Is it true that there is no absolute morality?

I'd check with Plato or Socrates on that one.

But the question asks about "absolute morality" not arbitrary morality.

Morality is determined by cultures. An example is the Muslim practice of killing women (though not necessarily all) who do not wear burkas or other head covering, for them it is morally, ethically and culturally correct; not even questioned. (Not all Muslims fall into this category of course).

Many other cultures found it absolutely morally correct to kill their "enemies" or anyone who disagreed with them. The Romans fell into that category. All people in medieval Europe found it moral and expedient to do away with each other whether Celts, Ostrogoths, Vandals or others.

So I'd say that there is no absolute morality. Morality is only relative to a particular culture.

And don't even begin to tell me that the American culture is absolutely moral or we wouldn't indulge in wars or condone bigotry and prejudice but we do. We killed off the native americans without compulsion, it was necessary (and morally correct) since the indians were thought less human than Negros.

Etc., etc., etc.

Neo-Scholastic [/quote Wrote:Nevertheless, based on the intensity and earnestness of my searching for meaning within that paradigm I feel fairly confident saying that atheism leads inexorably towards nihilism, a self-defeating philosophy that can be maintained only by willfully ignoring its own irrationality.

Is the confidence you hold in your own failure to find meaning a reliable indicator of truth? Since when? You failed to find god as well, in your story above......and yet......

Quote:I know others disagree but I truly believe that many many atheists simply have not fully examined their own beliefs and what they necessarily entail. They are like I was, only in reverse, clinging to the idea that I was a Christian while denying everything it implied.

"Their own beliefs"...lol, hey..maybe, maybe they hold some other position on some other issue that leads inexorably to nihilism...it simply doesn't follow from not believing in gods..which is all.....-all- that atheism entails.

Just because -you- have connected gods to meaning, and can't find meaning anywhere but gods asshole...doesn't mean that I do, or can't. You might disagree with what I find meaning in, or how I derive my sense of meaning...but it's plainly fucking ridiculous to pretend that it doesn't or can't exist, or that if I don't reach way up into the divine colon whatever I derive meaning from is just..you know..illogical and stuff.

(February 17, 2017 at 9:20 am)WisdomOfTheTrees Wrote:

(February 17, 2017 at 8:12 am)chimp3 Wrote: Call it arbitrary if you wish but I can pick and choose from any "objective" religious moral lesson. I think the fable of the Good Samaritan is a good moral tale. Rise above the bigotry of your culture and help a human being who is in trouble. I think human sacrifice and killing your own son for the bad behavior of others is sick. My moral landscape has been shaped by more than iron age tales of brutality.

If one defined morality, then there would be nothing of which to disagree on, there would be nothing to deviate from. Since there is no defined morality, that means whatever one chooses to believe is morality is arbitrary.

Why do you think there is no defined morality. People are always defining morality. Arbitrary is a red herring. The debates between bible thumping slave owners and abolitionists in the U.S. were not arbitrary. Each side used scripture to support the cause and the good side won. No thanks to the christians sky fairy.

(February 17, 2017 at 11:20 am)Khemikal Wrote: To your average christer, anyone who doesn't believe in god's holy purpose and plan is a nihilist.  

Not to mention they can't think of what is holding us back from rampant rape and murder.

When a bunch of healthy people are around we can't always decide who is the healtheist but when we can't prove objectively who is the healtheist out of a group of healthy people... we don't get people saying that therefore health is not objective and we need an exact definition that everyone agrees on and is completely non-arbitrary and foolproof otherwise it's not objective. No.

No part of science is completely non-arbitary and foolproof. Objective is not the same as universal or non-arbitrary. It's also not the same as finding answers in practice.

Something can be completely non-universal, non-arbitrary and even impossible to find answers in practice and there can STILL be objective answers in principle.

The fact that people don't agree on a definition of morality is completely irrelevant. Each definition has objective answers to it in principle.

All the world religions have prohibitions on unjust killings and theft. That's not all they have in common but that's what comes to my mind right now.

My point is morality is hard wired into most people and religions aren't going to give you objective morality. They are obviously just made by humans.

(February 17, 2017 at 6:01 pm)chimp3 Wrote:

(February 17, 2017 at 9:20 am)WisdomOfTheTrees Wrote: If one defined morality, then there would be nothing of which to disagree on, there would be nothing to deviate from. Since there is no defined morality, that means whatever one chooses to believe is morality is arbitrary.

Why do you think there is no defined morality. People are always defining morality. Arbitrary is a red herring. The debates between bible thumping slave owners and abolitionists in the U.S. were not arbitrary. Each side used scripture to support the cause and the good side won. No thanks to the christians sky fairy.

If there was a defined morality I'm sure that I would be aware of it.

I would agree that if there is no Creator, then all morality is assuredly subjective and not absolute.

(February 19, 2017 at 12:11 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: I would agree that if there is no Creator, then all morality is assuredly subjective and not absolute.

Adding a Creator to the mix does not make things objective.  It merely assigns the responsibility for the subjective judgements to one particular entity -- a "buck stops here" sign, essentially.

True. But it would set a standard by which all morality is measured.

So in practice if morality was based on that standard then it would not fluctuate because of individual circumstance and environment.

---

I find many people have a moral objection to the Christian God's actions found in scripture. This always feels ironic to me if we live in a world where all morality is subjective and does not transcend everything.