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

Another good book about the fact that there is a moral code among human beings, a way we should act, and the fact that we don't:

Mere Christianity, by C.S. Lewis, an Athiest who converted.

Basciall his point is:

When someone does you wrong, you feel it is wrong becuase we all have a code of what a person "ought to do", and they aren't following it.

(funny that some of these same people would feel that way about themselves, yet speak of "doing whatever feels okay for you" in the general populace.)

The problem with that opening scene is that it tries to knock down relatavism because it is unpleasant.

Remember, relatavism or absolutism are opposing viewpoints. Morals are either absolute, in some way, or relative, in some way. Therefore, one side is right and the other is wrong.

But that opening scene has nothing to do with right or wrong. It simply makes out relatavism to be unpleasant. Now, no matter how unpleasant the truth is, it is still the truth, and you cannot attack a position like that when you are trying to say it is wrong, just because it is not very nice. That, indeed, is the tone of the whole posted piece- it's not objective. It finds relatavism distasteful, and so tries to make out it must therefore be incorrect.

As it happens, I am an absolutist, but sinking to the level of 'relatavism isn't nice, so I won't even consider whether it is correct or not' is pathetic.

IMO, "absolute moral relativism" smacks of Mind thinking itself enlightened and free of all cultural shackles from the past. "We've learned from past mistakes." It implies some kinda pinnacle of moral development...and frankly, looking around, I don't see us at any kind of pinnacle.

Absolutes exist: physically, biologically, psychologically (and perhaps spiritually as well). Our ignorance of this likely stems from our preponderant tendency to overthink the simplest matters until we end up with absurdity passing as philosophical wisdom.

I like the title....it's directed at anyone who thinks of him/herself correct all the time. Which we all know that isn't the true.

But the thread is against people who say that, WD.

That is why I said I like the title.....didn't mention the book.

We are never all the time wrong or all the time right. This is not the point of this thread IMO. The intended point of the thread is to demonstrate that we are all moral moral absolutist

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gaunilo2/mere.html

I think there is a little misconception. I, as a moral relativist, believe there is no moral difference between actions, that they are all equal....neutral so to say.

That doesn't mean that I can't hold a subjective view on morals and what I prefer. I don't want children to be tortured (okay, I am kind of neutral on the issue, but still) not because it is absolutely wrong to torture children (it isn't imo), but because I like to lead myself to believe that all humans have rights, that I don'T want to cross and that no one else should cross. So basically you need to make a difference between absolute morals which don't exist, and subjective morals which certainly exist.....in many ways.

Morality, in the strictest sense of the word, deals with that which is regarded as right or wrong.
(From wikipedia)
"that which is REGARDED..." I can't subscribe to absolute morals, because WHO has declared them absolute??
Obviously humankind seems to have had ideas about wrong or right since the dawn of time, universally cultures view killing, theft, robbery, rape and assaults against humans as wrong. But how many cultures have upheld these all the time?

Wars are prime examples were killing, theft, robbery, rape and assaults have been committed against others.

At one time slavery was deemed okay. Later it was outlawed. At one time racism was just a way of life, later it was seen as wrong.

Perhaps we should also distinguish between...
1) Moral absolutes (as a point of debate, if nothing else).
2) That your morals may not be those absolutes.
3) Morals (relative or absolute) are often ignored for selfish/nefarious purposes.

You guys are right...IF there is no God then there are no absolute and people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong BUT you see from my story the problems with reletivism.

God gave 10 commandments, not 10 suggestions. Even if you do not beleive in God that is okay but you have to agree that the commandements are good for us to follow. Unless you are evil which again there is really no evil if there are no absolute and what a sad world that would be. Actually many people live like that and look at the state of things

Originally posted by MARCMAN
You guys are right...IF there is no God then there are no absolute and people decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong BUT you see from my story the problems with reletivism.

God gave 10 commandments, not 10 suggestions. Even if you do not beleive in God that is okay but you have to agree that the commandements are good for us to follow. Unless you are evil which again there is really no evil if there are no absolute and what a sad world that would be. Actually many people live like that and look at the state of things

Even if there is a God, there can't really be moral absolutes, can there?

Thou shalt always be honest and faithful to the provider of thy nookie, and thou shalt try real hard not to kill anyone, unless of course they pray to a different invisible man than you.

George Carlin's 2 Commandments seem just as good.....

Anyways, I wouldn't even say that all the 10 Commandments are that good...and necessary to follow. But moral relativists don't necessarily believe that there shouldn't be Laws or Etiquette, but that those Laws and Etiquette are not absolute....which makes sense.