It strikes me that a fluid morality is more fitted for flawed human beings than would be an absolute morality imposed by an extra-human authority. A few examples:
-The Bible states flatly (and more than once) that stealing is a sin. This is a prohibition that carries right across all sects of all the Abrahamic religions and can be found in many others as well. Even we secularists agree that - by and large - stealing is morally wrong and shouldn't be condoned. But aren't there some cases where it is a moral imperative to steal something? The classic examples are stealing food to feed a starving child and stealing medicine for a desperately ill one. But in either situation, (most) religions make no exception for the circumstances.
-The proscription against telling lies also comes to mind. What sort of lunatic tells the bald truth all the time? Granted that we should be honest most of the time (and I think most people are, but I'm a cynic), would you tell a lie to spare someone's feelings? Would you tell a new mum that her baby is beautiful, even though you think it looks like a poorly shaved ape?
-'Love thy neighbour as thyself', sounds wonderful on paper, dunnit? But suppose that your neighbour is a thoroughly unlovable person. He may an arsonist, a serial rapist, a paedophile, a drug dealer who targets children, etc. What is lovable about that? Being nice to people is all well and good, but we are 'commanded' to love everyone ALL the time. Some folk simply don't merit my love. Isn't it more morally reprehensible to attempt to put a child rapist on your own moral level ('love' him) than it is to condemn him and turn him into the police?
Absolute moral strictures are unsuited for human beings. Our moral code has enough fluidity in it to accommodate exceptions like those mentioned above. It has all the hallmarks of something that evolved right along with us - answers good enough to get by with.
Boru
-The Bible states flatly (and more than once) that stealing is a sin. This is a prohibition that carries right across all sects of all the Abrahamic religions and can be found in many others as well. Even we secularists agree that - by and large - stealing is morally wrong and shouldn't be condoned. But aren't there some cases where it is a moral imperative to steal something? The classic examples are stealing food to feed a starving child and stealing medicine for a desperately ill one. But in either situation, (most) religions make no exception for the circumstances.
-The proscription against telling lies also comes to mind. What sort of lunatic tells the bald truth all the time? Granted that we should be honest most of the time (and I think most people are, but I'm a cynic), would you tell a lie to spare someone's feelings? Would you tell a new mum that her baby is beautiful, even though you think it looks like a poorly shaved ape?
-'Love thy neighbour as thyself', sounds wonderful on paper, dunnit? But suppose that your neighbour is a thoroughly unlovable person. He may an arsonist, a serial rapist, a paedophile, a drug dealer who targets children, etc. What is lovable about that? Being nice to people is all well and good, but we are 'commanded' to love everyone ALL the time. Some folk simply don't merit my love. Isn't it more morally reprehensible to attempt to put a child rapist on your own moral level ('love' him) than it is to condemn him and turn him into the police?
Absolute moral strictures are unsuited for human beings. Our moral code has enough fluidity in it to accommodate exceptions like those mentioned above. It has all the hallmarks of something that evolved right along with us - answers good enough to get by with.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
