The Case For A Non-Absolute Morality

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

[Inspired by the 'Father Arguments' thread. Thank you, Severan]

A quick survey of different cultures should demonstrate that morality and moral behavior is anything but absolute.

Moral behavior is often defined as being equivalent with 'goodness' or proper actions. If a particular behavior is deemed to be not good or improper, it is frequently termed 'immoral'.

It strikes me that, in order for moral absolutism to be true, then a particular act would have to be moral in all circumstances or immoral in all circumstances. Furthermore, for the act under consideration to be moral, it would have to be better to perform the act than it's opposite, or to do nothing, or to perform some other acts. The converse in necessarily true for an act to be immoral.

By way of example, let's look at homicide (not 'murder', which I'll get to in a moment). Homicide is clearly neither moral or immoral in absolute terms. If I kill you for money or in a fit of pique, then it is an immoral act. If I kill you to prevent you from releasing a deadly nerve toxin which will result in the deaths of thousands of people, I've clearly performed a moral action - saved the lives of thousands. If I opt NOT to kill you and let you release the toxin, I've spared your life, but at a horrific moral cost.

(For the record, 'murder' is simply an 'immoral homicide' - murder, per se, is an always immoral act by definition).

I think the above standard can be applied to any human behavior. Theft (would you steal medicine for a sick child? I would), lying, cheating at cards, and so on. Such a notion of situational or circumstantial morality may be discomfiting to some, but it is the way the world works, and is a damned sight more compassionate way to live than the despotism of absolute morality.

That being said, there IS a common thread of generally moral behavior that seems to be culturally common - it is generally wrong to kill people, it is generally wrong to take things which do not belong to you, and so on. But since these standards do not and never have applied to all times and all cultures, it is a fair bet to say that they are in no wise absolute or universal. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to 'Common Morality' or 'Standard Morality' than 'Absolute Morality'.

So, the next time someone asks you to justify an absolutist morality in the absence of an absolute moral agent (god), smile sweetly and ask them to justify absolute morality in the first place.

Boru

[Jacob(smooth)]

By your definition (which I think is probably right), It would be hard to find ANY immoral act. Between geography and history its hard to find an act which has not, at some time or in some place, been considered moral by society. Rather horribly, the worst of them tend to require a heavy sprinking of religion to help the public choke them down.

If anyone has not read the quite brilliant "good omens" by terry pratchett I strongly advise you do. Its a comedy about an angel and a demon walking the earth. Apparently when staying in Spain Crowley (the demon) got a commendation from hell for the spanish inquistion and what he had humans doing to each other. He went to see it and was so horrified he got drunk for a week.

I think the closest we get to objective morality is the golden rule. Unless you're a masochist.

[DLJ]

I had noticed a while ago that even Billy Lane Craig had dropped the term 'Absolute Morality' in favour of 'Objective Morality'.

Either way, it's still bullshit. Morality is subjective... full... stop.

We can invent a scale (subjectively) and compare acts / behaviours / cultures objectively against that scale e.g. Sam Harris's Moral Landscape so yup fair enough 'well-being' can be measured objectively but only if one (or all) decide that human well-being is a good idea.

We can only know for sure if it's a good idea if we can first determine how it impacts the intended outcome of the universe.

There are only two ways to ascertain the intended outcome of the universe:
a) god(s) told us
b) hindsight.

So, good luck with that.

[EgoRaptor]

Actually, Dawkins made an excellent point about this.

[MindForgedManacle]

A quick survey of different cultures should demonstrate that morality and moral behavior is anything but absolute.

Few people would ever, even in their own cultures, actually argue for an 'absolute' morality. It is generally obvious that what you ought to do will vary to some extent on the situation.

Moral behavior is often defined as being equivalent with 'goodness' or proper actions. If a particular behavior is deemed to be not good or improper, it is frequently termed 'immoral'.

It strikes me that, in order for moral absolutism to be true, then a particular act would have to be moral in all circumstances or immoral in all circumstances. Furthermore, for the act under consideration to be moral, it would have to be better to perform the act than it's opposite, or to do nothing, or to perform some other acts. The converse in necessarily true for an act to be immoral.

That's mostly why few would accept moral absolutism to be true or even useful. :p

By way of example, let's look at homicide (not 'murder', which I'll get to in a moment). Homicide is clearly neither moral or immoral in absolute terms. If I kill you for money or in a fit of pique, then it is an immoral act. If I kill you to prevent you from releasing a deadly nerve toxin which will result in the deaths of thousands of people, I've clearly performed a moral action - saved the lives of thousands. If I opt NOT to kill you and let you release the toxin, I've spared your life, but at a horrific moral cost.

That only works in consequentialist moral frameworks. Under, say, a deontological moral framework, it may very well be the case that killing someone to save many more is immoral.

(For the record, 'murder' is simply an 'immoral homicide' - murder, per se, is an always immoral act by definition).

I think the above standard can be applied to any human behavior. Theft (would you steal medicine for a sick child? I would), lying, cheating at cards, and so on. Such a notion of situational or circumstantial morality may be discomfiting to some, but it is the way the world works, and is a damned sight more compassionate way to live than the despotism of absolute morality.

But again, thatis only applicable if the moral view you take on is where the consequences of the action are what matters and nothing else.

That being said, there IS a common thread of generally moral behavior that seems to be culturally common - it is generally wrong to kill people, it is generally wrong to take things which do not belong to you, and so on. But since these standards do not and never have applied to all times and all cultures, it is a fair bet to say that they are in no wise absolute or universal. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to 'Common Morality' or 'Standard Morality' than 'Absolute Morality'.

Outside of a simplistic religious narrative, the idea of an absolute morality becomes even more nonsensical.

[Medi]

[Inspired by the 'Father Arguments' thread. Thank you, Severan]

A quick survey of different cultures should demonstrate that morality and moral behavior is anything but absolute.

Moral behavior is often defined as being equivalent with 'goodness' or proper actions. If a particular behavior is deemed to be not good or improper, it is frequently termed 'immoral'.

It strikes me that, in order for moral absolutism to be true, then a particular act would have to be moral in all circumstances or immoral in all circumstances. Furthermore, for the act under consideration to be moral, it would have to be better to perform the act than it's opposite, or to do nothing, or to perform some other acts. The converse in necessarily true for an act to be immoral.

By way of example, let's look at homicide (not 'murder', which I'll get to in a moment). Homicide is clearly neither moral or immoral in absolute terms. If I kill you for money or in a fit of pique, then it is an immoral act. If I kill you to prevent you from releasing a deadly nerve toxin which will result in the deaths of thousands of people, I've clearly performed a moral action - saved the lives of thousands. If I opt NOT to kill you and let you release the toxin, I've spared your life, but at a horrific moral cost.

(For the record, 'murder' is simply an 'immoral homicide' - murder, per se, is an always immoral act by definition).

I think the above standard can be applied to any human behavior. Theft (would you steal medicine for a sick child? I would), lying, cheating at cards, and so on. Such a notion of situational or circumstantial morality may be discomfiting to some, but it is the way the world works, and is a damned sight more compassionate way to live than the despotism of absolute morality.

That being said, there IS a common thread of generally moral behavior that seems to be culturally common - it is generally wrong to kill people, it is generally wrong to take things which do not belong to you, and so on. But since these standards do not and never have applied to all times and all cultures, it is a fair bet to say that they are in no wise absolute or universal. Perhaps it would be more accurate to refer to 'Common Morality' or 'Standard Morality' than 'Absolute Morality'.

So, the next time someone asks you to justify an absolutist morality in the absence of an absolute moral agent (god), smile sweetly and ask them to justify absolute morality in the first place.

Boru

I agree. Morality can't be blanket for everyone, morality has to be taken in a personal context, not a social one.

Here's an example, of blanket social morality; it's morally correct to stop the person who is going to release the nerve gas. This kind of argument was the argument for the war in Iraq, and thus, a blanket moral view was taken into account to declare a war, a war in which soldiers have little choice to make their own personal moral decisions and in which thousands of civilians and innocent children have been killed. One example of why blanket morality doesn't work as a principle.

I view morality as making the compassionate choice each time such a situation is presented. Walk past a starving man, give him money. See a guy about to release nerve gas, stop him. A child being beaten, defend the child. That simple question 'what is the most compassionate choice I can make here?' is the essence of what the highest form of realistic, applicable morality really means.

Morality has to be personal, and actually, although terms of blanket morality where thrown around in Old Testament script, Jesus, for one religious person, and Buddha for another, viewed morality and conscience in these terms.

Examples.

1. 'It's not something we'll look at nor point at and say 'there it is', the kingdom of heaven is within you'.

2. His disciples said to Him, "When will the repose of the dead
come about, and when will the new world come?"
He said to them, "What you look forward to has already come,
but you do not recognize it."

3. Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you
bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is
within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you."


As a seeker myself I'm wary of any religious person, or any person at all, who tries to define morality on blanket terms.

[Minimalist]

Walk past a starving man, give him money. See a guy about to release nerve gas, stop him. A child being beaten, defend the child.

There's a suspected terrorist in a house full of non-combatants....fire the missile anyway.

[Medi]

Walk past a starving man, give him money. See a guy about to release nerve gas, stop him. A child being beaten, defend the child.

There's a suspected terrorist in a house full of non-combatants....fire the missile anyway.

Exactly my point. When we put morality on black and white terms it's too easy for people to justify things like this.

[JohnCrichton72]

[Inspired by the 'Father Arguments' thread. Thank you, Severan]

I disagree, if only because I am bored. If what you are saying makes any sense to me, you might believe in moral relativism and judge people by their own cultural standards whilst in their culture. Which I would find disgusting.

If I may use your example, to stop someone from killing thousands is the goal and to kill him IS A LAST RESORT because you have failed to stop him by any other means. All you would be doing is not confounding your mistake(s), or the mistakes of others, that lead to a situation where a person whom would kill thousands has the means.


If you were not derived of any empathy and held yourself to any sort of intellectual standards, you would see, this person is a victim whom needs treatment.

People are a product of their environment and perception there of, nature and nurture. People don't choose to be suicide bombers or, in this hypothesis, some sort of Bonde villain. And yes I believe that morality can be weighed and measured to a degree whereby all actions can be judged by the same standards irrespective of the situation. Killing is never moral, even killing a potential killer.

To follow the example, a society that merely kills the Bonde villain every time he is about to kill everybody else is statically going to loose at some point. The punishment for not fixing the root of the problem and stopping the creation of the villain, whether it is biological or environmental, is its own destruction.

The variables are enumerable granted, but, they are not supernatural. As such a solution is possible, we owe it to all the potential Bonde villains and our society to insure everyone has an upbringing that negates the situation entirely.

Sam Harris, it should interest you.



.

[MindForgedManacle]

Honestly, Harris' argument for a science-based (or at least scientifically-investigatable) moral system is nonsense. The only way it has a chance of working is by his defining 'science' as far more broad than it actually is. And further, I could play this same game: It's possible to define philosophy as anything to do ith thinking. An apparently science-based moral system involves thinking. Therefore, said system is actually based in philosophy.

See why defining things that widely is plain dumb? o.o