Is morality an absolute?

[Chris_Sleeps]

I don't know how you can claim an act is always wrong. All it would take is one society or group of people somewhere and at some point in time to think it is right to do x to prove the absolute wrong.

Why would an act have moral worth just because a society or group of people somewhere thought it did?

 

It's a moral, an opinion - a view on the correct way that people should behave. Just because some people say it's okay to do something, doesn't make it okay to do something.

 

I find slavery immoral, in history and in modern contexts. Other people are not property. A billion people who disagree with me will never change my view.

Some form of eye cancer/disease?

It's okay to blind a child sometimes then, to save him from death and illness. I can agree with that.

 

That's a utilitarian argument. You're saving him from a worse consequence. I can agree with that. It's moral relativism though.

 

I'll try another one.

 

Is it sometimes correct to rape a child?

 

---------- Post added 11-10-2013 at 11:14 ----------

 

Ah but just because *you* can't see that doesn't mean that someone else, or rather some society doesn't think differently...

That's moral philosophy for us. People don't always agree. Who could have predicted that?

[Obelix]

Why would an act have moral worth just because a society or group of people somewhere thought it did?

 

It's a moral, an opinion - a view on the correct way that people should behave. Just because some people say it's okay to do something, doesn't make it okay to do something.

 

I find slavery immoral, in history and in modern contexts. Other people are not property. A billion people who disagree with me will never change my view.

 

It's okay to blind a child sometimes then, to save him from death and illness. I can agree with that.

 

That's a utilitarian argument. You're saving him from a worse consequence. I can agree with that. It's moral relativism though.

 

I'll try another one.

 

Is it sometimes correct to rape a child?

 

I refer you back to my comments about the ancient Greeks... In our society no it's not. In their society yes it was. In the UK until quite recently historically it was probably acceptable as children were considered property to be bought sold and married as appropriate, at some very young ages.

 

In Kentucky I think it is still technically legal to marry at twelve (although I stand to be corrected I can't find my reference atm). Is it therefore permissible to consummate that?

[Chris_Sleeps]

I refer you back to my comments about the ancient Greeks... In our society no it's not. In their society yes it was.

Your statement is that because people have not always and do not always agree, then there can be no moral absolutes? Until people can agree on the completely correct way to behave, nothing can be absolute?

 

Am I getting close?

[Cyclone]

You think there are some circumstances, modern or historic, where it is acceptable to ..., let's pick an example; blind a baby? There can be some circumstance that makes that a good way to behave?

 

Kant is a moral absolutist. Most religions try to be moral absolutist, but fail miserably in practice, sadly. I don't think it is something to be dismissed so clearly.

 

Morality describes a full set of believes in right and wrong, not a single example. There might be single examples that are commonly held across time and different cultures (although infanticide was common amongst some cultures, but isn't accepted today), but the bigger picture of morality, rather than a single moral question is that it is not absolute.

 

---------- Post added 11-10-2013 at 11:48 ----------

 

Not to me, because a moral is not a computer system. Hardware or software. Morality is the way people behave.

 

Of course it's opinion. It's all we have. Abstract and empty. It's all in our heads, and then in our actions.

 

But, if we can claim that an act is always wrong, that is a moral absolute. If we can claim that an act can sometimes be the wrong thing to do, and sometimes the correct thing to do, that is moral relativism.

 

Is it sometimes correct to blind a child? I can't see how it is.

Is it always wrong to murder? I can't see how it is.

 

Both approaches have their pitfalls.

 

I can claim that slavery is always wrong (and I will). But I can also accept that historically people did not feel the same. There are probably even some today who don't agree.

The fact that I feel that it is always wrong doesn't make that a universal belief.

 

---------- Post added 11-10-2013 at 11:52 ----------

 

Why would an act have moral worth just because a society or group of people somewhere thought it did?

Because that's what morality is. An opinion on what is right and what is wrong/

It's a moral, an opinion - a view on the correct way that people should behave. Just because some people say it's okay to do something, doesn't make it okay to do something.

I think you might have misunderstood what being an absolute means.

 

I find slavery immoral, in history and in modern contexts. Other people are not property. A billion people who disagree with me will never change my view.

It does however mean that there is no agreement on the morality of slavery, ie no moral absolute.

[barleycorn]

Why would an act have moral worth just because a society or group of people somewhere thought it did?

Because worth is decided by society, or more accurately, the majority of society.

It's a moral, an opinion - a view on the correct way that people should behave. Just because some people say it's okay to do something, doesn't make it okay to do something.

It does for them, and if enough people agree with them (or they can impose the views on others) then yes, it does make it OK.

I find slavery immoral, in history and in modern contexts. Other people are not property. A billion people who disagree with me will never change my view.

A moral code is entirely subjective. If enough people agree with it then it will be 'the right thing', if they don't then you may find yourself on the wrong end of the ****ty stick.

Morals tend to be shaped by the society in which we are raised so a moral could only be absolute if everybody thought X was wrong regardless of upbringing. In effect it would have to be hardwired into us. I could think of a couple of experiments to try and demonstrate this but doubt I would get ethical approval.

It's okay to blind a child sometimes then, to save him from death and illness. I can agree with that.

Whilst not blinding there are many things which are done, or have been done to children which we now think of as wrong (or at least some of us do) eg. Male and female circumcision, FGM, feet binding (of Chinese female infants to give them small feet), head binding (of the hun to give them a high flat forehead)

That's a utilitarian argument. You're saving him from a worse consequence. I can agree with that. It's moral relativism though.

 

I'll try another one.

 

Is it sometimes correct to rape a child?

See reference to the ancient Greeks up thread.

That's moral philosophy for us. People don't always agree. Who could have predicted that?

 

jb

[Cyclone]

Your statement is that because people have not always and do not always agree, then there can be no moral absolutes? Until people can agree on the completely correct way to behave, nothing can be absolute?

 

Am I getting close?

 

Since you can't change the morality of people who no longer exist, there can never be a moral absolute. There is no 'until'.

[barleycorn]

Your statement is that because people have not always and do not always agree, then there can be no moral absolutes? Until people can agree on the completely correct way to behave, nothing can be absolute?

 

Am I getting close?

 

If it was absolute you wouldn't need to get people to agree, they just would.

 

jb

[Obelix]

Your statement is that because people have not always and do not always agree, then there can be no moral absolutes? Until people can agree on the completely correct way to behave, nothing can be absolute?

 

Am I getting close?

 

Morality is a function of society and given that society is always changing then I don't think you could ever have certainty in morals. You could have moral absolutes at a point in time and for a large geographical region but these are subject to continual change - it's a case of the moving goalposts as it were.