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.
(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.
Last edited: