Morality -- Relative? or Absolute?

[Nathan]

However, we are social animals by nature. Part of our success and survival depends on support networks of friends, family members, business partners, etc. In this way, cultivating these things may be one of the easiest ways to serve oneself.

What about hermits? What about other kinds of people who prefer to be alone or spurn company? If they prefer their life that way they'll live their life that way. For someone with no friends or family, who lives on his own and runs a one man business doing something where he doesn't talk to his customers will not find that the easiest way to make his life better. His easiest way would probably be to work harder at his job on his own.

Same with the thief, stealing may be his easiest option, otherwise he wouldn't do it.

I agree with Avatar here. (again)

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I'm not arguing for an absolute morality!
The vast majority of the people that I've met have preferred social settings, at least to some degree. Of course there are people who operate well otherwise, I don't deny their existence. I'm just saying that it is dramatically more likely for a human to prefer at least some mild contact with other humans...

[Fist and Faith]

I'm closer to Jem on this issue than Av or Nathan. Nathan gives good examples. Consider the hermit. If someone goes off to a remote location, no human contact of any kind ever, then there is no need to consider any moral issues at all. Do whatever makes you think will make your life easier.

But the man with no family or friends who runs a one-man business where he doesn't talk to his customers still needs to consider moral issues. What could be a better business than advertising some product for sale, getting orders with payment in the mail, and never actually sending any product? Extremely little work being put in, nearly no overhead, almost all money received is pure profit. Some people even do this on ebay.

Obviously, this kind of short-term thinking will not give anyone the life they want, unless they want to always be on the run, and likely go to jail where they don't have to pay for anything, make decisions, look for a job, or anything else. But those who want a stable life, where they can grow, where they are safe from certain worries, would be advised to be honest and honorable. Those who have dealt with you will recommend you, professionally and personally. You have a better chance of continued economic success, as well as satisfying personal relationships where you are not wondering if most of your friends are really your friends.

I can't help but believe that we all, as individuals and societies, would be in better shape if this morality, based solely on logic/cause & effect, were practiced more often.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Exactly. While it's not anything that even resembles an absolute morality, and while some people may want the life on the run, etc... perhaps they're captivated by the romanticism of it, or perhaps it's what they do best and they don't know how to do anything else, either way, they are in the minority, wheras the vast majority seem to prefer stable human relationships, comfort and trust.

I'm recently come onto existentialist atheism, and I need an ethic here! Otherwise I'm just floundering...

[Nathan]

I see your point. There's no such thing as absolute morality, but if there was the world would be much easier for everyone to live in.

I'll agree with that.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

That's not exactly my point.
Actually, I think it would be much more constricting if there were an absolute morality, and I'm glad there isn't one.
What I'm getting at is that just because there isn't an absolute morality doesn't mean that the concept of morality or ethic is done and over with, it simply can't have the backing of a universal god figure.
When there isn't a universal god figure, what you have left is humanity... sure, humans are subjective, but that subjectivity is limited by circumstances.

[Fist and Faith]

*bump* so we can actually see Jem's great post!

[Fist and Faith]

*sigh* Which I still can't see without either hitting postreply or previewing a reply from the Quick Reply box.

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Oh no. We're in the limbo of page 4 of 3! I've been here before.

Hey, as long as I'm floating in this metaphysical thread nightmare, fist, do you know what's going on with this craziness?

[Fist and Faith]

I have no clue. It's happened occasionally over the couple years I've been here, but nothing as widespread as it currently is.

[danlo]

(for some reason reading this thread brings to mind Les Miserables, especially on the subject of stealing... It also makes me want to reread lots of Hesse, Sartre and Aliester Crowley )

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

I'm learning html and xml/xhtml right now (I didn't learn it when I was 10 like all my friends ) and I'm using it to do a Thoth tarot deck database Fun stuff. Eventually I want to design a roleplaying game that is tarot based. W00t. N3rd!

[Avatar]

I quite agree that the fact that there is no absolute morality doesn't mean we should just give it up as lost. On the contrary, it should mean that we devote even more effort into the question of subjective moralities.

The challenge is the improvement of the rest of humanity, without the backing of the god-figure. Aarg, sorry, I'm not feeling very coherent today, I'm sure it'll pass.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

But when you start using words like 'improvement'... I mean, is that just trying to impose our views on others?
What am I implying when I say that I think people should commit less violent crimes? That I'm 'right'? right really loses a lot of its meaning in this case..

[Avatar]

good point. Yes, I suppose it is trying to impose my view on others. Of course, I can't think that everybody following my view would be a bad idea, because of necessity I think my views are the best.

And it's true that perhaps "right" has little or no meaning. Should we simply allow the world to descend into anarchy? Well, sounds good on the surface, but the practicalities are a little more complex. Hell, it's a tough one, and I certainly don't have an easy answer.

If morality is relative, then nobody is wrong. (Of course, it's all a matter of perspective. Nobody is wrong by their lights anyway.)

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

Wait, letting the world descend into anarchy sounds like a good idea?
Hehehehehehe

[wayfriend]

So it's ... There's no Moral Absolute so Let's Pack It In ... eh?

Everyone is responsible for developing their own moral compass and then following it. Too bad it's not as easy as reading a granite tablet. It's hard ... you'll never finish, and you'll never know when your right ... too bad. Is copping out really your next choice?

Maybe pretending that an absolute morality exists is the only thing that keeps 90% of the world trying to do good. If so, then I guess there's one good thing about it. But that's nothing I would brag about.

[Avatar]

Everyone is responsible for developing their own moral compass and then following it. Too bad it's not as easy as reading a granite tablet. It's hard ... you'll never finish, and you'll never know when your right ... too bad. Is copping out really your next choice?

Well said WayFriend, well said indeed. It's up to us. And as you say, maybe it's a reliance on the assumption that it's not up to us that allows people to keep on trying.

We are responsible for creating the framework of our lives. We give these lives meaning, and we give them standards. Nobody else. Perhaps that thought is overwhelming to some, perhaps that is a responsibility that they just don't want.

Nonetheless, it's one that we all have, whether we admit it, and take the responsibility, or whether we prefer to accept it from some external force. In the end, we still decide.

--Avatar

[Gadget nee Jemcheeta]

That's Sartre's absolute. We are absolutely free, absolutely responsible.

Of course, some of us disagree...

[Avatar]

That's Sartre's absolute. We are absolutely free, absolutely responsible...

Yep, that's pretty much the way I see it.

--Avatar