Moral Relativism VS. Absoulte

Started by Philosophicus4 pages

If people have different ideas of morality exist, then no real morality exist.

Originally posted by Philosophicus
If people have different ideas of morality exist, then no real morality exist.

true in a way...

but there are some fundamental things that are considered fundamentally wrong, like murder...

And there is also other thngs that are consider wrong like abortion and gay marriages.JM

Originally posted by Jackie Malfoy
And there is also other thngs that are consider wrong like abortion and gay marriages.JM

see thats where the problem lies...

jackie your entitled to your opinion, no matter how much i disagree with you your still entitled to it...

i on the other hand don't believe abortion or gay marriage is morally wrong...

Originally posted by pr1983
true in a way...

but there are some fundamental things that are considered fundamentally wrong, like murder...

Nothing can be considered to be fundamentally wrong - not even murder: It's wholly subjective, in the sense that for one person the act of killing someone else may be the right thing to do, while for another it's completely wrong. There is no absolute right and wrong, so murder is neither right nor wrong - only an individual can decide what's right and wrong for himself.

Moreover, to say that something is fundamental - the mode you are employing here, exacts the imperative of universality concerning a certain matter, i.e. everyone in the world agree that murder is wrong - which is not the case.

i said murder... not killing... murder is subjective...

for instance...

people in africa stoning unmarried pregnant woman maybe murder to us... but to them its legal execution...

by definition murder is the unlawful act of taking another persons life... that its generally considered wrong...

"by definition murder is the unlawful act of taking another persons life... that its generally considered wrong..."

Still, it does not justify murder to be seen as fundamentally wrong - it's still subjective - nothing is fundamental. Generally does not amount to Fundamentally.

suppose your right... i can't articulate properly without sleep dammit...

dunno why i said fundamentally... i meant generally 馃槷

Good night then. 馃檪

Well, for one thing, I think that morals are something that are created by a society, not that are given to us from some higher power.

After having taken an ethics class (which I found VERY interesting), I've come to the following decision about morality: The basis of it is absolute, but how each culture defines this base makes it relative. Yes, this does make sense, if you think about it. Murder is something that in all cultures is considered to be wrong; it is an absolute moral. A society cannot continue if people are allowed to run around killing others for no reason. However, each culture has their own definition of what murder is, therefore applying relativism to an absolute.

The idea that any absolute truly exists is also subjective. Anyway, just because society deems murder wrong, doesn't make it an absolute law - that would require a deity.

Originally posted by Philosophicus
Morals do not exist - but loves and loaths do. In essence, it is selfishness in the sense that everyone want what they want, even if their wills are altruistic it still remains the one thing they want, or what makes them happy - what we love we are for, and what we hate we are against.

That's for people who don't have self control.

I believe do unto others as you would have them do unto you!
An oldie, but a goodie

ABSOLUTE

Whether or not a practice is culturally acceptable has nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong.

"Then you don't really hate to pay taxes - you can only hate something when you hate it 100%, and when you are totally against it."

Bit of a random rationale there.

On morals, that's why the mind is so often a confusing issue in terms of crimes. Because some people just don't view things as wrong, despite everyone else (society, individuals and law) believing so. It's the basis of all debates on morals, because it sparks the questions answered in this thread. To a degree anyway.

-AC

I belive Morals are only made up by society. And they come from the self interest of every person.
For example, most people don't want to be killed, but if they were alone in a war of everyone against everyone they would probably die rather fast, so they create a society to be stronger so they can stop people from killing them (Hobbes) and now this society makes morals that take all the self interests together so tjhat everyone can leave decent.
And to remain in this state of "peace" they the one hand make laws and on the other they teach there morals so that from the beginning people belive them to be right..

Morals are only for the good and the evil - the rest can't afford it.

STILL a firm believer in absolutism...

absolutism is born within the subjective sphere of the existential agent

No it isn't. Any person can describe an objective concept, he just might not be able to know its details. Absolutism is simply the belief that morals are not subjectve; that remains a possibility even if no-one ever describes it, so the fact that the people describing it are subjective or otherwise is irrelevant.

How can you prove there are objective/absolute concepts? Have you got cosmological authority?
The mere fact of the existence of interpretation and ideas countering absolutism and subjectivism proves that all is subjective.