code with several stingent standards/qualifiers Which brings me to the primary issue of most absolutist systems(I'm bringing this up just in case anyone is interested): most of them lack a heirarchy when it comes to the importance of certain static moral laws and how one is thought to commit them. To use the ten commandments as an example, killing a few to save many seems to go against the ideal of "Thou shalt not kill", and yet it seems to be intuitionally right; for another example, when a man is asked to implicate someone of some sort of ill act they actually commited in a hostile setting, and would cause the death through his lies, or cause another(an "innocent third party" they might use for further leverage, for example), he is torn between "Thou shalt not kill", and "thou shalt not lie". In other words, without degrees, all absolutist systems are internally inconsistent. Such inconsistency often make these absolute laws self-defeating or contradictory in nature when coupled with certain events that might occur in reality. The issue is not one in ethical systems such as utilitarianism, because degree is central to the system in and of itself, and because utilitarianism is situational in nature. So, a question for everyone here: Can anyone think of an absolute law that does not possess internal incosistencies when coupled with reality? One that, perhaps, has an established heirarchy of degree concerning "rightness" and "wrongness"?

Excellent points. As for your question, I have to respond with one of my own: what determines rightness or wrongness? For there to be a matter of degrees of these two things in a moral code, then the moral code has to admit of relative value and situational ethics, and moral absolutes do not do that. For instance, "Thou shalt not lie," is not self-contradictory within its own framework; lying is always evil, because God made it so. So lying to save your family, lying to save a life, lying in any situation is evil. The only one you are accountable to is God; not your family, not your country, not any other person. God judges your soul based on the weight of sin that you carry. If you tell the truth and someone kills your family, then you are without sin; you are expected to wait for God's judgement on the killer.

When you bring in the more earthly idea of weighing good versus evil, and actions that are partly evil and partly good, then the contradictions become an issue, as you said. But the moral absolutes themselves are just that: absolute. That's why I don't believe in them.

Quote by: Zinkovich On relativism Relativism in the non-ethical, anthropological sense is a limited claim when it comes to ethical implications, and is simply the acknowledgement of a simple anthropological truth about human perception and ethical judgement(i.e., that relativism in the anthropological sense is not saying that "morality is absolutely relative, and all is equally valid" just that "morality seems to be relative in culture, and is often a issue influenced by one's personal anecdotal experience"). In fact, a very clear distinction needs to be made here. To my knowledge, there is "moral relativism", the ethical stance, and then there is just plain relativism, which is a broader, less accusatory claim. I think we need to avoid conflating the two because the distinction between relativism as an acknowledgement and relativism as an ethical stance is often a source of confusion in debate.

I think I see your point, but unfortunately, I really do believe that morality is absolutely relative and all is equally valid, in an objective sense. I follow my own subjective morals, and as such I judge the actions of myself and others as good and evil by my own lights; but without an absolute power, there is no absolute law, and that means there are no objective moral standards -- just moral asymptotes (Good one, Johnmk). "Moral majorities" might be another way to put it.

[Jack]

If you are a moral relativist, you must agree that others have as much right to make moral choices as you, and that theirs are as valid as yours. Therefore you must agree that it is OK to rape kids if that is the person's choice...

Like I said earlier, I think we're approaching the concept from different angles.

My morals are situational. I subscribe to no absolute moral doctrine. Killing, lying, theft; none of them are always bad or always good. There are times when they're appropriate (moral) and times when they aren't (immoral).

In a society, everyone may have their own, equally valid, morals. In order to live peacefully together, we'll agree as a group that certain activities are allowed and others aren't. So we have personal morals and socially-agreed-upon morals. All are conditional or relative. Even as a society we don't believe that all killing is wrong.

So what obliges me, just because your moral code doesn't rule out killing children, to allow you to act on that premise?

[Cephus]

Quote by: samsara15 Situational Ethics, in other words?

All ethics are situational. Every single last one of them.

[Autolykos]

Mind if I jump in here? No? Okay then...

As usual, the dispute in this thread boils down to semantics. The terms "absolute" and "relative" can have more than one meaning each. Some people use them to denote "factual" and "non-factual", respectively; others use them to denote "universal" and "non-universal".

Unfortunately, the first group of people engage in the reification fallacy. They argue that morals somehow exist independently of human beings. In other words, morals are external objects that can be "discovered". Yet that is false, because if morals existed independently of people, they would exhibit physically observable phenomena. As far as anyone knows, no such phenomena exist.

On the other hand, the second group of people do not engage in such a fallacy. They understand that morals are beliefs that people have; as such, they are products of the human mind. So, on a meta-level, morality is entirely subjective. What can differ is the application of a given set of morals. In this sense, a given morality can be considered absolute, or universal (the two can be used interchangeably here), if it can be applied to all people at all times. Conversely, it can be considered relative if it cannot thus be applied.

Note that the terms "absolute", "universal", and "relative" are used in their logical sense. What this means is that, as Zynner pointed out, certain moralities can be logically proven to be non-universal, even to the point where they can never be applied to anyone at any time. The first person to point out that logic can govern morality was Immanuel Kant, but the first inklings of this truth can be traced back to Plato's Republic (specifically the part about the nature of good and evil).

If morality is governed by logic, then it is also self-regulating. Indeed, that is what we see throughout history. Certain sets of morals are doomed to become "extinct" due to either self-contradiction ("stealing is good" => no one steals) or, in the most extreme case, the literal extinction of humanity (logical conclusion of "killing is good"). Furthermore, it seems to me that every morality that can be considered relative will necessarily reach either of those states. As a result, we can predict that, over time, surviving moralities will tend to be those that are universal, non-contradictory, and non-extinguishing. We can call such moralities logically valid.

It seems likely that there is more than one logically valid morality. What this means is that the actual morals in question are not as important as whether they can be applied to (and thus held by) everyone in a society. To put it more succinctly, common morality is the key, as opposed to any specific morals.

- Rob

[luke virtual kh]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Moral relativism means anything anybody wants to do is ok. Maybe some sick bastard will rape your kid, but that wouldn't be wrong or anything, huh? There are absolute standards of right and wrong, bubba.

I don't know where you got your education from, a church pastor? I read philosophy and moral relativism is classed as a modern/meta ethical position and does not pretend to tell us what to do or what in particular circumstances is right or wrong (as a classical ethical theory would) but rather to describe that nature of moral statements. It is opposed to absolutism - according to moral absolutists, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, the will of God, or some other fundamental source - which I disbelieve in, primarily because I disbelieve in God. A moral relativist like me can say that rape is wrong, and in all cases, but would say that his belief is due to for instance personal subjective, albeit reasonable, preferences not some intrinsic yet unobservable law of God or nature. I think it is the most reasonable position, we are not sayiong all things are right, but all talk of right and wrong is reducable to purely human affairs.
Let me ask you this, if God told you to rape someone as he seems to have told the Jews to , would you? Or woud you use your own personal reason and good cultural upbringing and disobey? Did you actually ever read the Old testament?
I think you're a Christian, right?

[Morgan_Freeman]

Obviously you guys are having some trouble defining your terms. Maybe you should settle on a common definition before you start throwing around the heated rhetoric?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: zynner You want to debate this subject, right? Why? It's because you have used "a set of ideas and principles, which you use as a code for making decisions of what action you *should* take -- namely, that you want to seek truth (and correct me if you think I am wrong). The very fact that you are engaging in this debate is evidence that *you* seek truth. Look around you. Everybody seeks truth. *That* is a morality everyone accepts. They differ in the subject mater of what *is* true, but the fact remains they *do* seek truth. Absolutely. ;-)

I disagree. Some of us seek truth through religion or through science. However, strange as it may seem to a member of a debate forum, there are those who simply don’t care.

Quote by: zynner What metaphysical force supports gravity? It is reality itself. We look "out there" into the world. We use our ability to reason. We come up with concepts that might explain the world we experience. We test those ideas and we arrive at knowledge of the world we experience. There is no "force" (like a god) that rules over the physical laws of nature. Nature just is, and we observe and we figure things out. Humans are a part of nature. Our brains are, too. Our complex social structures and our interactions with one another are, too. Morality deals with these concepts and, therefore, is also a part of the world we experience.

Gravity is absolute because it operates in exactly the same way between every particle in the universe. Morality is not absolute because it differs from mood to mood, person to person and culture to culture.

Quote by: zynner Morality, as such, is a set of ideas and principles ... about what we *should* do. *Should do* based on what, exactly? Based on ideas and principles. Who's ideas and principles? Just anybodys? The individual in question? Charles Manson? If we use your view, then there is no such thing as morality or immorality. Go ahead. Try to give just one example of someone being immoral. You can't do it because, according to your view, the person committing the act -- murder, rape, whatever -- is acting moral in *their own* view. Therefore, according to this view, there is no such thing as morality or immorality. If so, you cannot have a conversation about it.

Not so. There is no God, but I can still debate the existence with one who does believe in God. I am in effect arguing that moral and immoral does not exist. It is, like God, simply a man made concept which makes the world easier to understand.

Quote by: zynner It seems self-evident that people *do* attempt to identify morality. *You* are seeking truth in this debate. *You* are attempting to use a moral code in doing so.

My moral code leads me to seek the truth. But that is my moral code. I don't think anyone who does not seek the truth is wrong.

Quote by: zynner So ... morality must be something other than simply any old thing anybody thinks it is. Humans are part of nature, etc. Morality, if it is to be a meaningful concept at all, must be about what a person *should* do, based on ideas and principles that we can demonstrate -- in the real world -- that following such actions actually result in some sort of desired result. What else can morality be?

That is exactly what morality is. However, the desired result is totally subjective. One man’s gain is another man’s loss.

Quote by: zynner Is gravity subjective? Is the fact that humans exist subjective? Is the human brain's existence subjective? Is the fact that we interact with one another subjective?

Clearly, no.

Quote by: zynner Is the fact that we *should* take or not take a particular action, based on ideas and principles, subjective? If so, why?

Because what we “should” do is subjective. The desired result for one person will not always coincide with the desired result for another.

Quote by: zynner Most humans once thought that the Earth was flat. Did that make it so?

No.

Quote by: zynner Some people today think murder is fine. Does that make it so? If it does, why?

No. Objectively, It is not fine and It is not wrong. It's just an action.

Quote: