Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many fundamentalist/conservative religious people contend that without god there can be no objective morality. There are some problems with moral absolutes. For example nazism, communism and fundamentalist religion advocate moral absolutes, yet they tend to have different views of what is considered to be a moral absolute. Presupposing that atheism equals moral relativism, how are moral absolutes not relative when different ideologies advocate different standards for moral absolutes? How can one say that what they consider to be a moral absolute is superior to what someone else's ideology says is a moral absolute? It seems that moral absolutism is just another form of moral relativism.
It's been pointed out many times that the morals in the Bible which are always proclaimed as being absolute and unchanging include such behavior as owning slaves and carting off your enemies possessions including the women and children as being perfectly acceptable in biblical times. Thankfully most of the human race perceives this as being immoral in the twentyfirst century and it seems to be explained away by the New Testament which supposedly replaces the Old Testament. That's really a problem right there because Christians seem to be admitting that the Old Testament is often cruel and unjust so how do they reconcile that fact with the belief that the Bible, which is supposed to be God's word, seems to change and become less harsh in the New Testament (even the NT is very harsh by today's standards though)? It appears that the Bible itself indicates that there are no absolutes in terms of morality.
To the original post an absolute does not have to be the same as a universal. Evolution is not accepted by all, maybe not even most, of the world's people but that doesn't change it being mostly true. ("Mostly" because all scientific theories are cognitive models that undergo testing to better fit reality, I don't mean evolution will somehow be overturned by creationism or something so don't go there) Something being universal might make it likely to be true, or at least significant (a prohibition on having sex with your own mother is, from what I recall of anthropology, a universal. Hence the famous curse-word and also the ancient historians who would slur "barbarians" by saying they allow it), but that doesn't mean all true things are universally accepted.
Anyway the societies you give who held moral absolutes are intentionally skewed as most arguments, atheist or theist, here tend to be. Perhaps mine are too at times, but when I make such errors it's also an error. Anyway there have certainly been many peaceful religions or groups that held to moral absolutes. I'm reasonably certain the Mennonites, the Shakers, River Brethren, the Jains, and a few others have a fair amount of moral absolutes.
How can you reason with someone who thinks they have absolute knowledge.
The same way you reason with someone who thinks they have ANY kind of knowledge. The reasoning is the same . . . only the outcomes are likely to be different.
The same way you reason with someone who thinks they have ANY kind of knowledge. The reasoning is the same . . . only the outcomes are likely to be different.
To the original post an absolute does not have to be the same as a universal. Evolution is not accepted by all, maybe not even most, of the world's people but that doesn't change it being mostly true. ("Mostly" because all scientific theories are cognitive models that undergo testing to better fit reality, I don't mean evolution will somehow be overturned by creationism or something so don't go there) Something being universal might make it likely to be true, or at least significant (a prohibition on having sex with your own mother is, from what I recall of anthropology, a universal. Hence the famous curse-word and also the ancient historians who would slur "barbarians" by saying they allow it), but that doesn't mean all true things are universally accepted.
Anyway the societies you give who held moral absolutes are intentionally skewed as most arguments, atheist or theist, here tend to be. Perhaps mine are too at times, but when I make such errors it's also an error. Anyway there have certainly been many peaceful religions or groups that held to moral absolutes. I'm reasonably certain the Mennonites, the Shakers, River Brethren, the Jains, and a few others have a fair amount of moral absolutes.
I'm not allowed to credit you again, but that's a good post.
It is certainly the case that faces everyone who argues against moral absolutes that cultures in various places do indeed have some universals that hardly ever seem to be set aside. And that where cultural contact is not really feasible.
The thing is that I have come to the conclusion that these constants have more to do with our primate behaviour patterns than with any message or moral compass from a transcendental being.
There are taboos against sexual relations within the family group.
There is a tendency to look to leaders for authority. And those leaders have groups of supporters around to maintain their authority.
There is a tendency to come into conflict with other groups. The more of a threat they seem to be, the more the hostility arises. The attraction towards the females of that group (gene pool assimilation) is a reverse aspect of this.
The male tends to want a number of sexual partners. In positions of group - leader this manifests in the harem tendency.
Killing and stealing within the group is frowned upon. Outside...it depends upon how the others are regarded.
These seem to me to be the evolutionary basics and intellect builds on those. Since stealing, killing and spreading the genes around is such a recurring problem (1), codes on retribution, recompense, behavour, punishment, degrees of guilt and how to restore the balance is a recurring basic of moral codes.
This conflict between the desire for a harem (many cultures have tried to accommodate this) and the moral universals about one man one wife is easily explained by the 'sin' explanation. But I can't shake the feeling that the natural tendency is there and to just dismiss it as 'sin' and wag the Bible to back that up is too easy. As easy as putting on a show of repentance when one gives into it. I haven't got all the answers but I have enough to make me strongly doubt that there is any case for a morality other than those that we make up ourselves.
We have the primate or innate or evolutionary basics, true. But we also have intellect and we know that we can decide that what nature has given us might not be the best for us. The implication is that what might be regarded as an innate, not to say God - given, moral compass should not neccessarily be regarded as the best for us.
Thus the arguments about moral relativity being nonsense and only the moral absolutes giving a proper moral basis seem misconcieved. It is the relativity of morality that gives us the flexibility to decide on a moral code and to try to reach a concensus. A concensus which, it need hardly be pointed out, centuries of people thinking they were getting their morals from 'god' (or gods) has not produced. The Moral absolutists never fail to point that out.
Their argument that there is only one absolute moral code and all the others (like the gods that authorized them) are false simply won't wash. This isn't the place to go into all the immoral things done in accordance with that moral code, or the confusing of a made made moral compass with a god - given moral compass and dismissing the immoralities done as 'not real Christians'. You know what I'm getting at here.
I am sure, and I think it makes more sense, that the case for God - given moral absolutes is nonsensical and is only maintanable by ignoring the facts. The facts indicate that we have basic moral inclinations, but they are not neccessarily what we would consider best for our society. To achieve that we have to turn to our intellect and talking to each other to try to agree a concensus for a universal moral code. Turning to 'God' (or gods) as a basis is appallingly inadequate.
And this, of course, doesn't even address the absurdly inept attempt to use supposed moral absolutes as some sort of evidence for God.
(1) the problem being that is annoying others.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-09-2009 at 06:29 AM..
Reason: tidy up the sentence - structure
Many fundamentalist/conservative religious people contend that without god there can be no objective morality. There are some problems with moral absolutes. For example nazism, communism and fundamentalist religion advocate moral absolutes, yet they tend to have different views of what is considered to be a moral absolute. Presupposing that atheism equals moral relativism, how are moral absolutes not relative when different ideologies advocate different standards for moral absolutes? How can one say that what they consider to be a moral absolute is superior to what someone else's ideology says is a moral absolute? It seems that moral absolutism is just another form of moral relativism.
You've answered your own question. There are so many different views on morality, but true morality is from God, our Creator.
You've answered your own question. There are so many different views on morality, but true morality is from God, our Creator.
And I think that vey much underlines my post. "My God - given morality is the only right one and all the other gods and codes are false."
This, better than anything I could have said, shows what is utterly wrong about the concept of god - given absolute morality.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
