The Case For A Non-Absolute Morality

[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.