Is morality an absolute?

[avidcameron]

Or is it more of a relative thing? Coming from cultural or personal preference?

 

When two people have conflicting views on what is morally right, how do I know who has the correct moral view?

 

Morality is a subjective concept focusing on what ought to happen,not what does happen.It is prescriptive,not descriptive and a matter of conjecture.

 

I would say the correct view is that which coincides with your own.

[Cyclone]

Or is it more of a relative thing? Coming from cultural or personal preference?

 

When two people have conflicting views on what is morally right, how do I know who has the correct moral view?

 

It's definitely not an absolute, it's a human construct and it's possible to see how it has changed historically.

 

You could refer to what I believe is known as "natural law", although I don't know if that would help in every case.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2013 at 20:54 ----------

 

Thank you Obelix.

 

Also, do you think the concept of morality is used as a mechanism to guilt-trip other people in to behaving in the way we would like them to behave?

 

Guilt trip is an emotive term and inappropriate I think.

 

Laws however are used to attempt to force people to conform to any moral position that is widely held by a society. That is after-all what the law is/does, a means of enforcing the behaviour which society deems to be good or appropriate.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2013 at 20:55 ----------

 

Personally, I think it can be used as such. However, I think there may be more to it. For example, I have a strong sense that it's not cool to kill or harm other people. Why is that?

 

Even so, I eat animal meat, but then, I kind of like my dog (but not for dinner).

 

Things like murder could definitely be referred back to natural law or natural justice.

It would be less helpful when examining the morality of eating other animals.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2013 at 20:59 ----------

 

Re: morality that allows for the killing of those outside ones own social group... I would suggest that it is simply a less evolved morality. In order to justify such behaviour one has to define those people as not of the same group. But that argument can be extended down to just yourself... In which case there is no moral argument not to kill.

The alternative view would be to extend the group to all humans (some might ask, why stop there), in which case it becomes immoral to raid and kill anyone, within your social group or not.

 

The original behaviour is evolved, if your tribe works together then you all have a greater evolutionary advantage. There is no such advantage to avoiding killing a competing tribe though (particularly if they compete for scarce resources).

Monkey studies are fascinating with regards to social moral behaviour like this.

[Mister M]

Morality in the theoretical sense isn't something I usually think about. But there was an interesting but provocative theory put forward by a psychiatrist who writes for the Spectator under the pseudonym Theodore Dalrymple who put forward the idea that addiction is not illness but a matter of morality, or to be specific - moral weakness.

 

It's not a view I share. But there is a very good debate on the issue in the Mail between 2 high profile people who are self confessed addicts:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-442580/Is-addiction-illness-weakness.html

[Cyclone]

Does he differentiate between psychological and physical addiction?

[Jmack]

Surely things such as rape or child sex abuse are surely examples of absolute moral laws. The other things seem to be more relative.

[Mister M]

Does he differentiate between psychological and physical addiction?

 

I'm not sure, the book in which explains his theory is about heroin addiction which I think has both a psychological and physical aspect

 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Junk-Medicine-Doctors-Addiction-Bureaucracy/dp/1905641591

[tinfoilhat]

There are things that are legal that are morally questionable. A 60 year old man going out with a 17 year old is legal but is it morally acceptable? Adultery is legal but morally questionable (in the eyes of most - but not all).

[avidcameron]

There are things that are legal that are morally questionable. A 60 year old man going out with a 17 year old is legal but is it morally acceptable? Adultery is legal but morally questionable (in the eyes of most - but not all).

 

I do not think adultery is legal in civil law as it is grounds for divorce,and is in breach of contract.It is acceptable as it does not brak the criminal law.

[Waldo]

There are things that are legal that are morally questionable.

 

The reverse can also be true. Sometimes the moral and right thing to do, involves breaking the law of the land.

 

A 60 year old man going out with a 17 year old is legal but is it morally acceptable? Adultery is legal but morally questionable (in the eyes of most - but not all).

 

If morality is subjective, then yes and no; to some people it will be morally acceptable, to other people, it won't. So, who is right?

[Obelix]

The Ancient Greeks also kept slaves.

 

There is an interesting discussion about Moral Blame that can be listened to from this page - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b038c7bq

 

They considered keeping slaves to be perfectly moral and reasonable as well - that's the point though - morals can and do change.

 

---------- Post added 10-10-2013 at 22:22 ----------

 

Surely things such as rape or child sex abuse are surely examples of absolute moral laws. The other things seem to be more relative.

 

I refer you back to my example of ancient Greece where systemic child sex abuse was considered to be perfectly moral and a good thing... one thing I learned from my classics was that morals are never set in stone!