[Stan]

Is morality absolute or relative?

I say all morality is relative.

[Vivisekt]

Absolutely reletive to the point of observation. There is no such thing as absolute moral truth, which is something that i think many people fail to realize.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

It is relative, what some people do in one country or area may not be the same as somewhere else.

One example is cannibalism, in some cultures it is considered a blessing, a way to honor a dead loved one, or an acceptable way to get an enemies "power" while in others you will supposedly burn in hell if you taste human flesh- it's all where you are.

[enLight]

Well it can be said that absolutes do exist - such is the case with things like mathematics and truth.

But as for morality being absolute, it's hard to say. Much of the academic world will say it's relative. I think this comes from the complicated nature of the beast. But when considering the many cultures of the world, there are an alarming amount of common notions held as "good" and their opposites as "bad".

Virtue ethics lead to the conclusion of an absolute morality. The virtuous man is the moral man. For instance, the virtue of courage is universal in all cultures. The virtue of reverence is universal, as is justice and wisdom. The list goes on and on. Now, in every culture the manifestation of these virtues is different. But the fundamental ideas behind them is the same. One could say the means are different, but the ends are identical.

And by doing this, the complicity of absolute morality is better expressed. Old Morality (such as "killing is wrong") is replaced by New Morality (killing being wrong on the basis of violating a collection of virtues related to the scenario).

So I think that virtue-based morality is absolute.

[jaakko]

Is morality absolute or relative?

All morale is relative, but at the same time much of it is also objectively existing (in the context of society).

[Stan]

I would say that anyone who believes that morality is absolute must be a believer in God as a point of reference. Without that point of reference morality is always relative. That is why religious folks believe in absolutes.

[enLight]

I would say that anyone who believes that morality is absolute must be a believe in God as a point of reference. Without that point of reference morality is always relatives. That is why religious folks believge in absolutes.

Did you just totally disregard my virtue-based morality post? Guess so.

You can be an athiest and still follow absolute morality. But yes, other moral absolutists do use religion as a foundation.

[Stan]

Can you give me an example of absolute morality?

[Goranhammer]

I truly believe morality is absolute.

Take the time to scan over a work called the "Categorical Imperative" by Emmanuel Kant sometime.

You'll see that it tends to be absolute, but warped over selfish values.

[Crazy Brown Guy]

Morality is not absolute, example

Murdering someone is Immoral
Killing someone in war is Moral

In both cases someone dies of an action by another individual

Morality is based on common sense initially, but it is masked by god and religion later on to make religion and god valid.

[Vivisekt]

Can you give me an example of absolute morality?

That's really the best question to ask people who claim that morality is absolute. They can never give an example that holds up to any scrutiny because morality is relative. That's the whole argument right there.

[Stan]

The morality of an act is always tied to a specific situation.

In a sense an act in a vacuum has no intrinsic morality.

For example having sex is an act. One cannot describe the morality of sex unless it is seen in a specific situation.

For example sex with a five year old child is immoral. However, sex with a consenting adult is not.

Like someone said above:

Killing with premeditation is immoral. However, killing in self-defense may not be immoral.

Conclusion: All morality is relative.

The conservatives are wrong when they accused the liberals of being moral relativists.

[Visage of Glory]

I believe morality is absolute. Everyone has a concious that basically tells someone when they do something wrong. I supremely doubt that anyone has done something that they felt horrible about doing. Even if nobody knows about it, they still feel bad. At least I know I have.

That being said, I am quite religious, and active in a church that has very high morals. I support C.S. Lewis in his book "Mere Christianity" when he talks about morality. I think everyone should read this book, even if they are an atheist, Muslim, or they just don't care an ounce about religion. He makes some really good points in the book, even if I disagree with some of the things he said.

[enLight]

Can you give me an example of absolute morality?

Sure. Wait, let's instead examine the two examples you gave and show how morality still can be absolute:

For example sex with a five year old child is immoral. However, sex with a consenting adult is not.

...

Killing with premeditation is immoral. However, killing in self-defence may not be immoral.

To suggest that both prove the relativity of morality is incorrect. Why? Because you are pinning morality on action, not motive. The act of sex and the act of killing are neutral. The motive for sex with a five year old is different than the motive for sex with a consenting adult.

Morality is based on motives, which define the goals (ends) a person desires. The actions (means) to achieve those ends are neutral.

You claim that because actions are neutral morality is relative. That is false. There is a clear difference between good motives and bad motives, and that is a big part of the justification of absolute morality.

Additionally, you can relate the two examples to virtue-based absolute morality. At this link (http://www.interlog.com/~girbe/virtuesvices.html) is a fine table showing the concept behind the virtue theory. First, there is the neutral sphere of action or feeling. Then there is the three levels of motives or drives that control how one uses the action. The means make up the virtues and the excesses and deficiencies make up the vices. Moral sex with a consenting adult is driven by temperence. Sex with a five year old is driven by self-indulgence.

In any scenario, this chart can be applied. It is absolute. Morality based on it is absolute.

[Stan]

Killing with premeditation is immoral. However, killing in self-defense may not be immoral.

You make excellent points. However, I would say motive is always related to the situation.

Did you see the English movie "28 days". In this flick there is a highly contagious virus that is uniformly fatal. The virus threatens to end humanity. In the movie one must kill every infected person because this may be the only way to save humanity. In this instance killing with premeditation is acceptable.

Lets say that there has been a nuclear holocaust and there are only two menstruating 12-year-old girls in the planet. Lets pretend that you are the only male alive in the planet, but only have one month to live. If you don’t impregnated these women the human race will become extinct. What would you do? Follow a book of absolutes?

[enLight]

Did you see the English movie "28 days".

Ah yes, a very cool movie. I'm a big fan of post-apocalyptic flicks.

In the movie one must kill every infected person because this may be the only way to save humanity. In this instance killing with premeditation is acceptable.

Well, first of all, I would call this an act of self defense. Why do you kill the infected? Because they threaten your existence. It's comparable to war. In WWII the British were defending against Nazi Germany. Their soldiers engaged in premeditated killing. But it was still self defense (on a national scale). The motive of the British soldiers and the motive of the guy killing the infected is the same.

Also - on a side not - sometimes self defense can manifest as a preemptive (sp?) strike - you know someone is going to harm you, so why not take him out before he has the chance.

Lets say that there has been a nuclear holocaust and there are only two menstruating 12-year-old girls in the planet. Lets pretend that you are the only male alive in the planet, but only have one month to live. If you don’t impregnated these women the human race will become extinct. What would you do? Follow a book of absolutes?

This is the hardest question for me to answer, because is pits morality against survivalism. First of all let me say this: Every single human is imperfect, so one should never be expected to ever be 100% morally perfect. This is not a cop-out, this is a fact of life.

So does this mean that in extreme situations survivalism takes the place of morality - if only temporarily? I'm not sure. First off what is casuing the man to only live for a month? The only real reason would be a disase or a physical wound. What if he had a genetic disaese? A genetic disease that would be transmitted to his children and thus seal the doom of their their future?

But lets say he doesn't. Lets say that he manages to impregnate both 12 year olds and then shortly thereafter, dies. What will become of the children? Will the parents die at birth? Will the two be able to even survive in the assumed harsh post-apocalyptic environment? Even if the children are born, the chance of survival is slim - starvation, disease, accident, attacks by predators, etc. Two twelve-year-old girls with two infants in a harsh, lonely, post-apocalyptic environment. Do you really think they have a chance?

No, I sincerely doubt it.

And even if the children did survive - what if they were both female? Or both male? Should the male children resort to incest with their mothers? Do you think this limited genetic pool would insure the survival of the human race? It would not.

So would this brief breach of morality satisfy the goal of survival? No. It would accomplish nothing.

If there is ever a situation where survival is feasibly possible morality too will be possible.

[Stan]

Good answers! I cannot refute your statements.

However, would you agree that it is not a good idea to have absolutes? One never knows what wacky situation may arise that may not be applicable to an absolute code.

[enLight]

However, would you agree that it is not a good idea to have absolutes? One never knows what wacky situation may arise that may not be applicable to an absolute code.

Yes, I agree with that. There are times when absolutes are unecessary.

[Lohr]

I would say that morality is absolute.....ethics are relative

[Comrade Ogilvy]

All objections to the absolute morality seem to be like the 2 menstrating 12 year olds example.

Not based in reality.

It's nice that you have a complex world in your head, but at the end of the day there are certain absolutes that all cultures seem to develop no matter what the age, the location, the history.

To deny them is to deny the history of humanity.

It has nothing to do with God or a some higher sense of truth or this or that. It's just who you are.

History has backed up the ideal of morality as being absolute, and many of the specific examples as existing in all cultures.

So I'll go with absolute.