[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
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 can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
