Is morality relative or absolute?
Should be absolute, but it's mostly relative
ONLY for myself, morality started out absolute, until I needed to make 'adjustments' towards relativity. ONLY for me, if I maintained absolute morality, I'd never have any fun! I am a good and conscientious citizen, but certainly not ready for the Monastery!
In fact, pinky, your post is the best argument for, not just moral relativism, but that everything is relative. Even absolute zero is a theory my friend.
pinkyusuck, c'mon, if any moral is relative (subjective), the answer has to be relative. It's immoral to be so absolute.
Also, did you ever think that what you think the rest of us think might be wrong? Or at the least (very) extreme?
This is truly sad and disturbing. No wonder our country is in a mess. The majority of the country has no standard to live by.
I get my morality from a rational consideration of the consequences of my actions..that's it.. Relative
Ohhhh this is philosophy...went right over my head...figures
Oh, that doesn't address the moral aspect of that moral.
A leopard cannot change it's spots.
Since any absolute is dependent on circumstance (making it ultimately relative), if a leopard were to change its spots, it would cease to be a leopard.
wow. almost 8 hours later and no one wanted to answer that. I wonder if it's because they'd have to think first before answering it.
Idlike to know an absolute moral....
I think judging people absolutely is immoral. Like mandatory minimum sentences. In fact, any absolutist should want to abolish all courts.
arboreality, being absolute makes hypocrisy a non-issue. Drawing such sharp lines, one is bound to cross them. How can a party that prides itself on across the board competition ask if everybody is better off. Everything has consequences, the moral high ground is relative to which chips we let fall.
Think, the definition of collateral damage, in term of humans, is murder, not "may include". So, to 9999's question, why are you fuzzy on the matter?
Re, unborn babies, do you mean fetuses? Zygotes? Do you think others (absolutely) see them as collateral? I don't see it that simply, read blindly.
What I'd you're in a situation where someone says kill this man or I kill your child.Do you still go by your absolute principals and let your child die because your false religions rules said so?Are you murdering your child by letting the man live?
Be honest you would kill the man, moralsarerelative
Funny that Republicans feel morality is absolute, when they are so often also the group playing in the moral gray area: abortion is not okay, war and the death penalty are?Religious tolerance is critical, as long as its Christianity? American jobs are important, unless Walmart has cheaper stuff?
Frank ... Yes, I think collateral damage may include innocent people.
How about unborn babies, are they also collateral damage?
No, Mr. logic, just one's perspective.
And why use such a snarky word like convenience? Makes you sound unjustly burned.
Morality doesn't change based on your own convenience.
Think, is collateral damage, "innocent"?
9999 ... Murder is the shedding of innocent blood.
I have to wonder how much of the 40-ish % of "Absolute"-choosers would say murder is wrong but support sending our kids off to kill--or to be support staff to help others kill--people in foreign lands.
Rosebud, what explains a lot? What is the explanation?
I, personally, gather more information about you from such a vague, yet presumptuous statement. It's a trick to say, "anyone can see."
Well this explains a lot...
Re Philosophy For Dummies, on Amazon, the review, "Is the unexamined book worth reading" is a great review, not sure which edition. It points out why cowboy can be frustrating.
veritas, I, for once, can agree with cowboy. Collections are a great start. I still read my aesthetics book, it has Plato, Aristotle, Tolstoy (What Is Art is great and applies to all communication), Hume, Kant (Critique Of Judgement). A good collection has essays more on point, each relating.
Veritas, I've heard cowboy recommends Philosophy for Dummies, 3rd edition.
FrankZappa, I am a sarcastic bastard, but I am 101% honest about my statement. I love reading these comments (well, most of them). So many brilliant minds on SoH.
As well as a couple that are good for comic relief.
veritas, to my memory, all philosophy is dense, relatively of course. Though I only read art philosophy since HS.
Anyone have suggestions as to where to start with philosophy (beyond Plato)?
What books would be actually interesting and not unnecessarily dense like Kant? Is Hume good? Any specific books?
...words and ideas are too abrasive, so let's just leave it at this: anyone who doesn't share your moral compass is wrong and probably a dirty, stinking liberal.
@commonsense Nonsense cliches aside, I think we do agree on one thing: morality is easy to apply. Even the simplest yokel can be taught to follow the morals of his family and community. The problem is that not everyone's morals are the same. This, morality is relative. But I see that all these...
Morality should be taken for granted. To ponder, for too long, which action is right (not best), is a sign of a sociopath.
Oh, putting party before person is another red flag.
Who the hell is commonsense talking to? Morality easy to apply? Isn't that a distinguishing trait of being human? We apply morality to everything (good or bad).
I mean, talk about making a mountain. Drawing lines around what anyone should be is putting up walls, eventually a cage with only yourself.
Really RJ? Can't tell if you're serious.
Still making excuses for your lack of morality?
Morality is easy to apply.
You are Making a mountain out of a molehill.
(typical left, or "chicken littles")
That was pretty deep, FZappa.
On the extremes of actions almost everyone can agree, as the examples become more innocuous, relativity applies.
And I don't believe, in many cases, we justify the morality of an action. Action is second nature dependent on one's moral code.
And RJ, I totally agree that absolutists often ignore their own depravity. Isn't there a Bible verse that says, "before you try to remove the splinter from your brother's eye, take care of the plank in your own"?
@flyte Why does moral relativity necessarily translate to depravity? I am a relativist, and I am appalled by crimes of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, lying, theft, and infidelity, just to name a few. My belief that everyone has his own moral code in no way gives me license to do anything I want.
Which proves that it is nonsensical to discuss whether a view is correct based on how people that believe it act (faulting the messenger).
Just because a person is an absolutist doesn't make them a moral person.
Yes, I agree. My point is that the holier than thou crowd often ignores history when tooting their own horns.
And as for the Nazi, the absolutist approach held by the Catholic Church wasn't exactly coming to the rescue of the Jews.
RJ- the same can be said of moral relativists. The Nazi movement was and still is fueled philosophically by Nietzsche's morally relativist übermensch.
funny, because if you look at history, those who claim absolutism were also involved with outrageous tragedies. Try reading a history book sometime.
Moral relativism gives those who believe in it unlimited passes to commit whatever horrors they can imagine, so long as they can convince themselves they are justified in doing so. Which, apparently, is not difficult to do according to popular belief at the time I posted this comment.
The Golden Rule does not apply in a world of they-started-its.
Exactly veritas. The categorical imperative has 3 forms: commit no action you would not rationally will to be a universal, never treat others as only a means to an end, and act as you would in the Kingdom of Ends (WWJD). 3 ways to think about it, same necessary conclusions.
@Gautama and the categorical imperative