Morality -- Relative? or Absolute?

[Avatar]

This is something that many of our topics recently have touched on, and which has been discussed, but perhaps not as exhaustively as I could like.

It's a simple question really. Is morality absolute? Is it a line drawn in the sand, with everything on one side being "moral", and everything on the other being "immoral"?

Do individual circumstances have an effect on morality? Do we hold everybody up to the same standards, regardless of their situation? Or do we accept that in certain circumstances, there are things that are wrong, while in different circumstances, those same things could be, if not completely "right", at least not absolutley "wrong"?

It's a difficult question perhaps. For me, it's only in certain circumstances that I can accept an absolute morality. Which means that it's not really absolute for me. As you probably know, I don't like absolutes. I think they leave too little room for improvement.

--Avatar

[The Pumpkin King]

I personally think that morality is by far the most relative thing there is to being human, which is why that I think that most moral questions, aside from common-sense ones (Stealing is bad, as is killing) shouldn't EVER fall in the hands of any government.

The fluidity of morality is something that most people have a very hard time of accepting because something that is rigid and unchanging is easy to accept and understand. It's the same reason that, say, it's easier to make the assumption that some greater being created the universe for some unknown purpose than it is for us to explore it and figure out the mechanics behind what it is, and why it's here.

Which brings me to my arguement. Absolute morality is something that you find a lot more in religion than you do among more secular things, such as, say, philosophy.

I'm not saying religion is bad; hey, if it's your cup of tea, drink it. But just that, you can study a religion and learn most every nuance of it, but you can spend a lifetime studying science and philosophy and not even get an echo of what's going on with it in the broadest sense, beyond what..well..people that have dedicate their lives to such things have figured out themselves.


That being said, it's a reality that not everyone in a single country, in most cases, shares a single religon. And there are people in such countries that aren't religious at all. Within all this division lay drastically different moral standards. Thus, I think, as a government is the figurehead of society, on a whole it has no right to impose a strict moral standpoint of life on the whole of the aforementioned society, because the society itself isn't congruous as a whole.

But, I'm rambling...

Back on subject, I think that morality is entirely subjective, except for an obvious subset.

I call that subset "common sense."

[Fist and Faith]

The "Pitch's idea..." thread is close to the bottom of this page. I said about all I can on the subject in those 21 pages. heh

But, to sum up: Relative.

[lurch]

...Morality HAS to be cast in stone. The relativity is purely the human application part. The Absolute has to be there. What humans do with it,,the exceptions,,the equivicating, etc..has to be recognized for what it is..and a person,,tribe,,State, Society,,Country is historically judged on how they acted accordingly.
,,and example of what i refer to..( one out of Millions)..is the now infamous, remember the maine incident...USS Maine blowing up in the Havana Cuba harbor...hearst turned it into reason to go to war..and the public and politicians followed the rallying cry an went to war against Spain. Unfortunately,,the maine has been found and looked at closely..while not conclusive..it appears the cargo stowed to close to the boiler was the culprit..not an explosion from the outside..It blew up from the inside out..not from outside in..
...But, without any real factual knowledge,,just abunch of hyperboyle from the Hearst newspapers..we went to war. Historically,,just another reinforcement of the world view of Americans being a gun happy, empire happy, crazy lot. Now hold on to your moralistic superiority,,because, come WWI and WW2,,certain civilized european countrys were darn happy to see those gun happy empire happy crazy american GI's rolling down their avenues and boulevards...but...even that history...hasn't changed the Morals about killing folks...
...Another way to see it is like this...When we go to war..it doesn't matter for what reason..IT JUST DOESN"T MATTER. okay,,don't even float a good example until you've read the rest..No matter what reason, rallying cry, etc is for going to war..a person, state, society, country,,is entering a Black zone. All is black there,,i don't care if a million saints are born from a million sexual encounters between american soldiers and women of an invaded country...all is Black. If one accepts that and doesn't try to say,,well this was a liter grey andthis was close to white,,and that was medium grey...then one is more likely to keep going to war as least wanted path to travel..A poster here uses as tag line the great quote by Robt Lee,,about less we grow to liking it..Thats my point. Morality has to be absolute..or otherwise,,we find it just so easy to equivacate,,and make excuses...and not deal honestly with the consequences of excuses and equivacating. ...you know...eyes wide open.....MEL

[wayfriend]

Morality cannot be absolute, by induction, if not by definition.

There is no cosmic scale on which morality can be measured. There is no chemical indicator; there is no physical test; there is no calculable algorithm.

Acts are considered moral or unmoral by people, and only by people. People are affected by circumstance, experience, emotion, bias, and need. So any measure of morality is affected by these things as well.

Yes, people desire a gold standard to hold all human actions up to, but there is none, it is only a wish, it is only self-deception. Look hard at a fundamental rule of morality and you'll find a deep-seated prejudice dressed up to look like an unalterable truth - a pig with lipstick on it for sure.

Morality is relative. Absolutely.

[lurch]

WF..are you just in a provoking mood?..Since when is a wish,,also a deception...A group of Afro-Americans wished to be treated equal..wished for Voters Rights,,Housing Rights,,etc...they were and are deceived by their wishes?...Your statement is exactly the excusin and equivacating ,with out check ,that I refer to in my above micro essay. Thanks for proving my point...MEL

[The Pumpkin King]

WF..are you just in a provoking mood?..Since when is a wish,,also a deception...A group of Afro-Americans wished to be treated equal..wished for Voters Rights,,Housing Rights,,etc...they were and are deceived by their wishes?...Your statement is exactly the excusin and equivacating ,with out check ,that I refer to in my above micro essay. Thanks for proving my point...MEL

That's the thing though. Such actions CAN go unchecked, even if most people view them as awful because of the nature of morality.

There isn't some universally accepted book of moral action, and there isn't a way to scientifically test something to see how moral it is...it's simply a purely human concept, and being such, can ONLY be accurately measured on a purely individual basis.

[lurch]

..Okay PK..That is the beauty of the golden rule..it is all about from and to the personal level..One person can't control much more than that...
...I mean..with out any thing absolute..then even the most fluid can get away with being a brick wall. Its a orwellian world with out Absolutes. ..okay ,,i said it,,orwellian world...boo hiss..but please do notice how the equivacating and excuse making pigs talk the other animals into the slippery slope of changing values....MEL..ps...you say that there isn't some universal book on morality...yet ,,,just about every book written by religion or specific religions,,mentions the Golden Rule in some shape manner or form. Its there in ancient san skrit. Its there in the book of Mormon...there is your universal.....MEL..pss..oh oh..3rd edit,,maybe by now..its occured to you and some or most others..the developing realization of a paradox...That which can be measured, calibrated, metriced,,Science...realizes constant change. While that of the human abstract..in this case, the example of Morality,,absolute or relativistic?..requires Absolutes..a wonderful paradox. Imho..it is in these paradoxes of life, the paradoxes of the Human Condition ,,that the real mystery of life,,the magic,,the unexpected,,is found. I await a certain favorite author of ours to explore a doozy of a paradox he left us hanging with......MEL

[ChoChiyo]

Mel--I am very much a pacifist in many respects--but I also believe there is a time when decent people must take up arms. A case in point is when Hitler was massacring Jews, gypsies, mentally retarded people, and pretty much anyone else who pissed him off or questioned his absolute reign of evil.

Also, his plan was to systematically take over Europe--then the world.

I think there are some moral absolutes--but I don't think there are millions of them.

I think the key morality issues that I regard as absolute are:

(1) Children must be nurtured and protected--no matter whose children they are.

(2) The individual must take responsibility for the good of the group.

(3) The group must take responsibility for the individual.

(4) The group AND the individual must take responsibility for the environment (if we want to live, that is.)

(5) Lying to get your own way at the expense of another person or group is wrong.

(6) Torturing or mentally abusing anyone for any reason is wrong.

(7) All people need to seek for truth and enlightenment. Those who don't are just taking up air better used by others.


There may be one or two others. But pretty much, that covers my moral absolutes.

I don't think it matters a hoot if I wear pants or a dress or nothing at all.

I don't think it matters if I eat pork or beef or guinea pigs or snakes or kosher carrot sticks.

I don't think it matters if I marry a black man, a white man, a Chinese man, or a woman of any color.

I don't think it matters whether I worship in a church, a mosque, a temple, a field, or a closet, so long as my search is sincere and my goal is enlightenment.

A lot of other t hings don't matter either.

These are just the ones that come to mind.

[lurch]

Cho...I accept that there will be moral equivicating and or excuse making. Apon that acceptance, its my belief ,,that one therefore has to be aware that it is moral equivicating and try and realize the consequences of that..be prepapred..make a plan...etc..One can make all the right hoopla about justification for going to war..but if one isn't prepared to deal with the consequences of war..in any regard( not specific here)..then faults just tend to avalanche to worse and worse excuse making.
...Nobody really wins when War is declared. War is a breakdown of all that is supposedly keeping us one step above the rest of the animals. We admit failure as soon as we declare war. Thats the human condition. Hitler was a megalmaniac that nobody early on said BS! to. He played peoples fears and phobias like a master violinist. He was beyond the worst. Words pale beside his deeds.....and he brought the rest of the world to him..to his level. He succeeded.
...The Japanese,,have realized the same in their War Lords and Emperor relationship...The Emperor was brought down to the common human level and the Japanese do not want any serious standing army or navy abilities. Yea, they can put a couple of hour fite if the Chinese see fit to invade,,but thats why they let Nixon put nuke subs between them and the Chinese,,of course being the sharp business men that they are..Nixon had to give'em the whole TV/Stereo manufacturing business in the deal,,which he did..but the point is...the Japanese castrated any meglamaniac tendencies in the future by saying we aren't going to give them a army or navy to do anything with..(be careful history buffs,,yes i know the treaty was good for what 50 years,,?..so i make reference to what the japanese have done and decided since 1995) .So,, there is an example of knowing and accepting the realities of humans ability to find reason to go " black" and be prepared for it....
...Specific lists are on a as required level. but i find for my purposes,,one rule ,,applied to all situations,,keeps it easier to manage..even tho it make take more discipline....MEL

[Fist and Faith]

I am the most important thing in existence. Why should I consider anybody or anything else to be more important than me? Or even as important? Therefore, there's no objective reason to think that it is wrong for me to lie, cheat, steal, or kill for my benefit. Everybody else had better beware, because I don't care what happens to you, as long as I get what I want.

That attitude is perfectly valid, and there's no objective argument against it. You could argue that the objectively correct attitude is the one that works in all situations. For example, though it works fine in societies, the attitude I posited above will not work for me if I am stranded alone on a desert island. With no other people to take advantage of, if I don't live off of my own labor, I don't live.

But I could counter that "what if's" are irrelevant. I am not on a desert island, so there's no reason to base my current behavior on that scenario.

You could argue that my attitude will land me in jail. I could counter that I would then be living off of your taxes, at no expense to myself. You may think that the loss of freedom is unacceptable, so that is not truly the "easy life," but I may disagree. It seems that many do.

No matter what argument you come up with for objective morality, the reality is that many many many people disagree. And that is the proof that there is no objective morality. Stealing is wrong? I think so (although I didn't always), but the police report in the newspaper, day after day after day, tells me that huge numbers of people disagree. So how is it objectively proven that stealing is wrong?

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Avatar Wrote:

For me, it's only in certain circumstances that I can accept an absolute morality. Which means that it's not really absolute for me. As you probably know, I don't like absolutes. I think they leave too little room for improvement.

Hey Avatar, what if the certain circumstances we're refering to are, for example, life as a human being on the plant earth? I mean, we have tons of biological constraints, and societal influences, and the influence of our environment... we are all tied together by some basic mental functions, right? Are those circumstances good enough, or do you need more specific circumstances then that? :)


Pumpkin King Wrote:

Back on subject, I think that morality is entirely subjective, except for an obvious subset.

I call that subset "common sense."

Now I know you were joking here, but hold on a minute... I think there's really something to this line of thinking. I think the 'common sense' morality is the 'morality' that is common to the human being on the planet earth. Things like... if you have a whole lot of food, it's probably better to eat it over time as opposed to all at once, especially if there's a shortage of food. Or something like... I don't know.... fostering a culture where people don't just shoot each other at random in the shopping mall.
When you say subjective or objective, it gets me thinking.... if you mean objective in the sense that there is some sort of universal judge of morality, then I can't buy it. I'm an atheist, there's no way an atheist can buy into a universal morality. It's a contradiction of terms.

However, I can definately buy an objective human morality, as long as we have a yard stick to judge it. My personal yard stick is made up of things like... things that cultivate joy and satisfaction... make life easier for people to be who they want to be. Stuff like that.

[Avatar]

Good grief. Can you believe that I started this topic, (aah yes, on a Friday Afternoon) and then promptly forgot all about it. (Been having occaisional problems when after submitting a post, the forum decides to mark all topics read for me.)

Some interesting posts guys.

Fist-- Even on that desert island, that attitude would still work. It's not based on there having to be anybody to steal from/whatever. Only on the fact that you could if it was available.

And in regards to the stealing issue, we only call it wrong in relation to how we feel if somebody steals from us. If you don't care if people steal from you, then you wouldn't understand why people care if you do. Obviously, as you say, countless people don't think it is wrong for them to do so, whatever the reasons that they use to justify it.

Lurch-- Yes, I agree that the Golden Rule seems a fairly safe thing to bet on, but it still doesn't account for societal differences in morality. What if you encountered a guy whose fondest wish was to have red-hot needles driven through his body?

Would you want him to apply the Golden Rule to everybody he met? It only works as long as you have a shared value of how everybody wants to be treated, and we don't have that.

JemCheeta-- Sorry, need far more specific circumstances than that. Even those shared mind-sets are not common to every human, hell, I'd venture to claim that even biological imperatives are not held equally in common by everybody.

I'm not talkiong about some universal judge of morailty either. I mean things that are immoral by everyone on earths standards. And that is clearly unobtainable. Whatever we consider to be immoral, there is going to be somebody who doesn't think so.

Given that, there is no objective morality. All morality is subjective, because everybody has a different value for different things.

I like your yardstick, but its still subjective. What cultivates joy and satisfaction for you is quite different than what does so for somebody else. The value of "joy" or "satisfaction" may be one of the most subjective things in the world.

WayFriend--"Morality is relative. Absolutely."


Cho-- While I like and agree with your ideas there on the whole, the point is that you consider them absolute. Not everybody.

And therein lies my whole point. One mans meat is another's poison and all that. An objective morality means something that everybody believes to be the right thing to do, under any circumstances. That there is no case in which the altering thereof can be justified by anybody.

And that's obviously not so. There are always going to be people who justify the means by the end.

--Avatar

[Nathan]

I agree absolutely with everything Avatar says.

I'm not quite sure what Mel is trying to say, could you say it again without an example please Mel?

[wayfriend]

WF..are you just in a provoking mood?..Since when is a wish,,also a deception...

I didn't say "a wish is a deception". I said a people wish for a moral absolute, and people deceive themselves when they think that they've found one.

Let me posit this: if a statement is a moral absolute, then, by definition, there could be no circumstance in which following such a statement could be immoral, and none where disobeying such a statement could be moral.

You can disagree, but that's what 'absolute' means, so if that definition doesn't work for you, then you're calling something an absolute which is not an absolute, and the not-absolute party wins right there.

Now, let's take some examples, shall we?

6) Torturing or mentally abusing anyone for any reason is wrong.
Starting with an easy one.

Let's imagine: You've caught the man who designed the genetically altered virus which has destroyed 12% of the planet's human population already, and will likely do in 98% in another four months, and you've discovered that he has a vaccine, because he has given it to himself and has been found to resist the virus. He won't tell you how to make the vaccine, but specialists say it takes about 3 months to make it if you start today. An covert intelligence psychologist has studied him and has declared that this villian would likely confess quickly if threatened with physical harm.

Incredibly farfetched? Irrelevant to the discussion here.

Would it be moral to threaten him with physical harm? Most would agree that that would be the moral thing to do.

Therefore, the proposition was not a moral absolute.

(1) Children must be nurtured and protected--no matter whose children they are.
(7) All people need to seek for truth and enlightenment. Those who don't are just taking up air better used by others.
These are interesting to put together.

Consider any child with a mental handi-cap - retardation, downs, autism, etc.

Are they taking up air better used by others? Or should we nurture and protect them?

One of the above was not an absolute ...

Morality has to be absolute..or otherwise,,we find it just so easy to equivacate,,and make excuses...and not deal honestly with the consequences of excuses and equivacating. ...you know...eyes wide open.....MEL

Au contraire.

Retreating to the position that your actions are defended by a moral absolute, unassailable and unquestionable, is the biggest excuse, equivocation, and unhonest dealing there is. "It's not my fault, I'm just following the rules!" Pah! Be responsible for yourself.

[ChoChiyo]

(1) Children must be nurtured and protected--no matter whose children they are.
(7) All people need to seek for truth and enlightenment. Those who don't are just taking up air better used by others.

These are interesting to put together.

Consider any child with a mental handi-cap - retardation, downs, autism, etc.

Are they taking up air better used by others? Or should we nurture and protect them?

One of the above was not an absolute ...

OOooh. Clever boy.

I would counter by saying that I should have added

(7) All people need to seek for truth and enlightenment as they are able. Those who don't are just taking up air better used by others.

And then I would add an (8 ) The weak must be protected by the strong. It is our obligation to protect the weak as that is what sets us apart from the unreasoning beasts.

Very good post WF. Very thought provoking.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Av, I think you're assigning to humanity a level of variance that isn't realistic. I think the circumstances of being a human animal are a lot more defined than you might want to believe... but as far as an 'absolute morality' goes, I definately have to agree with you.

So where do we go from there?
I know you hold that human freedom should be upheld over all else, that we should have the right to choose for ourselves in as much as possible... is that justifiable? Without an absolute morality, obviously you can have nothing besides your own opinion. So then, there is nothing inherently wrong in total despotism, and the robbing of someone's choices in life, correct?

Where do we go from here, when we determine that morality is not an absolute? Can there be any sense in cultivating humanity, or raising a child well?

[Fist and Faith]

(6) Torturing or mentally abusing anyone for any reason is wrong.

I'm sure people in the S&M scene would disagree.

Let me posit this: if a statement is a moral absolute, then, by definition, there could be no circumstance in which following such a statement could be immoral, and none where disobeying such a statement could be moral.

I like this. That's as clear a definition as I can imagine.

(1) Children must be nurtured and protected--no matter whose children they are.

(7) All people need to seek for truth and enlightenment. Those who don't are just taking up air better used by others.

These are interesting to put together.

Consider any child with a mental handi-cap - retardation, downs, autism, etc.

Are they taking up air better used by others? Or should we nurture and protect them?

One of the above was not an absolute ...

I don't like this. Why do you say that we should not nurture and protect those who are taking up air better used by others? Cho certainly didn't say that. I don't think we should decide whether or not to nurture and protect others based on how they act - I think each of us should nurture and protect if it is our nature to nurture and protect. If it is not a particular person's nature, then it might not be an issue anyway. But maybe we should try it on the air-wasters just the same, and see if they can grow.

But I also disagree with Cho's #7. Some people who cannot possibly be bothered by such things seem to be at least as happy as I am. In fact, without trying, they seem to have the Zen mind that I am always trying to figure out how to achieve. (Yes, I know it doesn't work like that. But I'm stuck with myself, eh? ) Just like every animal, they simply are. Effortlessly, naturally. Brightly, brightly, and with beauty.

Fist-- Even on that desert island, that attitude would still work. It's not based on there having to be anybody to steal from/whatever. Only on the fact that you could if it was available.

Hmmm, how do I put this... Ayn Rand's thinking was that the parasites of society - those who do not produce or do society any good, but rather steal and take advantage of the work and good will of those who do produce - would die of starvation and/or exposure to the elements if they were stranded alone on a deserted island. Without anyone to do the work for them, they would die. That's her proof that their way of life is flawed, or objectively wrong. If a way of life cannot work under any circumstances, it is not a good way of life. I'm saying that an argument could be made that it doesn't matter what would happen under hypothetical circumstances; that the only test of an objectively correct way of life is whether or not it keeps you alive in your actual circumstances.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I cannot stand Ayn Rand. She's referred to as "I I I Me Me" in my circles...

[Fist and Faith]

"I I I Me Me Me" isn't entirely surprising. I would refer to her that way in jest, and those who have only heard of her, but not read her, would certainly get that impression. I'd be interested in hearing negative views about her from those who have read her. Maybe I'll start a thread for her in the other forum, but it's never looked like many Watchers know her, or care to.