Morals: Relative or Absolute?

[Duality]

I'd like to discuss whether morals are relative or absolute. I'll do my best to define the terms below:
(1) Relative Morality - Humans cannot assess and delegate morals to each other. Each defines one's own morals based on one's own culture/background/etc. You cannot judge another person's morals as you are in no position to do so. Each society's norms defines its own moral code, and cannot be legitimately compared to another This can be taken to the extreme as there is no such thing as morals. You may take varying degrees of this position.

(2) Absolute Morality - There is an actual right and wrong amongst all humans regarding all things. Culture barriers are irrelevant; humans are still humans. People can judge if you are doing something wrong/right. There is a universal code which applies to us all, and it can be determined.

Now, before we begin, there are extremes to each of these sides, so choose whatever degree you think is best. Also, I realize this debate can be multi-platformed based on religious belief. We have (in general)
Theist: I do not think any debate is required. There is a right and wrong - God said so. Or the gods said so, if you are polytheist. If anyone disagrees with this, please explain why.
Atheist: I believe the most debate will come on this platform. If a God does not exist, do absolute morals still exist amongst humans?
Agnostic:This can be meshed with atheist, but has a very interesting slant. If a higher power exists (albeit possibly imperfect but unknowable), is it possible humans have an absolute moral code?

I would prefer to keep the arguments disjoint (i.e. atheist with atheist, theist w. theist), but I guess agnostic/atheist can mix since there is a minor similarity involved (i.e. not knowing if moral abosluteness exists). Preferably, do not argue "Absolute morals exist so God exists..." or vice versa.

The more I think about this thread, the more it is similar to Shadukai-X "Modern circumstances...", except (as I've argued multiple times in that thread that religious bias must exist) I take into account the religious biases. Credit to Shadukai for sparking the idea. Thanks!

Edit:
Oh, and my opinion on the matter.

Considering if God did not exist, absolute morality.....is...I actually I have to think hard about this. Maybe some ideas up on the thread would help...I'll give my input sooner or later. Probably sooner.

 

[Jopari]

I suppose that in my opinion morals are based off what benefit the community. So in certain conditions there are absolute morals. Such as killing is always wrong, but then we run across the issue that if killing is always wrong is war always wrong, and also comes under the issue of capital punishment, too. Under other conditions though certain things can depend on culture and other outside factors. The best example I can think of to demonstrate relative morals is that in Japan suicide is acceptable as a response to disgrace but in America suicide is never acceptable.

 

[violent_anger]

Aztecs and sociopaths, hmmmmmmm?

 

[Phoenix]

Considering if God did not exist, absolute morality.....is...I actually I have to think hard about this. Maybe some ideas up on the thread would help...I'll give my input sooner or later. Probably sooner.

You'd have to remember where morals originally come from: protection and survival for the individual and the society. Humans are social creatures, and all social creatures have some sort of rules. There is no absolute morality because different societies may live in different situations.

For example, in a desert, throwing away water may be a worse crime than murder. On the subject of murder, this only seems "absolute" because the survival instinct is absolute, so in order to protect our own lives (and that of the people we care about), we make laws forbidding it.

 

[violent_anger]

but then the aztecs didn't, and all societies make exceptions for war

 

[Duality]

Under other conditions though certain things can depend on culture and other outside factors. The best example I can think of to demonstrate relative morals is that in Japan suicide is acceptable as a response to disgrace but in America suicide is never acceptable.

Ok, you have shown Japan's opinion of suicide and America's opinion of suicide differ. But so what? All you have shown is that they differ. This does not mean that we cannot decide if committing suicide is moral. It just shows people disagree. People disagree on a lot of things; some are right, and some are wrong.

You'd have to remember where morals originally come from: protection and survival for the individual and the society. Humans are social creatures, and all social creatures have some sort of rules. There is no absolute morality because different societies may live in different situations.

Refer to my response to Jopari and...
I think you are using 'morals' improperly in that first sentence. 'Rules' would be a better replacement. Society made rules for stability and survival. But a rule does not have to be moral. Morals are what is right and wrong. Hitler made a society where Germans could survive and Jews would not, and ordered the death of all Jews. A rule, but not moral.

Different societies, as I said to Jopari, does not nullify absolute morality. It just shows societies disagree.

I will broadly define morality (perhaps unhelpfully) so as to allow both sides room for movement:
Morality: which actions are right or wrong
If you disagree, clarify another definition.

 

[Jopari]

Ok, you have shown Japan's opinion of suicide and America's opinion of suicide differ. But so what? All you have shown is that they differ. This does not mean that we cannot decide if committing suicide is moral. It just shows people disagree. People disagree on a lot of things; some are right, and some are wrong.

Yes, but that opinion is a matter of morals. As per your own definition of morality suicide is wrong in America. Yet in Japan it is acceptable. This is a result of Japan's culture and history. I was using it to refer to the fact that it is a case of relative morality.

 

[Phoenix]

Refer to my response to Jopari and...
I think you are using 'morals' improperly in that first sentence. 'Rules' would be a better replacement. Society made rules for stability and survival. But a rule does not have to be moral. Morals are what is right and wrong. Hitler made a society where Germans could survive and Jews would not, and ordered the death of all Jews. A rule, but not moral.

Different societies, as I said to Jopari, does not nullify absolute morality. It just shows societies disagree.

I will broadly define morality (perhaps unhelpfully) so as to allow both sides room for movement:
Morality: which actions are right or wrong
If you disagree, clarify another definition.

Right or wrong in reference to what? From a secular view, society. Hence, morals = rules.

 

[Duality]

Yes, but that opinion is a matter of morals. As per your own definition of morality suicide is wrong in America. Yet in Japan it is acceptable. This is a result of Japan's culture and history. I was using it to refer to the fact that it is a case of relative morality.

I fear you are assuming your answer in your example. "That opinion is a matter of morals" is implying that opinions define morals. So suppose a psychopath thinks murder is morally correct for some reason or other. Most people evidently find him to be incorrect. If it is a matter of opinion, he is no less wrong or right than we are? I think not. I am attempting to say you have showed that differences do indeed exist between cultures, but you have not shown that this causes morality to be relative.

Right or wrong in reference to what? From a secular view, society. Hence, morals = rules.

From the view of an individual human. Any individual human. Should we all judge each other on a universal basis? Does there exist a universal set of morals that applies to all of us? Or can we each have our set of morals? Intuitively, I do not think morality is something anyone can make up. There is set path which morals force us to abide by.

I would like to distinguish morals from rules. They are not identical in any way. As I have said earlier, Hitler's Germany is a prime example of where rules conflict with our natural intuition of what is moral.

 

[Devious]

Hitler's reign was technically a moral issue. Not a rule issue. If you realize, he made it to the point where Jews and non-Aryan peoples were able to be killed without mercy. This became a moral.

Also, for the record, I'd like to redefine moral for you.

Moral: Something that is considered culturally acceptable within a society.

And a new word just to let you know what the opposite of a moral is.

Taboo: Something that is considered culturally unacceptable within a society.

Keep in mind that there is a thin line between the two as they define a society. They lay the ground rules for whether something is right or wrong.

Now back to Hitler... In Germany, Hitler had created a society without most reputable Taboos (murder, rape, etc.) when it came to non-Aryan people. As far as the German populus went, you were a normal society under communist reign that followed all regular Morals and Taboos.

In essence, there are no real Absolute Morals unless you consider that we want to survive and create the Murder laws we do to protect ourselves. That is just an instinct that influences our lives every day. It could be construed as an Absolute, but I'll leave that to someone else.

 

[Johnny Stooge]

I don't believe absolute morals can exist. Society changes over time and so morals and taboos become relative. And then there are the personal morals and taboos which are relative to each owns opinion.

On a broad scope, we say killing is wrong. But if we examine the circumstances? Say a woman that was being raped kills the rapist in self defence. Should we really crucify her for that?

Then there are things which over time we've become more accepting of. Like homosexual relationships. Years ago it was very much the taboo, but now it's almost at the point where no really cares anymore.

It was also considered immoral to drink alcohol at one point in time.

 

[violent_anger]

in war, mass killing is allowed, and often supported. is it then moral?

 

[Phoenix]

From the view of an individual human. Any individual human. Should we all judge each other on a universal basis? Does there exist a universal set of morals that applies to all of us? Or can we each have our set of morals? Intuitively, I do not think morality is something anyone can make up. There is set path which morals force us to abide by.

Morals are taking from society. Mommy says killing is wrong. daddy says stealing is wrong.

Raise a kid in the jungle, and see if he cares about killing for food.

I would like to distinguish morals from rules. They are not identical in any way. As I have said earlier, Hitler's Germany is a prime example of where rules conflict with our natural intuition of what is moral.

The morals of a Nazi? Or the morals of a German? Different. Because of society.

 

[Jopari]

I fear you are assuming your answer in your example. "That opinion is a matter of morals" is implying that opinions define morals. So suppose a psychopath thinks murder is morally correct for some reason or other. Most people evidently find him to be incorrect. If it is a matter of opinion, he is no less wrong or right than we are? I think not. I am attempting to say you have showed that differences do indeed exist between cultures, but you have not shown that this causes morality to be relative.

Opinions do define morals though. Morals are personal things, such as should I kill my neighbor when he steals my lawn mower. Perhaps, the better term to define what we are debating is ethics. Yet, opinions in a culture overall do define the way something is moral. Once again to the Japanese view of the morality of suicide is influenced by their cultural history as a warrior culture. I was merely using that to show that relative morality does exist but so does absolute morality, by way of almost every culture believing it immoral to take another's life.

 

[Duality]

Also, for the record, I'd like to redefine moral for you.
Moral: Something that is considered culturally acceptable within a society.

Absolutely and totally incorrect for multiple reasons. (1) You are assuming your conclusion in your premise (i.e. presumed morals are relative)
(2) By def'n, morals are not relative (otherwise, I would not have this debate). Morality is by def'n what deals with what is right and what is wrong.
Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Morality
morality - definition of morality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
This is in its most basic sense. The point of this thread is to determine, is right and wrong relative or absolute? Does there exist a proper course of action at all times given a specific situation? Why or why not. You cannot define morality like that. Your def'n is more applicable to the term 'laws'/norms.

Taboo: Something that is considered culturally unacceptable within a society.

Agreed on def'n, but not the opposite of moral. Rather redundantly, opposite of moral is immoral.

Keep in mind that there is a thin line between the two as they define a society. They lay the ground rules for whether something is right or wrong.

False. Taboos lay the ground rules for how you will be viewed by society, and possibly how you will be dealt with by law if you commit such actions/inactions.

Because your definition is flawed, your subsequent examples are null. Morality is the conduct of what is right and wrong. Now does that mean right and wrong is relative to location/time/person? Or is it universal? And of course, why or why not?

I don't believe absolute morals can exist.Society changes over time and so morals and taboos become relative...... And then there are the personal morals and taboos which are relative to each owns opinion...Then there are things which over time we've become more accepting of. Like homosexual relationships... It was also considered immoral to drink alcohol at one point in time...

As I have said earlier, you have shown societies/people of different times had a difference of opinions. Difference of opinions exist. So what? This does not mean morals should change. People disagree all the time. People disagree on that example of rape/killing you had just put forward. Disagreement does not imply a change in morals.

Morals are taking from society. Mommy says killing is wrong. daddy says stealing is wrong.

What if mommy and daddy are incorrect? (I'm not saying in those cases, but in general)

Raise a kid in the jungle, and see if he cares about killing for food.

The kid is barbaric. He could be immoral or amoral. What is your point?

The morals of a Nazi? Or the morals of a German? Different. Because of society.

Assuming conclusion in premise. "Morals" of a person. You are already assuming relativity between people. I think a better substitution is what a person 'thinks' is right and what a person 'thinks' is wrong. They could be incorrect or correct. My psychopath example applies here as well. He thinks murder is correct. That is his opinion but he is undoubtedly wrong (by our intuitive sense). A psychopath is amoral. So you cannot call those the morals of a psychopath. He has none. His opinions are almost always wrong.

Morals are personal things, such as should I kill my neighbor when he steals my lawn mower.

Assuming your conclusion, as I have said to almost everyone.

Yet, opinions in a culture overall do define the way something is moral. Once again to the Japanese view of the morality of suicide is influenced by their cultural history as a warrior culture.

These opinions define what is accepted in society. But like my Hitler example, it is never moral to kill an innocent person. Yet people believed it to be okay for certain people to be killed. Are you going to argue that they are acting morally? I would hope not.

 

[Devious]

Absolutely and totally incorrect for multiple reasons. (1) You are assuming your conclusion in your premise (i.e. presumed morals are relative)
(2) By def'n, morals are not relative (otherwise, I would not have this debate). Morality is by def'n what deals with what is right and what is wrong.
Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Morality
morality - definition of morality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
This is in its most basic sense. The point of this thread is to determine, is right and wrong relative or absolute? Does there exist a proper course of action at all times given a specific situation? Why or why not. You cannot define morality like that. Your def'n is more applicable to the term 'laws'/norms.

Morality ties into laws, norms, etc. in a few specific ways. If you note in your 3rd link to the definition of Morality (morality - definition of morality by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.) you note conduct in the four varying base definitions. Lead that into the definition of conduct (conduct - definition of conduct by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.) which you can note Ethics under the third noun definition. Go to the definition of Ethics (ethics - definition of ethics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.) and all three definitions prove me correct.

It's a long list, take it slowly. But please notice that if you apply this to how everyone is raised even Morality applies to human principles. Human guidelines. Thus, they are all relative. Also, your second link (titled merely Morality) talks about human behaviour. Now, humans behave differently depending on how they are raised. That is a well known fact (such as raising a child in the jungle). This will affect their values, morals, ethics, and conduct in any possible scenario. Therefore, again, Morals are Relative.

 

[Phoenix]

What if mommy and daddy are incorrect? (I'm not saying in those cases, but in general)

They probably are, as right and wrong are povs, but that's what their mommy and daddy told them, and what their son is gonna tell his children.

The kid is barbaric. He could be immoral or amoral. What is your point?

That you need society to get morals. There's no magical force that puts them in your head.

Assuming conclusion in premise. "Morals" of a person. You are already assuming relativity between people. I think a better substitution is what a person 'thinks' is right and what a person 'thinks' is wrong. They could be incorrect or correct. My psychopath example applies here as well. He thinks murder is correct. That is his opinion but he is undoubtedly wrong (by our intuitive sense). A psychopath is amoral. So you cannot call those the morals of a psychopath. He has none. His opinions are almost always wrong.

He is undoubtedly wrong? Do tell, why? Nothing is self-evident.

 

[Duality]

all three definitions prove me correct.

I fail to see your logic. Morality ==> Conduct ==> Ethics? Hardly. Ethics are the standards governing a person's professional conduct. Morality is what deals with what is right and wrong conduct for a human being. Conduct is merely a person's actions. When considering a moral dilemma, there are various conducts humans follow. When considering an ethical dilemma, again, there are various conducts humans follow. We judge their conduct/actions. Some properly act, others do not. This does not necessarily imply relativity. I am showing that is there a universal conduct that we must all follow in order to remain moral (from an atheist/agnostic perspective)?

Further, using a dictionary to prove your point is not sufficient. It is for a clarification of terms. Morality is most definitely not, by definition, relative. These terms are for appropriate use in arguments. Their semantic connection is different. When these terms interact, they cannot be used interchangeably as if they are the same word.

Also, your second link (titled merely Morality) talks about human behaviour. Now, humans behave differently depending on how they are raised.

Humans behave differently and morality involves human behaviour ==> morality varies???? No, it just means humans behave differently. These are independent facts. A connection is yet to be shown. Some humans commit murder, and others do not. Those who commit murder behave differently. If we have a society of murderers, certainly, anyone can say this is an immoral society. Difference in behaviour does not imply morality lacks absoluteness. As I have said before, people disagree all the time. That does not mean there is no such thing as right or wrong.

They probably are, as right and wrong are povs, but that's what their mommy and daddy told them, and what their son is gonna tell his children.

povs? Positives? In any case, so people pass down wrong information/morality. Does not show that morality changes. People tell people to blow themselves up and kill innocents. It does not mean this is moral.

That you need society to get morals. There's no magical force that puts them in your head.

Then explain how humans first had morals. Before a society existed. Before civilization, cavemen generally knew killing each other was not good (for whatever reason you may propose). No society existed for them to know this. Mating is often a ritual before it is a forced act (for almost all animals). Rape occurs, but mutual sex happens as well. What told them this is moral? Society does not exist, yet they have a sense.
I propose their is an intuitive human idea of what is moral and what is not. There is a magical force! XP Children know, the first time they realize their parent has lied to them (before telling them lying is bad), that something bad has gone on.

He is undoubtedly wrong? Do tell, why? Nothing is self-evident.

Actually somethings are self-evident. Otherwise, arguments would be inifinitely tedious.
And he is wrong because he is a psychopath. He goes against what is an obvious immorality. He lacks morals. Psychologists have shown this in psychopaths. Able to imitate human behaviour, but does not actually care/have morals. If you would like to claim that the psychopath is still acting morally, explain.

 

[Phoenix]

povs? Positives? In any case, so people pass down wrong information/morality. Does not show that morality changes. People tell people to blow themselves up and kill innocents. It does not mean this is moral.

Doesn't it? I *did* ask you to define moral. You said what is right or wrong. I asked according to what.

Then explain how humans first had morals. Before a society existed. Before civilization, cavemen generally knew killing each other was not good (for whatever reason you may propose). No society existed for them to know this. Mating is often a ritual before it is a forced act (for almost all animals). Rape occurs, but mutual sex happens as well. What told them this is moral? Society does not exist, yet they have a sense.
I propose their is an intuitive human idea of what is moral and what is not. There is a magical force! XP Children know, the first time they realize their parent has lied to them (before telling them lying is bad), that something bad has gone on.

Survival. The reason *is* important because, if you consider this makes it moral, then killing to survive is just as moral.

Of course children know, daddy and mommy say "lying is wrong". If there is this "magical force", then why did you say a wild kid in the jungle is amoral? Did the magical force not reach him?

 

[Jopari]

Morality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assuming your conclusion, as I have said to almost everyone.

Alright, so I used the tractor example and you called it assuming my conclusion. Yet in your own link it uses the exact same example.

Morals are a point of view matter. The kid in the jungle is morally right in killing for food, because he knows only that food is the most important thing, and he needs it to live. He values his life over all others. Is it moral to kill a deer to eat? Technically it is an intelligent creature to some point. To the kid in the jungle it is merely a case of Darwinism.

Morals are a survival instinct. Its is morally wrong to kill a family member, but when it comes down to the point that you need food, morals change. As such morals are a relative thing, perhaps not to the point of cultural relevance, but at least to a personal relevance.