Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Raz said this forum was the place for philosophy, so...

Do you belive morality is absolute or relative? That is, do you believe that morality is unchanging, or does it vary according to culture or situation?

Tricky question, however... I'd say absolute.

I' m inclined to say relative.

I believe that morality is absolute. It's always seemed to me that making morality dependant on culture degrades the term; it stops being morality and turns into the cultural norm.

Yes

"Morality is what I say is right, and immorality is what I say is wrong"
^I got this from GTA: Vice City.

On a more serious note, I believe it is absolute, for reasons stated above.

i think it will be cool if we got to be moral or immoral i know what i choose

i swear i made a thread like this a months ago.

Or it could me going mad

Before I started this thread, I did a search for relative morality and didn't turn anything up. You're probably going crazy.

care to gimme an example of what you mean by morality greg?

An example? Well ...

In America, it is considered wrong to kill someone, at least without provocation. In certain tribes of the Amazon, it's not considered wrong to kill someone unless he is part of your tribe. The question beins asked, tailored to this example, is: Is one of these conflicting values ("killing strangers is wrong" vs. "killing strangers is not wrong" objectively correct, and the other objectively wrong? Or are they both equally valid?

In theory, morality should be, at its base, absolute and never relative.
But morality is based on universal principles.
Some view abortion as morally acceptable while others see it as murder.

I agree. Morality should just stay morality. Ya know?! Let it be.

I think it's relative

Relative to culture? What happens when the culture doesn't come to a consensus on whether something is moral?

Gregory what you are doing there is being an external observant. To be apart of the culture is to understand the actions, behavior, and values of the culture. Think of it as an Anthropologist, when studying a certain culture one must be connected within the culture to understand. Therefore your own ethical standards would be different than that of the culture you are viewing. Adoptation is always helpful to a learning process of another culture.

Lao-Tzu vs Confucius.

Lao-Tzu= Be the way you are

Confucius= Never think of evil and be good.

ill discuss more on this later i g2g soon

Which I suppose then means that Morality is relatively absolute
as in it is absolute, relative to the personal beliefs of the people/culture in question.

I'd say morality is relative to the culture you're raised in, because from that specific culture is where your morality originated, and grew from. While like you guys stated what they consider to be moral is completely different to yours

You go Hockey! You are "the" Philosopher of KMC.

When people say that morality is relative to culture, what do they mean? What is my culture? Americans? Pennsylvanians? College students? Democrats? Atheists? I belong to all these groups, but I do not identify myself with them. When faced with a moral question, I don't ask myself, what should a good liberal do in this situation?

If morality is relative to culture, and I do not have a clearly defined culture, does it follow that I do not have a clearly defined morality?

i believe morality also has to do with human genes and genetic backgrounds.

mrals are relative speaks for itself I think

I hate to repeat myself, but...

When people say that morality is relative to culture, what do they mean? What is my culture? Americans? Pennsylvanians? College students? Democrats? Atheists? I belong to all these groups, but I do not identify myself with them ...

Or do you think morality is relative to something other than culture? If so, what? I know there are people who think that morality is unique to each individual, and that you therefore can't judge other people's morality. I think that's absurd, myself.

Morality is one of those concepts that we all have an accepted understanding of, but the moment you try to define it in any way, the meaning is hard to capture.
Defining morality in such a way as to gain general agreement is, at best, difficult. At worst, it is impossible, at least in part because any definition precise enough to be useful is likely to offend proponents of one moral theory or another.

I think that for the most part that morality might be absolute. I know when what I am doing could be considered wrong. Everyone has a heart.

RE:

Morality is one of those concepts that we all have an accepted understanding of, but the moment you try to define it in any way, the meaning is hard to capture.


I agree. It is hard to really explain how morality works. But yet we are still aware of it and its prescence in our daily lives.

storm> excellent observation. morality is a concept that is composed of absolute and relative qualities. as the collective human family, morality is absolute in the sense that we all have a basic sense of it. from that point, morality splinters innumerbly. morality is relative in the way that societies grow, learn, pass down their belief systems, ways of life, and all other patterns.

it is incorrect to say that morality is either absolute or relative, because it is both.

hockey> thank you for referencing lao tzu. if you ever have the opportunity to research or study the belief system he instituted, seize it. it is always beneficial to expand your mind and learn new ways to look at life.

madsci
hip hop purist

the one that provides you with laws and rights

in your case your culture is american (since you are a united states citizen) I know it sounds weird greg it's pretty hard to explain but basicaly it comes down to laws and rights

Does that mean that I, a black guy living in a slum, an Asian immigrant, and a billionair living in a mansion all have the same culture? Seems pretty iffy to me.

madsci> good to see someone knows about Lao Tzu's beliefs.

I'm not evil.... just "differently-moral..."

Can a system of morality be justified?

Why should one act morally?

How can others be persuaded to act morally?

These questions are fundamental to any practical application of moral theory, therefore it is worthwhile to continue to reflect upon them.

What are your views on morality, be it with regard to religion, daily issues or even just personal opinions?

you can't persuade others to act morally you shouldn't force your views of morality on other people.

morality can't be justified IMO it doesn't need to be justified either.

Why should one ac morally, because it normaly keeps you out of trouble in that society.

True that morality needs no justification, surely it should come naturally?

Nor should views be forced onto other people, but can they not be encouraged to see things from a different perspective?

I believe it is ingrained in our nature to be ethical, empathy and understanding are a big part of humanity, therefore immoral actions are learnt, whereas morality is there to begin with.

If by political system you mean...yes! A system is composed of members. As long as the members of a particular system are provided with means to survive is a good thing. Of course there is got to be reasonable rations for all member equally.



For the benefit of the system. By obeying the laws and doing our duties there shouldn't be reasons to commit inmoral acts. If the commonwealth is good shape there shouldn't be reasons for crime, poverty, and corruption.



Not persuasition (sp?), but obidence to the laws of the state.

For me a moral citizen concerns himself with the laws of the state. If the laws are inmoral, it is the citizen resposibility to question them.

I agree, members need the means to create and maintain harmony.



Does it really boil down entirely to the commonwealth? Like I said previously, it should come naturally to us not to commit immoral acts, obviously we learn right from wrong as we grow, but don't we all start as innocents?



True, but it doesn't seem to be working that way. How much say do citizens really have, whether laws are moral or not.......

OMG, I'm so sorry, I didn't think to look and see if someone had already opened a morality thread

I'm an unethical, evil person.........

Edited

Thanks whoever did that.......

I'm thinking not. How exactly would you demonstrate that a moral system is justified. The only answer I can think of is, "If it promotes morality." But that answer is inadmisible because until we select a system, we cannot say what is or is not moral.

WindDancer proposed quality of life as the test. But it seems to me that this is simply another moral system--"Morality is living in a way that every body is provided for"--that can no more be justified than any other.

absolute

Morality is relative. Not necessarily to culture, but it's still relative... For example, if you had to choose between the death of someone you loved, and the deaths of two strangers, most people would choose for two strangers to die.

However, I do understand how morality is relative to culture. There is no "right" in this world... It all depends on perspective. Or in most cases.

Well they're amoral

Thsi, I agree with completely. Our leaders, in your view, are contradicting themselves and all they stand for. Well argued Omega, and nice to see you. I hope your travels went well?

Off the cuff: I think that many do have inherent morality, but some just don't. Those who have no conscience merely try to exploit those who do.

Shaber> But does having no conscience rule out having morals? Or do you think those who kill, steal or lie aren't aware that they're doing something wrong?

The Omega> Weelll, bottom line; bad people relish doing the wrong things such as inflicting pain and stealing etc. not necessarily just when it is likely to further their interests. Obviously they have something wrong with them, but the problem isn't lack of awareness. They can quite easily infer what outrages everyone else. With regard to the military leader; infanticide is widely considered to be wrong, so an obvious way to manipulate a wide range of people is by playing on their antipathy there and redirecting it.

However, those who don't care about right and wrong have invariably had problems in their upbringing and a genetic predisposition to viciousness. A healthy person does have an inherent morality.

Yups. By "bad people" I meant sociopaths or psychopaths whichever

Less outlandish persons do immoral things under duress though, like stealing if they're starving, but obviously they know that to be wrong.

Shaber> Ah, then we're in agreement.

clap

Talk about taking the long way round guys

Interesting debate, I enjoyed reading you both.........

Morality is absolute, ethics are subjective.

I disagree with both you and Omega.

If your are stealing food because you are hungry you are not acting immorally.

I think that while stealing is generally and immoral action, there are certain exceptions where certain rules do not apply.

If you kill someone who is attacking you, you are not a murderer.

If you lie to protect yourself when you have done no wrong you are not acting wrongly.

While killing, lying and stealing are immoral actions in a perfect world, we do not live in a perfect world. In a perfect world, yes these are immoral actions. But, dont tell me a poor person who steals because they need food is acting immorally. If anything is immoral, it is the fact that starving people still exist in this world. The amount of grain and corn produced in the US is enough to feed the entire world. Instead it is used to feed cattle for beef production, greatly reducing the total amount of actual food produced. Because Americans want hamburgers, children in Ethiopia starve because there is no grain. Who is acting immorally here?

I dont know if I am describing ethics here or morality, or applied ethics or what, but I have a big problem with you calling the actions of the hungry who steal as immoral. Their actions are morally justifiable.

It the moral principle of "I'm ****ing starving, Im taking this food."

well to look at how the commandments have been altered in the bible from.
"Thou shalt not kill" to " you shall not murder"

Sigh... dammit i dont want to talk about the Bible.

Legalistically, If you are kill someone and it is in self defense you are not a murderer. You then have a burden of proof to show that you were really acting in self defense, but as far as the actually killing goes regardless of the outcome of the investigation you still acted in a way which was not immoral... it was morally justifiable.

you obvious missed the point of my last post, it is that even the commandments have altered it so that killing in self defence can be justified.

yeah i did miss your point... i just saw something something Bible something... and was like don't care, don't care... I shouldnt have even responded.

My bad.

nah dont worry about it, I get your point too much bible stuff already so...................

Its all good...

hmmm TC that phrase sounds kind of familiar

As you should. If you have no other choice, save as many as you can. It is immoral to allow another human being to come to harm through inaction or action in most circumstances.

Someone would still be coming to harm........

And what is "immoral" to one isn't neccessarily to another. I'm sure some would think it worse to allow family to die. Myself, I'm not sure what I'd do in that situation......

Well essentially, a family member is dying anyway. Preventing a loss to you, might also be depriving someone of their father, son, brother, mother, sister, aunt etc. So it depends where you stand on what's selfish or not. I mean I can't be sure I'd vote for my family member, or someone I loved, to die. Infact I'm pretty sure I wouldn't, however I would think like "Wow, that person intended for me to suffer for the choice I've made and yet I've got what I want. Over with, someone is now without a possible loved family member." Which would feel quite shit, but then again, I deal with me and I'm not a sanctifier of life so I'd likely do what I needed to to save who I loved. I guess as shit as it would feel, I'd rather have the death of two strangers to me on my conscience than that of my loved one coz you would notice your loved one is dead. Two people you never even knew existed being dead isn't gonna bother you other than the fact that you had to choose that.

-AC

I admit it I have about as much morality as fish have finger

Maybe that's what fin is short for.....

-AC