That people arguing for moral absolutism do not seem to understand what it actually is[what is your evidence that you know what it is, that they don't and that they dont know that it isnt] , and when presented face-to-face with the actual concept, utterly balk and have to add caveats and conditions that literally undermine their entire position [load of crock but I await your proproganda to support your position, mein fuhrer]. My entire point was that morals are conditional[fine], that they are not absolute[conditionals can be absolute], and that the situation and circumstances dictate the morality of any given action[sure]. Despite this, the ONLY type of argument against my position thus far[there has been more than one argument, player], has been my opponents proving my position[your evidence?] by throwing in the very things I argued dictated morality[elaborate?]; and they seemingly argue against[that last sentence is a non thought].
This level of cognitive dissonance is simply astounding[I'm assuming you believe this because you want to be let off the hook to do whatever you want with no regards to other people or common decency], to the point I find it hard to frame a response which doesn't make the opposition look silly [only dogmatic atheists think we look silly; atheism is a new phenomenon that grew out of the enlightenment in reaction to the polarizing christian dogmas. the only close analogue in antiquity is Socrates. So, with the exception of Socrates, are saying people such as Einstein, Hawkings, Archimedes, Aristotle, Epimendenes, Steven Hawkings, and Neil Degrasse Tyson to a lesser degree are all "silly". Even if you claim you are smarter than they are, which you probably aren't, they have done far more to improve society with their "silliness"], because they have simply cornered themselves THAT badly [moral absolutists who have to argue this worldview without immoratlity, amorality, good and evil spirits, the supernatural, god and gods, UFO's and The Yeti in their corner have to build a robust system of logic. it is probably a translation error or your framing biases assuming anything not said by your god, that being you yourself, is a lie that should be condemned].
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If it's true that all societies practices slightly or drastically varying ethical codes (which it is), then morals insofar as they are actually practiced throughout human societies vary. If morals vary by society, and there is no God, then whence do absolute morals derive?
This is why I think it's pretty much impossible to be an atheist and logically assert morals are absolute, because it is abundantly clear that all human societies practice different ethics and morals. If there's no God, then the only source for morals is humanity itself. If human morals are varying, then all morals aren't absolute: there's no consensus among all people on all morals. However, that's not to say there aren't moral commonalities. Most societies consider murder wrong (though different societies have different definitions of what constitutes "murder"), but not all societies consider sex before marriage or homosexuality wrong.
My view is that universal morals, or even majority moral consensuses, generally provide us with some idea of what are "common morals", but I don't think there is such a thing as an objective moral absolute. Killing, for a true Theravada Buddhist, is always wrong nomatter what. Killing for a secular US Army soldier is not always wrong. Premeditated murder is considered wrong (and illegal) in most Western countries, but some societies justify premeditated murder if there is sufficient reason: cheating wife, dishonorable daughter.
I'm not saying that I believe killing a cheating wife is right, I'm just saying that the views on killing a cheating wife aren't unanimous, and if morals are decided by humans (which of course they are, since morality is a human concept and there is no God), then it's quite clear morals aren't absolute; they vary between societies.
Right, anyone who thinks morality is absolute should Google 'Etoro people'.
Eww! That's screwed up!
But, perhaps this is a bad argument against religious views of absolute morality? This "ritual" seems to be an old and commonly practiced tradition within many religious establishments of Abrahamic faith as well (...he said jokingly but at the same time not...).
Edit:
Although, I don't recall reading about it in the bible as being moral. Hmm, perhaps it's a privileged addendum?
ok. it is agreed that moral norms differ from community to community and society to society. This does not mean there are not some broad goals people should strive for. To have a functioning society, violence, except for sport, needs to be in decline. An excessive military force has been proven to be disasterous to everyone involved, including the perpetrator of future violence.
I would agree that there is no absolute moral standard, but that doesn't mean we cannot figure out a fairly basic metric for morality. We have, to some extent, and have been able to make a moral framework that allows for proper and careful revision as we learn more, much like science. As such, I don't think it is impossible or improbable to say that we can create a semi-objective morality. Not in the sense of it being intrinsic, but more like the rules of chess or the operators of mathematics. There can be a semi-objective standard(law) without need of an absolute standard.
.. in effect, a non dogmatic view of what I'm argueing for. I'm fine with that
For the most part, yes. It also has many benefits, such as allowing for degrees of morality or immorality, which I think is important. We have such degrees in our legal system, and do seem to recognize that morality is more a gradient than a pure dichotomy. While someone stealing a candy bar simply for pleasure IS somewhat immoral, it is not quite as immoral as someone stealing a car. This is where I think a lot of moral systems fail, in my opinion, as they tend to favor simplicity over pragmatism. A good system should be robust, and fit to the task of accounting for situations and conditions it newly encounters. I doubt we will ever achieve perfection, or even encompass EVERY action, but it is a damn sight better than relying on total moral relativism; at least in my opinion.
sure
"That people arguing for moral absolutism do not seem to understand what it actually is[what is your evidence that you know what it is, that they don't and that they dont know that it isnt]..."
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=moral+absolutism
You're welcome.
"...and when presented face-to-face with the actual concept, utterly balk and have to add caveats and conditions that literally undermine their entire position [load of crock but I await your proproganda to support your position, mein fuhrer]."
Read the fucking definition.
"My entire point was that morals are conditional[fine]..."
Then you shouldn't be arguing with me.
"...that they are not absolute[conditionals can be absolute]..."
Conditional morals cannot be absolute, its a square circle, a logical impossibility.
"...and that the situation and circumstances dictate the morality of any given action[sure]."
Then it isn't fucking absolute.
"Despite this, the ONLY type of argument against my position thus far[there has been more than one argument, player]..."
The only other argument was about the foundation of the is/ought problem. That has nothing to do, whatever, with whether or not morals are conditional.
"...has been my opponents proving my position[your evidence?]"
The ability to read. In almost every post they bring up situational or conditional morality, which is precisely what my position was, and there position wasn't.
"...by throwing in the very things I argued dictated morality[elaborate?]"
Situation or conditions. They threw in intent and circumstance, which moral absolutism DICTATES doesn't matter.
"and they seemingly argue against[that last sentence is a non thought]."
If you argue for moral absolutism, you are arguing against conditional morality.
"This level of cognitive dissonance is simply astounding[I'm assuming you believe this because you want to be let off the hook to do whatever you want with no regards to other people or common decency]..."
No, I believe it because people are arguing two dichotomous positions simultaneously, which is cognitively dissonant by definition. Want be to put up a "Let me google that for you" link for that too?
"...to the point I find it hard to frame a response which doesn't make the opposition look silly [only dogmatic atheists think we look silly /snip]..."
Your attempt to conflate conditional morality to atheism is false, this isn't about people looking silly merely for believing in moral absolutism, but because they are literally proving my case and shitting all over their own whilst doing so.
"...because they have simply cornered themselves THAT badly [moral absolutists who have to argue this worldview without immoratlity, amorality, good and evil spirits, the supernatural, god and gods, UFO's and The Yeti in their corner have to build a robust system of logic. it is probably a translation error or your framing biases assuming anything not said by your god, that being you yourself, is a lie that should be condemned]."
Offer a single, SINGLE, logical argument for morals being absolute and not conditional. If you can't, I suggest you stop trying to pretend you know what the hell you are talking about here, because you obviously do not.
I just offered an argument. the conditional is the violence can be for sport and still be ethical.
That is not an argument against my position, it uses my position, and actually supports my position.