Morals: Relative or Absolute?

[Duality]

You said what is right or wrong. I asked according to what.

If I said according to what, we would not be discussing if morals are relative or absolute. If I provided an answer for that question, the entire debate would be predetermined.

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?

I don't remember calling him amoral.

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

Humans have been a social animal. Killing one another did not help the group to survive. They often hunted together. If they killed someone, it would not be for survival (aside from self-defense). But if someone is defending oneself, then someone is attacking them. The attacker is acting immorally.

Of course children know, daddy and mommy say "lying is wrong".

Suppose the mommy and daddy never brought it up (yet). Children would still know. You tell them one thing, and then do another. They are very good at spotting lies/hypocrisy.

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.

I don't believe I called him immoral. Your points are not showing relativity. They are showing specific situations must be judged. Morality is the discussion of what should we do in this situation, this situation, and this situation. But my question involves no matter what the situation, should our answer be the same no matter who you are? (in theory should it be the same. people will disagree, I know. But that doesn't mean everyone is right.)

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.

Morals are not based on survival. Mothers die for their young. Police die for strangers. They are not survival. Yet we call them moral. The morals did not change. You should not kill a family member for food. That's obvious. Again, you are discussing the morality of certain situations. Not showing that your answer can change even if the situation is identical. A personal relevance ==> a cultural relevance. So your last point cannot hold.

 

[The Big Lovin']

Humans have been a social animal. Killing one another did not help the group to survive. They often hunted together. If they killed someone, it would not be for survival (aside from self-defense). But if someone is defending oneself, then someone is attacking them. The attacker is acting immorally.

Wrong. By nature we fight for social supremacy. Homo sapiens back in the day depended on a leader to survive. Humans still depend on leaders. How do you think a leader established him from the others? By force or killing if it is necessary. We won’t kill another one of our species unless it is called for. It’s a instinct used to preserve our species. It has nothing to do with morals.

 

[Devious]

Morality is most definitely not, by definition, relative.

Oh, I apologize! Allow this thread to be closed if you know all about it. Why are we debating this if you supposedly know the answer without hearing the other sides.

I don't remember calling him amoral.

I don't believe I called him immoral.

Barbaric was your word choice. Often assumed to be someone who is immoral in most ways.

Also, Duality, I would suggest you attack points more than people. Your assaults seem to hit said person rather than just the point.

 

[Duality]

Oh, I apologize! Allow this thread to be closed if you know all about it. Why are we debating this if you supposedly know the answer without hearing the other sides.

My key phrase was "by definition." I am hearing the other sides, but the other side cannot claim morality is defined as relative. Otherwise, that would be a narrow minded argument.

Barbaric was your word choice. Often assumed to be someone who is immoral in most ways.

Ah I see. Well, I guess, after rethinking it,I think the kid will have morals. I mean he knows what it is to torture. I doubt he would torture an animal for his own pleasure, after he himself knows pain. If he does so out of revenge, he should instinctively feel guilty for doing so afterwards. Very hypothetical. His situation is unique... I will attempt to respond to this better at a later date.

Also, Duality, I would suggest you attack points more than people. Your assaults seem to hit said person rather than just the point.

Please provide examples when I verbally attack a person. Even if so, is it that frequent? If I am actually making this mistake, I would sincerely like to fix it. But I honestly cannot think of an instance where I acted inappropriately (save one or two times at my entry into KHInsider Forums).

I hope you post again! I would really like to know...

Wrong. By nature we fight for social supremacy.

We fight for supremacy, true. But I do not think this refutes my point. The two ideas can co-exist. We fight for supremacy but minimize murder amongst our species.

We won’t kill another one of our species unless it is called for... It has nothing to do with morals.

If something is called for, we deem this to be morally right; otherwise, it would not be necessary. It has something to do with morals.

Also, is killing for supremacy a moral action? I think not. However, your example does indeed show that we often act as instinctive immoral creatures.

 

[Phoenix]

If I said according to what, we would not be discussing if morals are relative or absolute. If I provided an answer for that question, the entire debate would be predetermined.

Then how can you say blowing yourself up is not moral? According to their beliefs, there's nothing more moral.

I don't remember calling him amoral.

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

You certainly toyed with the possibility.

Suppose the mommy and daddy never brought it up (yet). Children would still know. You tell them one thing, and then do another. They are very good at spotting lies/hypocrisy.

But would he know it's "wrong"? What I picture if the kid wondering why describe a situation that's not true. And then learning how to do it himself.

Actually somethings are self-evident. Otherwise, arguments would be inifinitely tedious.

What, like logic XD?

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.

Eh, do you mean a sociopath? A psychopath could claim God told him to do it, so according to his beliefs, he would be behaving morally.

 

[Duality]

Then how can you say blowing yourself up is not moral? According to their beliefs, there's nothing more moral.

Well it kills innocent people. Is there not an instant trigger in your head "killing innocents == wrong"? I think their beliefs can be wrong (or right, if you would like to go there). I just do not think that a difference in belief implies that morality must change as well. Is there not a distinction between what people believe to be moral and what is moral?

You certainly toyed with the possibility.

I had seen that I most certainly did, so I put forth a different opinion (see my previous post).

But would he know it's "wrong"? What I picture if the kid wondering why describe a situation that's not true. And then learning how to do it himself.

Well, suppose the parents (never telling him what lying is) continue to lie to the child about many things (but not everything). After repeated exposure to this lying, the kid will realize the lying is intentional and no longer wonder why his parents are doing this. He would see the ulterior motive his parents have.

What, like logic XD?

You betcha XP

Eh, do you mean a sociopath? A psychopath could claim God told him to do it, so according to his beliefs, he would be behaving morally.

He would not betray his beliefs. But this does not mean he acted morally, does it? It means the sociopath/psychopath is not a hypocrite. And yes, I believe my example is better fitted to a sociopath.

And um, just curious Phoenix, do you think I attack people more than points? I'd like to know if I am....Cause I don't want to tick people off for that... (if you don't mind answering in the thread that is...sorry to put you on the spot...)

 

[Phoenix]

Well it kills innocent people. Is there not an instant trigger in your head "killing innocents == wrong"?

Yes, but I was raised in the Western Hemisphere by a Catholic mother. Had I been born in the jungle, I'd kill to eat, no problem.

I think their beliefs can be wrong (or right, if you would like to go there). I just do not think that a difference in belief implies that morality must change as well. Is there not a distinction between what people believe to be moral and what is moral?

Why should there be? If humans learn morals because of their family and society, then where's the distinction? The morals of the Greeks =/= our morals =/= the morals of the ancient jews.

Well, suppose the parents (never telling him what lying is) continue to lie to the child about many things (but not everything). After repeated exposure to this lying, the kid will realize the lying is intentional and no longer wonder why his parents are doing this. He would see the ulterior motive his parents have.

Then he'll learn to do it himself and think nothing of it. I think nothing of the act of "lying", it really depends on the lie. Hence the so-called "white lies".

He would not betray his beliefs. But this does not mean he acted morally, does it? It means the sociopath/psychopath is not a hypocrite. And yes, I believe my example is better fitted to a sociopath.

Again, you have not given your definition of morality. How can I agree with you on this point if nobody here has defined what it is?

And um, just curious Phoenix, do you think I attack people more than points? I'd like to know if I am....Cause I don't want to tick people off for that... (if you don't mind answering in the thread that is...sorry to put you on the spot...)

Psss, if you attack people, I'm a bloody terrorist.

 

[Duality]

If humans learn morals because of their family and society, then where's the distinction? The morals of the Greeks =/= our morals =/= the morals of the ancient jews.

I think you are missing a key word:
The morals the Greeks learned =/= the morals we learned =/= the morals the ancient Jews learned
Now, we were all taught differently 'this is morally right', and 'this is morally wrong.' I also think 'morals' might be the wrong word to use. Beliefs would be a better one. People believe this right, and people believe this is wrong. What you believe == What is moral? I think a better comparison is what you believe == what you think is moral. Correct? Now if this is true, that would imply that there is an absolute morality, because the very phrase 'what I think is moral' implies our flaws can affect this statement. We could be wrong about what is moral, and what is not moral.
I believe this also responds to the jungle analogy.

Then he'll learn to do it himself and think nothing of it. I think nothing of the act of "lying", it really depends on the lie. Hence the so-called "white lies".

I do not think we can continue with the child analogy because it seems to be based too much on our intuitions as to what the baby would do. We could find all sorts of explanations and all are meaningless until we have a valid experiment.

Again, you have not given your definition of morality. How can I agree with you on this point if nobody here has defined what it is?

Well my definition was very broad, I shall admit. Morality - what deals with what are right and what are wrong actions. If I say from whose perspective, the answer is predetermined, correct? So I obviously cannot. Now, I presume you believe that makes the question impossible. I do not think so because we are trying to show if an actual right or wrong exists. If you think absolute morality exists, you are attempt to show, yes, there is an actual right or wrong. If you think relative morality is correct, you are trying to show there is no such thing as a right or wrong. Because then, anyone can believe what is right and what is wrong, and no matter what they could not be wrong.

Psss, if you attack people, I'm a bloody terrorist.

Awww don't be so hard on yourself! XP

 

[Phoenix]

I think you are missing a key word:
The morals the Greeks learned =/= the morals we learned =/= the morals the ancient Jews learned
Now, we were all taught differently 'this is morally right', and 'this is morally wrong.' I also think 'morals' might be the wrong word to use. Beliefs would be a better one. People believe this right, and people believe this is wrong. What you believe == What is moral? I think a better comparison is what you believe == what you think is moral. Correct? Now if this is true, that would imply that there is an absolute morality, because the very phrase 'what I think is moral' implies our flaws can affect this statement. We could be wrong about what is moral, and what is not moral.
I believe this also responds to the jungle analogy.

That does not imply an absolute morality, it implies the *idea* of an absolute morality. Rules give rise to morals, and people wonder if there are universal morals. this does not mean there are.

I do not think we can continue with the child analogy because it seems to be based too much on our intuitions as to what the baby would do. We could find all sorts of explanations and all are meaningless until we have a valid experiment.

There *have* been cases of jungle kids. They don't come out dressed with a code of law, I can assure you. It's obvious you need human influence to even consider the idea of morality, surely you can agree.

Well my definition was very broad, I shall admit. Morality - what deals with what are right and what are wrong actions. If I say from whose perspective, the answer is predetermined, correct? So I obviously cannot. Now, I presume you believe that makes the question impossible. I do not think so because we are trying to show if an actual right or wrong exists. If you think absolute morality exists, you are attempt to show, yes, there is an actual right or wrong. If you think relative morality is correct, you are trying to show there is no such thing as a right or wrong. Because then, anyone can believe what is right and what is wrong, and no matter what they could not be wrong.

I smell an appeal to consequences <_<

Remember, you're the one who claims morality exists, not I. You're making the assertion that morality is absolute, hence, the burden of proof falls on you.

However, since different cultures have different morals, relative morality has more support.

 

[Duality]

That does not imply an absolute morality, it implies the *idea* of an absolute morality.

I shall agree. To better phrase it, it eliminates the use of the argument "a difference of opinion on morals implies relative morality."

Rules give rise to morals, and people wonder if there are universal morals. this does not mean there are.

This I do not agree with. Rules are a person's best explanation in written/verbal code of what morality is. OR a rule could be an implementation that would allow a society to function in a stable form. OR a rule could be a dictator attempting to make things his way.

It's obvious you need human influence to even consider the idea of morality, surely you can agree.

I shall blindly presume this is so. However, the child has not considered the idea of morality. Then this would mean the child acts immorally. Or it could imply he is acting morally but does not realize it. I know I had argued before there is an intuitive sense (which I still believe in), but for the sake of argument I will use your assumption/possibility.

Remember, you're the one who claims morality exists, not I. You're making the assertion that morality is absolute, hence, the burden of proof falls on you.
However, since different cultures have different morals, relative morality has more support.

The assertion of morality's absoluteness/relativity lies on both of us. You must as well prove morality is relative.
I feel no one understands what I am saying.
Different cultures have a difference of opinion on what is moral is NOT the same as different cultures have different morals. The second one assumes relative morality (by using morals in a circular argument). The first one is merely saying people disagree, which is a more accurate (less assuming) analysis of the situation.

 

[Phoenix]

The assertion of morality's absoluteness/relativity lies on both of us. You must as well prove morality is relative.
I feel no one understands what I am saying.
Different cultures have a difference of opinion on what is moral is NOT the same as different cultures have different morals. The second one assumes relative morality (by using morals in a circular argument). The first one is merely saying people disagree, which is a more accurate (less assuming) analysis of the situation.

Perhaps, but that leaves us back at square one, doesn't it?

Thing is, you can't separate religion with this. This is just one more issue that is resolved only when the religion one is. I'm not going to believe in absolute morality because I'm not religion, and you're not going to believe in relative morality because your religion states absolute morals.

We could debate this, but I can't think of a way to do so that doesn't involve religion directly.

 

[Duality]

We could debate this, but I can't think of a way to do so that doesn't involve religion directly.

I know what you are talking about. But I think I made it clear that this is strictly from an atheist/agnostic/imperfect God view. Do humans have a universal set of morals (maybe unknown to them)? For a specific situation (as specific as you want), is there always a correct way to act? (I am not asking that we find someone/some way to justify what we call an absolute moral) I am wondering if absolute morality can exist assuming God does not exist.

This is how I intended to remove religion from the conversation. A disagreement between cultures does not necessitate the lack of absolute morality.

I think to step away from square one we need to stay away from say "different cultures = different morals". It just means more disagreement about morality.

 

[Phoenix]

Without religion, on what could you base absolute morality?

 

[Duality]

Without religion, on what could you base absolute morality?

Of this, I am not sure. I have an intuition that right and wrong exist, I just may have the wrong sense of what is. There is unfairness in the world, and fairness. Is there not? I know you could say from whose perspective. But I am not asking for a specific classification of what is fair and what is unfair. But I am saying that if this notion of fairness (in general) exists, then this could imply that there is an actual right and and an actual wrong. We just may never know it (without religion that is). As long as I know fairness exists, then I know my ideas of fairness could be wrong or right. But justice/morality still exists. An absolute form must exist.

It's a problem I would like to solve for myself. It would be brilliant for atheists/agnostics as well since then they would have a proper ground on which to judge people. And they could have hope in humanity. Otherwise, no morality would imply humanity has zero purpose. Not a fun thought eh?

 

[Phoenix]

Of this, I am not sure. I have an intuition that right and wrong exist, I just may have the wrong sense of what is. There is unfairness in the world, and fairness. Is there not?

As a human construct, yes. But even Justice has changed over time.

I know you could say from whose perspective. But I am not asking for a specific classification of what is fair and what is unfair. But I am saying that if this notion of fairness (in general) exists, then this could imply that there is an actual right and and an actual wrong.

Not so. Like I said, all you could prove is that the idea of an absolute justice exist, but that's about it.

We just may never know it (without religion that is). As long as I know fairness exists, then I know my ideas of fairness could be wrong or right. But justice/morality still exists. An absolute form must exist.

You don't know that. Justice comes from rules. Rules come from a need to survive, as does everything else.

It's a problem I would like to solve for myself. It would be brilliant for atheists/agnostics as well since then they would have a proper ground on which to judge people.

Not really. Absolute = stagnation.

And they could have hope in humanity. Otherwise, no morality would imply humanity has zero purpose. Not a fun thought eh?

I fail to see how one equals the other. Morality exists, but it's relative and it depends on the culture. Why do you need morals to have a purpose. I don't help people because it's "right", I do it because I want to. Not to brag, but I see this as far more noble. I don't have to do it, nobody's watching me and I'll really get nothing back in the end, but I still do it.

 

[Duality]

Not so. Like I said, all you could prove is that the idea of an absolute justice exist, but that's about it.

If the idea of absolute justice exists, then that in itself is sufficient to say absolute morality can exist. A practical implementation may be close to impossible.

You don't know that. Justice comes from rules. Rules come from a need to survive, as does everything else.

Justice comes from rules??? That was a big jump. Rules enforce what is thought to be justice. Again, any dictatorial reign would be enough to show this. A rule of killing a certain race (i.e. Serbia in 1990s) is not justice in anyway. Nor does justice come from this. Rules spawn from our sense of justice.

Not really. Absolute = stagnation.

So? How does that prevent the universal ground of judgement? A solution to this problem would be far-reaching.

I fail to see how one equals the other. Morality exists, but it's relative and it depends on the culture.

Your last sentence is not showing anything, merely stating.

Why do you need morals to have a purpose. I don't help people because it's "right", I do it because I want to. Not to brag, but I see this as far more noble. I don't have to do it, nobody's watching me and I'll really get nothing back in the end, but I still do it

If absolute morality is non-existent and we can show this, then no human would be able to judge another. We would not be on this Earth for justice. For we would have no idea what is just and what is not. Then what would be on here for?

 

[Phoenix]

If the idea of absolute justice exists, then that in itself is sufficient to say absolute morality can exist. A practical implementation may be close to impossible.

How so? A society that worships hills might believe a perfect hill exists. Does that mean a perfect hill exists, or can be done?

Because of morals, and the qualities of hills, are subjective by nature (imo, of course), then the idea of a perfect morality (or hill) is also subjective.

Justice comes from rules??? That was a big jump. Rules enforce what is thought to be justice. Again, any dictatorial reign would be enough to show this. A rule of killing a certain race (i.e. Serbia in 1990s) is not justice in anyway. Nor does justice come from this. Rules spawn from our sense of justice.

I disagree. Rules come from the need to survive. Rudimentary societies needed rules to keep themselves together and grow strong, unless they wanted to be absorbed (or eaten) by rival tribes and wild animals. The idea of justice, and right and wrong, would eventually spawn from these simple rules.

So? How does that prevent the universal ground of judgement? A solution to this problem would be far-reaching.

But that's not what you asked there XD I responded to your belief that this would be brilliant for scientists. I disagree. We change or we die (this not only applies to scientists).

If absolute morality is non-existent and we can show this, then no human would be able to judge another. We would not be on this Earth for justice. For we would have no idea what is just and what is not. Then what would be on here for?

Don't you see? If the idea of morality is non-existent, then the idea that it's morally wrong for one human to judge another human is also non-existent. People will pass judgment on other people to protect the society, which in turns protects the individual. Simple survival tactics.

And you talk of this "why are we here for" as if it was as important as breathing. I don't need a reason to live. I like living, so I live.

 

[Duality]

How so? A society that worships hills might believe a perfect hill exists. Does that mean a perfect hill exists, or can be done?

Ah sorry. My wording was wrong. As you can see later, I do not mean it can be actually implemented. But if this idea exists, then in theory, absolute morality exists.

I disagree. Rules come from the need to survive. Rudimentary societies needed rules to keep themselves together and grow strong, unless they wanted to be absorbed (or eaten) by rival tribes and wild animals. The idea of justice, and right and wrong, would eventually spawn from these simple rules.

Then how would justice or right and wrong spawn from situations which do not involve survival at all?
I agree rules are made for survival. But where does this intuition come from? That rape is wrong? I mean, I know the social fabric would be ruined etc. But when making these rules humans do not solely think of 'survival', if at all sometimes. Then where do you propose it comes from?

But that's not what you asked there XD I responded to your belief that this would be brilliant for scientists. I disagree. We change or we die (this not only applies to scientists).

I didn't say scientists. Just atheist/agnostics. An absolute morality would allow for people to true unify humanity under one moral banner. Humanity and all its equality would exist.

If the idea of morality is non-existent, then the idea that it's morally wrong for one human to judge another human is also non-existent. People will pass judgment on other people to protect the society, which in turns protects the individual. Simple survival tactics.

No, I said absolute morality. Not morality in general. This does not apply.

And you talk of this "why are we here for" as if it was as important as breathing. I don't need a reason to live. I like living, so I live.

Alas, one statement with which I cannot argue. I cannot argue with your preferences. Just your ideas. Significance of existence is crucial to myself. If it is not to you, I cannot argue it.

 

[Phoenix]

Ah sorry. My wording was wrong. As you can see later, I do not mean it can be actually implemented. But if this idea exists, then in theory, absolute morality exists.

I still fail to see how can an idea of something prove the absolute for that something exists. Hell, I have a ton of ideas, but I'm sure that the word "absolute" cannot apply to half of them, even in theory.

Then how would justice or right and wrong spawn from situations which do not involve survival at all?
I agree rules are made for survival. But where does this intuition come from? That rape is wrong? I mean, I know the social fabric would be ruined etc. But when making these rules humans do not solely think of 'survival', if at all sometimes. Then where do you propose it comes from?

Where does "rape is wrong" come from? Some caveman didn't want another cavemen passing on his genes via his mate?

Also, the rape thing as wrong is pretty new, at least in the context in which I understand it. There was a time not so long ago when raping the women and girls from the losing tribe was not wrong.

Lastly, you're missing the big picture. Anything that threatens the "social fabric" threatens survival, because humans are social animals, so indeed *all* rules relate to survival or gene-passing in some way.

I didn't say scientists. Just atheist/agnostics. An absolute morality would allow for people to true unify humanity under one moral banner. Humanity and all its equality would exist.

You see it as that, I see it as a potential 1000 years of stagnation. Atheists are not out to unify and convert. Situations change, and morals with them.

No, I said absolute morality. Not morality in general. This does not apply.

It does, because if morality doesn't exist, absolute morality does not exist either.

 

[?ŕ??мļēśş]

Morals are for the morally shallow as Friedrich Nietzsche pointed out...