Moral Absolutism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
User avatar
By Iron Ant
#14597395
I am a moral relativist, and proud of it.

I totally, completely, and whole heartedly reject Moral Absolutism.

Moral Absolutism is the ethical belief that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged, and that certain actions are right or wrong, regardless of the context of the act.

But, there is no such thing as moral absolutism.

Because all it really is is an excuse for tyranny.

Those who believe in absolute morality, in all it myriad forms, will not allow you to just say no to when the absolutist are exercising their authority.

So that means there is no individual rights of any sort.

If a person thinks you can not say no to them, that you can not defy them in any way, that you just have to sit down and obey without any questioning, then that is tyranny.

And I reject tyranny.

Absolute morality is just an excuse to hurt people.

And that is what you see with the political scene in America today.

liberals think you have to unquestionably obey them.
Conservatives think that you have to unquestionably obey them.
Religious people think that you have to unquestionably obey them.

And they all think it's okay to hurt you, no matter what your age, to keep you in line with their beliefs. They just love to use all kinds of fancy words like taking responsibility, intolerant against intolerance, and discipline.

So I reject the tyranny of absolute morality.

Completely and whole heartedly.

The concept just turns people into monsters than enjoy hurting people, is all it is.

Thank you.
User avatar
By Lightman
#14597397
How can there be absolute individual rights in a system where there are no absolute moral facts?
User avatar
By Iron Ant
#14597403
There are no such thing as absolute rights.

let alone rights.

Rights are an extremely subjective concept, one that most people just can't understand, and therefore tyranny is the default condition for the human race.
User avatar
By Lightman
#14597407
So, if one doesn't believe in absolute morality, why shouldn't they trample your supposed rights, if they have the ability to do so?
User avatar
By Iron Ant
#14597409
Actually, it already happens. Rights are trampled all the time. And really, at least as far as I know, there really is no recourse when it happens. None at all that I can see.

Consider this phrase:

The tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority.

Because sometimes in order to protect people's right's, you have to trample on the "rights" of the majority, and vice versa.

A good example of this happening in America right now.

We have a thing called right of association, from the First Amendment, and state's rights.

So, when the Supreme Court found in favor of forcing all fifty states to accept and marry homosexuals, it trampled on those two rights, did it not?
User avatar
By Iron Ant
#14597433
Addendum: state's rights is from the tenth amendment.

It states that anything that is not covered in the constitution should delegated to state's rights.
User avatar
By Lightman
#14597446
I am not talking about the Constitution; I am talking about moral philosophy.

Again, if there are no moral absolutes, why should I be at all bothered by the prospect of your rights being trampled?
User avatar
By Iron Ant
#14597448
I believe this poem answers it best:


First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Martin Niemöller: "First they came for the Socialists..."


Because if you don't' care about me then why should I care about you?

If you don't speak for me then there is absolutely no reason that I should speak for you.
By Scheherazade
#14737101
Iron Ant wrote:I am a moral relativist, and proud of it.
The concept just turns people into monsters than enjoy hurting people, is all it is.

But whether or not hurting people is good or bad is relative, just a matter of perspective.

So if you're saying that becoming a monster and hurting people is definitely "wrong", then you're a moral absolutist? Who are you to tell people they should or shouldn't hurt others/ Maybe they feel different than you.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14743534
This is where I believe local autonomy is the compromise. It provides rules so a society can function without forcing those rules upon others.
User avatar
By Ben_No3
#14743536
Does it really matter? It is essential for a society to agree to certain rules to live by. Wether or not these rules are absolutes is in my opinion irrelevant because the agreement of society's members puts them in a place where they can be treated as if they were it anyway.

To be honest, while it is a fascinating philosophical question, I don't think the answer would make a difference.
By Rich
#14743548
Ben_No3 wrote:Does it really matter?

I believe it does. Competing preferences and priorities can compromise and negotiate. But if its absolute right and wrong then difference can only be resolved through war and terror. However when dealing with absolutists sometimes its necessary to behave as absolutists.

We've tried give and take with Muslims for fourteen hundred years. We've given and they've taken. No the rights of Infidels must be asserted as unwavering, non negotiable absolutes. No amount of Muslim terrorist life is too big a sacrifice to defend the most minor right of a single Infidel.
User avatar
By Ben_No3
#14743555
Hate to say it but we've taken quite a lot, both in medieval and up to recent history. We've messed up a lot of things in the Middle East throughout the centuries. No, we are by no means the victims.

Now, hypothetical situation: if all of mankind could agree on a set of rules, would it matter if those rules were "actually" right? I think it wouldn't really make a difference, since all will follow them anyway.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14743593
Code: Select allNow, hypothetical situation: if all of mankind could agree on a set of rules, would it matter if those rules were "actually" right? I think it wouldn't really make a difference, since all will follow them anyway.


What a horrible world that will be. Moribund and without hope. I hope I don't live to see it.
By Scheherazade
#14744023
Ben_No3 wrote:Now, hypothetical situation: if all of mankind could agree on a set of rules, would it matter if those rules were "actually" right? I think it wouldn't really make a difference, since all will follow them anyway.

True, if the the rules were "throw Jews and homosexuals in ovens" as opposed to "respect the rights of every man", that would make no difference. :lol:

That's as illogical as saying as long as a person is following "a diet" then it doesn't make a difference what the diet is, a diet consisting of nothing but Coca-Cola, stale Twinkies, and Crisco is no different than one consisting of organic food, as long as person "agrees to follow it".

Sounds very anti-intellectual.
User avatar
By Ben_No3
#14744094
Scheherazade wrote:True, if the the rules were "throw Jews and homosexuals in ovens" as opposed to "respect the rights of every man", that would make no difference. :lol:

That's as illogical as saying as long as a person is following "a diet" then it doesn't make a difference what the diet is, a diet consisting of nothing but Coca-Cola, stale Twinkies, and Crisco is no different than one consisting of organic food, as long as person "agrees to follow it".

Sounds very anti-intellectual.

No, because there is an objective truth to what diet is good for you, while there is no objective truth to what is good or bad. Wether or not a certain diet is good for you can be measured in medical terms, wether or not there is an objective thruth to what is morally right or wether or not morality even exists is not measurable. Morality is a construct of the human mind.

That being said, you can say that certain societies with a certain set of rules work better than others. But even so, that doesn't mean that a certain set of rules is better in the sense of more true, it just means that a certain set of rules creates a more efficient society.

We believe in freedom, democracy and capitalism. There is no way to tell wether or not those are actually the best systems.

There is no objective truth to morality.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14744104
We believe in freedom, democracy and capitalism. There is no way to tell wether or not those are actually the best systems.

There is no objective truth to morality.

Moral values, like everything else in human society, is historically contingent. What is regarded as morally correct has changed over historical time, with each historical era being convinced of the absolute rightness and justice of their own society's moral values. The ancient Romans believed that it was morally right and good to enslave people, to buy and sell them in the marketplace, yet they regarded the early Christians with horror and loathing as being monsters of moral depravity. Fast-forward a thousand years, and things looked very different. Fast-forward another thousand years and they look different again. For something which is supposedly 'absolute', moral values look surprisingly changeable and flexible.

The fact is, there does not seem to be a trans-historical set of absolute moral values which holds true for all times and all places. And why should there be? Different societies at different historical epochs are presented with different set of challenges, and must meet those challenges with different sets of moral values in order to survive and prosper. Practising the 'non-aggression principle' two thousand years ago would have got your civilisation destroyed pretty quickly. Vae victis! Unsurprisingly, almost nobody believed in that principle back then. Indeed, the only people who seem to believe it even now are pampered middle-class college boys. Lol. No, moral values are essentially just a means for human society to regulate its behaviour in such a way as to maximise its chances of surviving and prospering.
By Scheherazade
#14744131
Ben_No3 wrote:No, because there is an objective truth to what diet is good for you, while there is no objective truth to what is good or bad.


...Then if that were true, that would mean it isn't objectively true that eating a "bad diet" is bad...Talk about oxymoron :lol:


It's objectively measurable through logic and mathematics. In actuality morality isn't up for debate anymore than "2 + 2 = 4" is, but denialists will continue to deny, as it's more comfortable for some not to think about the bigger questions in life, and deny their own morality.


Only as much as scientfic laws are, which technically are a 'construct' of the mind, as they're based on the limited observational capabilities of the human mind.

But common sense nevertheless says that someone who thinks the earth is flat has poorer observational skills than scientists do, likewise someone who thinks rape and murder are okay also has objectively poorer observational skills.

That being said, you can say that certain societies with a certain set of rules work better than others.

But even so, that doesn't mean that a certain set of rules is better in the sense of more true, it just means that a certain set of rules creates a more efficient society.

"Better" at what? It's what the society is working towards that determines whether or not it is morally better or not, not it's "efficiency" at working towards immoral goals.

Just as gas chambers are 'more efficient' at genocide than swords, but of course if the goal is genocide, then the social goal itself is immoral.


Sure there is, and even if a logical formula hasn't yet been devised and written down which covers every situation, that doesn't mean one could not be in the future.

Just as the fact that there was no way to measure Newtonian physics in the stone age didn't mean that the universal physical laws themselves didn't exist.

The physical theory of relativity debunks "subjective morality" anyway, since it confirms that regardless of the point of view of the observer, the laws of nature never change (e.x. whether one's riding in a car, or observing it from the outside, if the physical speed is measured it's the same for everyone).

Meaning of course if the natural laws which govern moral truth were measured, then regardless of whether the perspective is from capitalists, or from socialists, the universal laws would still be the same for everyone.

So not only is it immoral, but it's also anti-science.


...then that statement isn't objectively true, so if I decide that there is objective truth to morality, this makes it true not just for me, but everyone else - or vice versa. Meaning it can be both objectively true for everyone, and subjectively true at the same time... or something.

Damn, I can't believe people pretend to actually believe this rubbish. Everyone knows morality is objective and universal, come on, the only people who deny it are those who fear the eternal consequences.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14744135
Morality is whatever justifies me having more than you and feeling good about it.
User avatar
By Hong Wu
#14744142
Eastern religion has been a bit less susceptible to criticism because they don't make moral absolutism a matter of decree by an anthropomorphic being (God) but rather a fundamental part of how the universe works (karma). This is in many ways unfair since the bible is explicit that God isn't a human being, which means that you can't expect questioning his "absolutism" to be rational in the sense it might be for a human being, but this point is regularly ignored by western critics.

To rehash a conversation I once had with a friend, God isn't really a person, rather things would happen and they would be attributed to something that has human-like qualities (or at least may appear to when observed by a human).
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going on[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Hamas are terrorist animals who started this and […]

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]