(September 28, 2015 at 5:13 pm)Spacetime Wrote:(September 28, 2015 at 4:55 pm)ApeNotKillApe Wrote: Absolutes truth is to claim certainty, and certainty is dangerous when not tempered with reason.
The law of God is absolute, it cannot be challenged, you can't argue with God, it can't be reasoned with. That kind of law is by definition immoral, it has nothing to do with being decent, it's about obedience, adherence to the law whatever the law happens to be, this kind of absolutist thinking is what causes members of certain sects to deny their children life saving treatments like blood transfusions, they will passively euthanize their own children because of a vague passage in a book, it is a slave mentality.
To claim to an absolute is to deny yourself the ability to question your actions, to abandon reason. If you're certain, then you don't need a reason.
Given the definitions I have, do you suppose that absolute truth is still a claim to certainty? Can something comport with reality without the possibility of being diminished?
When discussing moral absolutes, no, because an absolute is inherently immoral, regardless of the details. If you can reason with yourself and legitimately justify an action, there's no need for the absolute.
"Don't steal" is a solid moral principle, there are many good reasons to abstain from theft, however, theft is sometimes the only option.
Stealing bread to feed your starving family is a reasonable action, though not a legal one. Allowing your family to starve to death for the sake of adhering to the law is an unreasonable action. Absolutism removes the possibility of negotiation, and thus an action can't be justified.
Reasonable doubt is the foundation of moral virtue.
