Hmm, I understand that it depends on what you take to be meant by absolutes but if we even accept the 'wrong in every situation ever', doesn't the utilitarian still argue that the action which creates the greatest suffering should never be performed? this seems to constitute an absolute judgement, even if it is not reflective of an absolutist theory. Perhaps in my presentation of it here i was a little ambiguous, all the theories rely on an absolute and can so be considered, at least in some sense, absolute.
Very well, I agree that this is pretty accurate of what i was trying to say. However, I'm not arguing that they are all true or inscrutable, as you go on to suppose, but rather that there is no non-absolutist morality at all. All I wished to get across was merely that all theories have their absolutes and this, it seems, is what makes them a substantial theory, thus no one theory can gain 'flexibility points' by saying that it has no moral absolutes.
Quote:What you are trying to show here is that even when the followers of a moral theory claim that it is morally non-absolutist, they say that their theory is not absolute, but treat the underlying premises as if they were
Very well, I agree that this is pretty accurate of what i was trying to say. However, I'm not arguing that they are all true or inscrutable, as you go on to suppose, but rather that there is no non-absolutist morality at all. All I wished to get across was merely that all theories have their absolutes and this, it seems, is what makes them a substantial theory, thus no one theory can gain 'flexibility points' by saying that it has no moral absolutes.
Religion is an attempt to answer the philosophical questions of the unphilosophical man.
