Christians and moral absolutes

[jimbo]

Hi,

I have had discussions with Christians who have told me that because I am not a Christian, I have no knowledge of "moral absolutes" and I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong. Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these "moral absolutes" are. So I would like to know if any of the Christians here can tell me what these "moral absolutes" are and where they are to be found. Are they in the Bible? If not, where are they?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Theodore

[Dee Dee Warren]

Good topic Jimbo. I sure hope you do not have a confusion (even some Christians do) over what absolutes mean. It does not mean that there is not a one size fits all moral soluation for every moral dilemna but that there is one standard by which all moral actions must be judged in light of circumstances. This is not relativism as some commonly suppose.... moral relativism is about relative people.... Biblical morality allows for moral distinctions based upon relative situations. Anything else is nonBiblical and counterinuitive as well. One example would be say shooting someone. That is not ALWAYS wrong, but must be viewed by an absolute standard in light of a variable circumstance. It is wrong to do such a thing for fun. It is not wrong to do such a thing in war.

[Pate]

jimbo:
Hi,

I have had discussions with Christians who have told me that because I am not a Christian, I have no knowledge of "moral absolutes" and I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong. Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these "moral absolutes" are. So I would like to know if any of the Christians here can tell me what these "moral absolutes" are and where they are to be found. Are they in the Bible? If not, where are they?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Theodore

I would, to quite large extent at least, question the claim of those Christians, that you cannot have knowledge of moral absolutes. Even the Apostle Paul says that the moral law is written on the hearts of people, also non-christians. But I would just argue that atheism does not provide a foundation for moral absolutes and therefore they don't fit consistently with atheistic worldview and this will often lead an atheist to deny the existence of these moral absolutes.

[Pate]

Dee Dee Warren:
This is not relativism as some commonly suppose.... moral relativism is about relative people.... Biblical morality allows for moral distinctions based upon relative situations. Anything else is nonBiblical and counterinuitive as well.

Exactly. I hope that more people would realize this.

[Faramir]

Dee Dee Warren:
Good topic Jimbo. I sure hope you do not have a confusion (even some Christians do) over what absolutes mean. It does not mean that there is not a one size fits all moral soluation for every moral dilemna but that there is one standard by which all moral actions must be judged in light of circumstances. This is not relativism as some commonly suppose.... moral relativism is about relative people.... Biblical morality allows for moral distinctions based upon relative situations.

I agree. But don't tell my Bible Study class. I tried to explain this to them and they just went:

:huh:

then:

:duh:




Then I went:


:argh:

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

I appreciate Alasdair MacIntyre's insight that ethical considerations are teleologically driven, that is, that they are goal-oriented within a specific context.

Within a Christian context, the teleology is both God's and man's, but with God's being primary. God's intentions and goals demarcate absolute values for us and for all those who will embrace God's moral designs.

Other contexts, traditions, and worldviews will of course generate other goals to drive their moralities. However, Christian conceptions of morality ground ethics in God's ultimate reality and his eternal creative intentions concerning us as his creatures. In contrast, for example, an atheistic ethical schema would hold that teleology, and hence, a teleologically driven ethics, stems from humans, who are merely contingent beings. Thus we wouldn't have the same take upon "absolutism." In the theistic conception of the cosmos, Mind and ethics preceeded the existence of the universe within God, and so, human ethical considerations draw from God reflexively, as from an eternal exemplar. But from an atheistic standpoint, mind and ethics are only as old as man (or possibly other evolutionary products elsewhere in the universe, likewise generated by the interplay of contingent forces); ethics become an anomaly stemming from man, another anomaly.

Further, an atheist could be an imperativalist or an emotivist, holding that ethical statements are merely commands or preferences with no real content in accord with the so-called fact-value distinction. But whether one is a theist or an atheist, I think MacIntyre's picture is superior as it allows us to dispense with the fact-value distinction and carry on productive dialog.

[Sheepdog]

Faramir:


I agree. But don't tell my Bible Study class. I tried to explain this to them and they just went:

:huh:

then:

:duh:




Then I went:


:argh:


Bhwahahaha :rofl:

i love smillie storylines

[jimbo]

Hello,

Is there anything that anyone can cite that qualifies as a "moral absolute"? I hear some Christians talk about these things, but I don't know what they are or where these Christians they get them from.

If you don't know what these other Christians are talking about, believe me, I'd understand.

Jimbo

[Sheepdog]

A moral "absolute" is an ethical rule of thumb, which is by definition, "A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions."

For example, "Human being to killing another human being is wrong, with exception to acts of a just war, capital punishment (as dealt by a governing authority), and self defense of self or a third party." There may be other exceptions that i am unaware of, but this should be accurate. (assiting suicide or killing a person when slow painful death is inevitable {IOW to take them out of their misery} may be another exception, but since that brings up a host of murkey ethical issues, i personally wish not to make a conclusion on it either way)

[TheFiveSolas]

Jimbo,
Here's one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.

[jimbo]

Sheepdog,

>>A moral "absolute" is an ethical rule of thumb, which is by definition, "A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions."

Then why is it called a moral "absolute"? Who determines what the exceptions are? Finally, where are these moral "absolutes" to be found?

Sorry for all the questions, but I am very curious about this topic. Feel free to ask me some questions if you like.

Jimbo

[jimbo]

TheFiveSolas,

>>Here's one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.

Why is that a "moral absolute"?

Jimbo

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
TheFiveSolas,

>>Here's one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.

Why is that a "moral absolute"?

Jimbo

Well, the moral part because it's good, and the absolute part because it's true (in that it remains good) for all times, places, and people (so far as we can tell).

[TheFiveSolas]

TheFiveSolas,

>>Here's one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.

Why is that a "moral absolute"?

Jimbo


Your question could be asking one of two things.
1) How does my answer fulfill the criteria of being an example of a biblical moral absolute.
or
2) You might be asking what makes a certain moral imperative one that is absolutely binding.

To answer the first:
The term "moral" refers to one of two things in ethical dialogue.
1) A description of how someone behaves.
2) An imperative as to HOW someone OUGHT to behave.

My example was using #2 as the definition of a "moral". Its absolute because it applies to all people in all situations in all cultures at all times.

Therefore, my answer fulfilled both criteria.

To answer the 2nd possible interpretation of your question:
What makes something a moral absolute is whether or not God is the one to impose that particular imperative upon His creatures.
If God is the one that originated that particular imperative then it is one that is absolutely binding upon the creature.

[Robyn Banks]

sheepdog:
>>A moral "absolute" is an ethical rule of thumb, which is by definition, "A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions."

Jimbo:
Then why is it called a moral "absolute"?
It's a last desperate and ultimately hollow grab for the old idea of moral absolutes.


Jimbo:
Who determines what the exceptions are?
A society.


Jimbo:
Finally, where are these moral "absolutes" to be found?
They cannot be found. All ethics derive from society, every one.

Robyn

[Socrates]

To elaborate on Dee Dee's point about moral absolutes v. relative morals, Norman Geisler's book Christian Ethics has a number of good points. He presents six possible way of dealing with moral conflicts, e.g. whether it's right to lie to save lives. A modern example is Corrie Ten Boom lying to the Nazis about Jews she had hidden.

Geisler concludes from Scripture that the best solution is "graded absolutism", where there is a hierarchy of moral absolutes, but there are times when duty to a higher absolute exempts a person from the duty to follow a lower absolute. So saving the lives of the Jews was a higher absolute than telling the truth to the Nazi butchers.

With respect to pereynol's post, Geisler argues that Christian ethics is deontological (duty-centred) rather than teleological (goal-centred).

[jimbo]

Captain Ochre,

>>Well, the moral part because it's good,...

You say it is good, but what if someone else says its not?

>>...and the absolute part because it's true

According to you.

>>(in that it remains good) for all times, places, and people (so far as we can tell).

Again, according to you.

Let me put to you a hypothetical situation: A Muslim fanatic tells you that it is a moral absolute to love, honor and obey Allah. Would you consider that a moral absolute? Probably not. You consider it a moral absolute to love, honor and obey the Judeo-Christian god, but other people on this planet do not. Other people do not see it as being good.

Jimbo

[Socrates]

Jimbo to Captain Ochre:
A Muslim fanatic tells you that it is a moral absolute to love, honor and obey Allah. Would you consider that a moral absolute? Probably not.Nope, because Allah is a false God.:argh:

You consider it a moral absolute to love, honor and obey the Judeo-Christian god, but other people on this planet do not.They are wrong.:bonk:

[Sozo]

Even if there are moral absolutes, no one is absolutely moral.

Morality is defined simply as "right behavior", in contrast to "wrong behavior".

The term "absolute" is to be "perfect in quality or nature; complete; pure"

A society may set standards of moral ideals, and perhaps one could meet those standards, but there is never the possiblity that one can attain any "moral absolute" unless it is performed as if God himself fulfilled it.

For the Christian, we are not to eat from "the tree of the knowledge of good & evil", but from "the tree of life". Are absolutism emanates from the life of God, and not from laws, rules and regulations. We are a righteous people, not a moral people (though some may call our actions moral based on their own subjective definitions).

The "tree of the knowledge of good & evil" (The Law) exposes the condition of one that is less than absolute, and leads us to the "tree of life" (Christ), the only one who is absolute.

How then does morality participate in our lives? From whatever source we draw our life. The non-christian has no absoltues, because he does not know the one who is absolute. Therefore, his morality is subject to whatever society demands, but it can never be absolute.

If Christians have a desire to control the behavior of a society, then they should place themselves in a position of authority to mandate it, just as one does over their own household. But you can only deter poor behavior, you can never make someone morally absolute.

[Captain Ochre]

jimbo:
Captain Ochre,

>>Well, the moral part because it's good,...

You say it is good, but what if someone else says its not?

>>...and the absolute part because it's true

According to you.

>>(in that it remains good) for all times, places, and people (so far as we can tell).

Again, according to you.

Let me put to you a hypothetical situation: A Muslim fanatic tells you that it is a moral absolute to love, honor and obey Allah. Would you consider that a moral absolute? Probably not. You consider it a moral absolute to love, honor and obey the Judeo-Christian god, but other people on this planet do not. Other people do not see it as being good.

Jimbo

Excuse me; I thought that you wanted an example of a moral absolute, not proof that a particular moral actually was a moral absolute.
What's the point in the latter, unless somebody can "prove" that a particular moral is absolutely relative (for contrast)?

[edit to add]
I'll continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, for now, and address your questions as though you aren't actually asking me to *prove* that a certain moral precept is, in objective fact, a living, breathing moral absolute.

If someone else say that moral absolute X (just fill in my example above), then that makes him wrong.

It's true according to me that moral absolute X is absolute (true for all times, places and people) according to me because you asked for an example of a moral absolute, and I'm going with the one offered earlier. Did you mean to ask for proof that a given moral absolute is *actually* a moral absolute, and just accidentally left an ambiguity in your original question?

As to your hypothetical situation: So what if 'set of moral absolutes X' isn't perceived as moral by set of persons Z? Would that make the morals any less absolute?

[markg]

John Healy, the executive director of the non-religious Amnesty International, wrote in a 1991 fundraising letter. "I am writing you today because I think you share my profound belief that there are indeed some moral absolutes. When it comes to torture, to government-sanctioned murder, to 'disappearances'—there are no 'lesser evils.' These are outrages against all of us."


One cannot speak out against evils if one cannot define what evil is. And if “torture” or “government sanctioned murder” are not evil why would one be concerned about them, why would one seek to take action to prevent them - especially if one is a comfortable western relativist living far away from such manifestations?


This issue in this thread is not primarily about designating particular moral absolutes - though that could be done.


The question is over the ability to exist without an absolute moral reference point, without a belief in a universal moral law, that stands over and above the individual or the group. I do not believe there is any human being of sound mind who has ever existed who has not consciously or unconsciously orientated themselves around some absolute moral reference point. Indeed the affirmations that “There are no moral absolutes” or “Morality is only a social construct” are absolutist statements affirming an existing moral reference point. Nor is the issue about whether atheists can be moral or not, because they can be and are; they are human beings and cannot live consistently without a sense of moral rectitude.


Can different people have different absolute moral reference points? On the surface, yes, but I think if you look closer at the evidence there are values that transcend most cultural perspectives. I suggest that it is the case that, when one gets down to basics, everyone does have an absolute moral reference point and there is fairly widespread agreement on what it involves. There may be culturally specific manifestations of that moral law but the underlying principles are universal.


The ultimate moral reference point is an all powerful, all wise creator God. If one rejects God or denies his existence then one is still left with the need to find an absolute moral “skyhook”, philosophy or reference point upon which to build one’s life. This moral position may change over time and it may differ between individuals and groups in different places but to be human - and not psychopathic or criminally insane - requires a belief in an absolute moral law.



Certainly on a superficial level the claim will be made that certain individuals don’t ascribe to moral absolutes but I suggest this is a delusion. At the deepest most profound level of our being we need to be able to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong. Most atheists and skeptics, despite what they might claim, exhibit a great deal of moral absolutism in what they believe and what they pontificate upon. An atheist by his very nature, is a committed moral absolutist; his moral absolutism is predicated upon a aggressive and emotional rejection of the religious - usually Christian - worldview and moral framework and the replacing of it with the worship of Pascal’s God shaped vacuum, pretending that nothingness and purposelessness and meaninglessness represent the bases for a profound worldview. Of course atheists will say they do not draw their values or meaning or purpose from atheism as such , because it is indeed a hollow reed, they draw those things from their naturalism, humanism, or materialism or scientism.



The glorification of “situational ethics” is just a disguised form of absolutism. Atheists go on an awful lot about the immorality of Christian preachers, about the evils of religious “fundamentalism”, about the offensive cruelties of the Old Testament as if none of these charges is not making reference to a higher moral law or absolute standard of morality. Whatever real social constructs exist, there are things that are intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong. Societies, cultures and families are indeed the usual means by which moral values are transmitted. Absolute moral truths, like absolute mathematical truths can be learned. We can learn 2 + 2 = 4 from our parents or teachers, but that truth is not relative among different people across space and time. The fact that morals are learned does not prove they are relative. Morality by necessity operates on the basis of non-negotiable truths like 2 + 2 = 4, not on the basis of passing fads or conventions like styles of dress or road rules.



Of course, In a pragmatic society we tend to be pragmatic even with regard to morality. But this is only skin deep. Regardless of what we say our position on morality is, we actually do think objective moral principles exist. It's very easy to say there are no objective moral principles, it is much more difficult to live as if there are none. As soon as our “rights” or property or person are threatened, violated or infringed in any way we are quick to scream “unfair” or “unjust”, but why should a convinced relativist be concerned about fairness or justice?


Because we are unique human beings there is always an element of relativism in the way in which we apply our moral values - a failure to recognize that would be plain foolish. By this I mean we each are morally responsible to choose the good over the bad in any given situation and this may involve dilemmas in which absolute morals may be in conflict. For example does the real absolute moral prohibition against lying take precedence over the real moral absolute to save the life of an innocent person? It is in situations like this - and I’m sure you all know of some of the classic “dilemma scenarios” - that we are called upon to exercise moral judgment and make real hard choices. Despite John Healy’s pronouncement I think there are “lesser evils”.


It is a major logical error to assume that because there are moral differences this somehow implies there is an absence of moral absolutes. Skeptics love to invent “moral dilemmas” in order to disprove the existence of moral absolutes. But what do moral dilemmas really prove? They certainly do not prove that there are no moral absolutes. Rather, they imply the existence of absolutes. Whenever one set of morals is compared to another, and a difficult choice or decision must be made one is actually holding both sets up to an outside standard and seeking to determine which one coincides more with that greater standard. Without moral absolutes there wouldn't be any dilemmas. Moral dilemmas merely show that in some circumstances one must choose the greater good when more than one absolute impinges upon the situation.


The difficult question then is not about moral absolutes per se but about which morals are absolutely the most critical in the situation in which one finds oneself. If this is what skeptics mean by “relative”, then I agree with them, but if they are implying that there is no higher moral law by which our actions must be measured I must disagree. The claim that one is a true moral relativist is really a manifestation of solipsism. There is a real world “out there” so the notion that morality can be applicable purely on an individual, personal basis with no regard to others or to a higher law is nonsense. But complex - and fortunately, rare - situations do involve hard ethical decisions and choices.



In regard to beliefs and morality both religious liberal skeptics and atheistic skeptics ironically like to take the high moral ground. Like the conservative and orthodox religious people whom they oppose they also adopt moral positions and raise moral questions thereby affirming that there is a higher morality outside and above the particular beliefs or practices of individuals or groups. If they were really consistent with their professed beliefs and values, they would cease at once from their anti-theistic and anti-Christian pose and accept what they claim to preach, that morality truly is relative and therefore Christian belief and morality is just as good and acceptable as any other, to be welcomed as any other belief system. But of course they will not do this because they are possessed of a burning conviction that Christianity or religion or “fundamentalism” are evil wrong, immoral, corrupt etc. etc.



The issue always returns to the key point that there is an absolute moral reference point by which all concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, are derived. For the Christian this point is God, the creator, who has revealed his good and perfect will. In the harsh realities of the world in which we live however one must “work out” often with “fear and trembling” the moral law in all the situations of life. Mostly this a straight-forward matter but occasionally it is a profound and difficult task. The debate between moral absolutists and moral relativists is thus completely wrong-headed. The real debate is between those who claim “anything goes” and those who say there are reference points, standards and values which stand over and above individuals and cultures and by which individuals and cultures can be judged. If one adopts the “anything goes” approach the end result can only be anarchy, chaos and nihilism. Human beings and human societies cannot function for long in a moral vacuum. The absence of an absolute moral reference point is suicide.

[Robyn Banks]

markg:
John Healy, the executive director of the non-religious Amnesty International, wrote in a 1991 fundraising letter. "I am writing you today because I think you share my profound belief that there are indeed some moral absolutes. When it comes to torture, to government-sanctioned murder, to 'disappearances'—there are no 'lesser evils.' These are outrages against all of us."
Imagine a terrorist who managed to break into the US nuclear-launch software program, and who set all nuclear weapons to hit all areas of the world on a time-delay system. The terrorist knows the password to stop it, but won't tell you. You know that one year ago the same terrorist had buckled under torture and revealed the names of other terrorists in his terrorist unit.

He and you will die a horrible death in one hour. Is it 'absolutely' wrong to torture him?

Is Amnesty International's statement about "moral absolutes" hyperbolic, or factually correct?


markg:
One cannot speak out against evils if one cannot define what evil is.
Most people do define what 'evil' is. Most people internalise the ethics of their societies.


markg:
And if “torture” or “government sanctioned murder” are not evil why would one be concerned about them, why would one seek to take action to prevent them - especially if one is a comfortable western relativist living far away from such manifestations?
Our empathy for the oppressed and emphasis on human 'rights' in the West has been deeply internalised. Torture is at the extreme opposite end of human 'freedom'. And it affects us deeply.


markg:
I do not believe there is any human being of sound mind who has ever existed who has not consciously or unconsciously orientated themselves around some absolute moral reference point.
Incorrect. I am a human being, and of fairly much sane mind. All my ethics are subjective. None of them are 'absolute'.


markg:
Indeed the affirmations that “There are no moral absolutes” or “Morality is only a social construct” are absolutist statements affirming an existing moral reference point.
Nonsense. To describe how morality is, is altogether different from saying how morality should be. An 'absolutist' statement that there are no moral absolutes has a different meaning and connotation of 'absolutist' than a moral imperative 'absolute'.

This is confusion of an ambiguous term: equivocation.


markg:
There may be culturally specific manifestations of that moral law but the underlying principles are universal.
Our common physiology means that ethical systems across cultures will have many similarities. It is hard to imagine a human society that could survive while allowing any member of that society to kill any other member. Such a society would almost never survive. So, such an ethic would almost never develop.

This is not ethical absolutism. This is 'what works' in a society.


markg:
If one rejects God or denies his existence then one is still left with the need to find an absolute moral “skyhook”, philosophy or reference point upon which to build one’s life.
Nonsense. People do what they have learned to do, without any transcendental 'foundation' for their activities.


markg:
This moral position may change over time and it may differ between individuals and groups in different places but to be human - and not psychopathic or criminally insane - requires a belief in an absolute moral law.
There is nothing which 'requires' a belief in "absolute moral law". Moral absolutism is a metaphysical assertion.




markg:
At the deepest most profound level of our being we need to be able to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong.
This choice of 'good' and 'bad' is what makes a society 'work'.

By contrast, a man in a void has no morality whatsoever.


markg:
Most atheists and skeptics, despite what they might claim, exhibit a great deal of moral absolutism in what they believe and what they pontificate upon. An atheist by his very nature, is a committed moral absolutist; his moral absolutism is predicated upon a aggressive and emotional rejection of the religious - usually Christian - worldview and moral framework
What you describe is not 'moral absolutism'. It is moral subjectivism. It is easy to be confused on this issue, and to use the moral absolutist arguments and terminology of yesteryear in defending the ethics one 'chooses', like the Amnesty International director. But this is hyperbole. There are no moral absolutes.


markg:
Atheists go on an awful lot about the immorality of Christian preachers, about the evils of religious “fundamentalism”, about the offensive cruelties of the Old Testament as if none of these charges is not making reference to a higher moral law or absolute standard of morality.
Such atheists would be making the same mistake as you, if it were the case.



markg:
Whatever real social constructs exist, there are things that are intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong.
There is no 'intrinsicality' to the relationships of a society. Relationships do not exist, and have no 'essence' or 'intrinsicality'.


markg:
Societies, cultures and families are indeed the usual means by which moral values are transmitted.
Correct!


markg:
The fact that morals are learned does not prove they are relative.
Correct - that is a false argument for deductively proving 'relativity' of ethics.


markg:
Morality by necessity operates on the basis of non-negotiable truths like 2 + 2 = 4, not on the basis of passing fads or conventions like styles of dress or road rules.
Why is this 'necessary'?


markg:
we actually do think objective moral principles exist.
No "we" don't.


markg:
It's very easy to say there are no objective moral principles, it is much more difficult to live as if there are none.
I live as though there are no objective moral principles every day.

I am very passionate about some of my ethics. I just joined in a march against war in Iraq, 2 hours ago. And I use 'absolutely' (to use your equivocal term) ad hoc arguments to defend these absolutely subjective morals.


markg:
As soon as our “rights” or property or person are threatened, violated or infringed in any way we are quick to scream “unfair” or “unjust”, but why should a convinced relativist be concerned about fairness or justice?
'Rights' do not exist.

I am very concerned about the rights of Iraqi civilians.


markg:
It is a major logical error to assume that because there are moral differences this somehow implies there is an absence of moral absolutes.
It is a logical error to say that differences in ethical systems necessitate there being no moral absolutes.

However, 'implication' is inductive, and there is no logical error in showing that the existence of a wide range of ethical systems supports the conclusion of ethical subjectivism.



markg:
Without moral absolutes there wouldn't be any dilemmas.
Nonsense. There will always be moral dilemmas amongst animals with a certain level of consciousness, and this does not 'require' positing moral absolutes.


markg:
Moral dilemmas merely show that in some circumstances one must choose the greater good when more than one absolute impinges upon the situation.
A dilemma is not a battle of 'absolutes'. It is a battle of (subjective, non-absolute) ethical 'principles'.

I would torture the terrorist in my example above, and consider neither torture nor genocide a moral 'absolute'.


markg:
There is a real world “out there” so the notion that morality can be applicable purely on an individual, personal basis with no regard to others or to a higher law is nonsense.
Correct. An individual without a society or environment would have no "morality" at all. Such a situation is hypothetical, but necessarily true because ethics are only a product of an individual's relationship with the Other. Take away the Other, and you make an individual amoral.


markg:
In regard to beliefs and morality both religious liberal skeptics and atheistic skeptics ironically like to take the high moral ground. Like the conservative and orthodox religious people whom they oppose they also adopt moral positions and raise moral questions thereby affirming that there is a higher morality outside and above the particular beliefs or practices of individuals or groups.
Everyone likes their own opinion. This does not mean that their opinion is 'absolutely' true.


markg:
If they were really consistent with their professed beliefs and values, they would cease at once from their anti-theistic and anti-Christian pose and accept what they claim to preach, that morality truly is relative and therefore Christian belief and morality is just as good and acceptable as any other, to be welcomed as any other belief system.
This is a problem with moral relativism. But not with moral subjectivism.


markg:
But of course they will not do this because they are possessed of a burning conviction that Christianity or religion or “fundamentalism” are evil wrong, immoral, corrupt etc. etc.
Burning convictions are not 'absolute', either.


markg:
The issue always returns to the key point that there is an absolute moral reference point by which all concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, are derived.
There is no 'absolute moral reference point' in reality. This is a fantasy.


markg:
In the harsh realities of the world in which we live however one must “work out” often with “fear and trembling” the moral law in all the situations of life.
Correct. One must have ethics in order to have a society.


markg:
The real debate is between those who claim “anything goes” and those who say there are reference points, standards and values which stand over and above individuals and cultures and by which individuals and cultures can be judged.
This false dichotemy excludes me. I neither say 'anything goes', nor assert an imaginary 'absolute' reference point. I am ethical, nevertheless.


markg:
If one adopts the “anything goes” approach the end result can only be anarchy, chaos and nihilism.
There are very few moral-anarchists. This is another weakness of your false dichotemy.


markg:
Human beings and human societies cannot function for long in a moral vacuum.
No society has a 'moral vacuum'. Societies generate ethics.


markg:
The absence of an absolute moral reference point is suicide.
Nonsense. The imagining of "an absolute moral reference point" is a Fantasy.

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[markg]

jimbo:
...I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong. Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these "moral absolutes" are. So I would like to know if any of the Christians here can tell me what these "moral absolutes" are and where they are to be found. Are they in the Bible? If not, where are they?

AND

Is there anything that anyone can cite that qualifies as a "moral absolute"? I hear some Christians talk about these things, but I don't know what they are or where these Christians they get them from.

Jimbo, or whatever name he is using today, has a problem but it is one of his own making. He is also somewhat uninformed. He need not focus exclusively on Christians, or any other religious believers, for a list of moral absolutes. Most philosophers, including atheists, in the past and today, uphold a position of moral objectivism, while rejecting, as logically flawed, the moral relativist position. In summary the moral objectivist view states that what is right or wrong doesn’t depend on what anyone merely thinks or feels is right or wrong. 'Moral facts' are like 'physical' facts in this regard. Thus to say that X is a moral absolute is to say that:

1. X is objectively true whether or not anyone believes X

2. X is universal (if X is true in one circumstance, it is equally true in all relevantly similar situations.)

But there is also the recognition that:

3. “the higher card trumps the lower card” - in moral dilemmas the rules may be overridden, but not disregarded.

(The principles are objective and universal - but the application of those principles depends on the situation.)

For one non-theistic example see James Rachels, "A Critique of Ethical Relativism," in Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, ed. Louis P. Pojman, Wadsworth, 1989), pp 322-23.

While it is popular and populist to espouse the relativist position - especially among Internet Infidels of various hue - the view is largely rejected by both theistic and secular ethicists and philosophers.

I call moral relativism the undergraduate disease. Professor Allan Bloom, in his influential book, “The Closing of the American Mind” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987, p 25), observed "there is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university believes, or says he believes, that truth is relative...The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated."

Moral Relativism is the view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what an individual persons or individual societies feel or think. This is position usually takes one of two main forms:

(a) Moral Subjectivism: What is morally right or wrong for you depends on what you think is morally right or wrong, i.e., right or wrong is relative to the individual. Thus 'moral facts' may alter from person to person.

(b) Cultural Relativism: What is morally right or wrong depends on what the culture we are in thinks, i.e., morality depends on the conventions of the culture. Thus 'moral facts' may alter from society to society.

In summary then Relativism holds that morality is relative, Subjectivism holds that morality is subjective.

Moral Objectivism, which also comes in several forms, moral absolutism being one, proposes that there exist at least one, or a set, of minimal moral principles that are binding on all rational beings. Objectivism or Absolutism identifies these overarching moral principles that all people recognize as natural law, conscience, the Golden rule, etc.

[Now this is what Jimbo wanted] Candidate principles offered by moral realists or objectivists include:

It is morally wrong to torture people for fun.

Do not kill innocent people.

Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering.

Do not cheat or steal.

Keep your promises and contracts.

Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom.

Do justice to others, treating like cases similarly, and different ones differently.

Tell the truth

Help other people

Do good wherever feasible

Now what was so hard about that? And which of these does Jimbo find so incomprehensible that he cannot recognize its intrinsic moral worth?

As far as I am concerned, however, the enumeration of lists of absolute morals misses the essential point: that there exists objective, universal moral laws outside of the individual or the society. This view has already been enunciated on this thread. For example:


Sheepdog:
A moral "absolute" is an ethical rule of thumb, which is by definition, "A rule which holds true for all normal members of a class, but admits exceptions."

AND


Dee Dee Warren:
…I sure hope you do not have a confusion (even some Christians do) over what absolutes mean. It does not mean that there is not a one size fits all moral soluation [sic] for every moral dilemna [sic] but that there is one standard by which all moral actions must be judged in light of circumstances. This is not relativism as some commonly suppose.... moral relativism is about relative people.... Biblical morality allows for moral distinctions based upon relative situations. Anything else is nonBiblical and counterinuitive as well. One example would be say shooting someone. That is not ALWAYS wrong, but must be viewed by an absolute standard in light of a variable circumstance. It is wrong to do such a thing for fun. It is not wrong to do such a thing in war.

This last quote focuses on the specifically Christian understanding of absolutes. Christian absolutists would add special revelation (Scripture) to those already listed above, believing that God is the ultimate source of this objective morality, and that it is therefore as unchanging as His own nature.

Of course I cannot make a moral relativist accept this for, as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. But I do assert that all humans know this to be intuitively true, even while claiming the opposite.

Some criticisms of moral relativism are given below:

“In its common form, Moral Subjectivism amounts to the denial of moral principles of any significant kind, and the possibility of moral criticism and argumentation. In essence, 'right' and 'wrong' lose their meaning because so long as someone thinks or feels that some action is 'right', there are no grounds for criticism. If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone's behaviour (assuming people are in fact acting in accordance with what they think or feel is right). This shows the key flaw in moral subjectivism -- probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions. That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.”
Michael Fleming, Ph.D. Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia

“[Moral relativism] is a very convenient philosophy when you want to do something rather shabby. But as soon as someone does something shabby to you, you don’t want to be a moral relativist. To take the same argument positively, I think those who honestly look inside themselves will admit that at first they were absolutists. Maybe latter they had sophisticated arguments that brought them into relativism, but our first moral experience is always an experience of a real obligation. We bump our consciences up against a real right and wrong, just as we bump our bodies up against real walls. The evidence is in the data.

…I am positing that the data of moral experience shows us moral absolutism is alive and well even among self-proclaimed moral relativists. Everybody has a conscience, even moral relativists don’t usually admire people who deliberately disobey their own consciences, so there is something, at least, they regard as having real moral authority. Even the relativist is not just going to throw things at you. He’ll argue that you’re wrong.”
Peter Kreeft Professor of Philosophy Boston College

[Robyn Banks]

markg:
Most philosophers, including atheists, in the past and today, uphold a position of moral objectivism, while rejecting, as logically flawed, the moral relativist position.
"Most philosophers" is nonsense, and a fallacy.

Hume: moral subjectivist.
Mill, Bentham: happiness is good
AJ Ayer: Emotivist
CL Stevenson: Emotivist
RM Hare: Prescriptivist
JL Mackie: Ethical relativist
Peter Singer: Subjectivist

Hmmmm. Perhaps only Kantians are objectivists these days.


markg:
While it is popular and populist to espouse the relativist position - especially among Internet Infidels of various hue - the view is largely rejected by both theistic and secular ethicists and philosophers.
Simple relativism is easily criticised.


markg:
Moral Objectivism, which also comes in several forms, moral absolutism being one, proposes that there exist at least one, or a set, of minimal moral principles that are binding on all rational beings. Objectivism or Absolutism identifies these overarching moral principles that all people recognize as natural law, conscience, the Golden rule, etc.

[Now this is what Jimbo wanted] Candidate principles offered by moral realists or objectivists include:

It is morally wrong to torture people for fun.

Do not kill innocent people.

Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering.

Do not cheat or steal.

Keep your promises and contracts.

Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom.

Do justice to others, treating like cases similarly, and different ones differently.

Tell the truth

Help other people

Do good wherever feasible

Now what was so hard about that? And which of these does Jimbo find so incomprehensible that he cannot recognize its intrinsic moral worth?
There is no 'intrinsicality' or 'essense' of any of these ethical statements.


markg:
As far as I am concerned, however, the enumeration of lists of absolute morals misses the essential point: that there exists objective, universal moral laws outside of the individual or the society.
All ethics are developed by a society. All ethics are explicable with reference to a society without having to assert some transcendent basis.



markg:
But I do assert that all humans know this to be intuitively true, even while claiming the opposite.
You may assert that all humans secretly like chocolate. But that is not the case, either.


markg:
If you are a moral subjectivist, you cannot object to anyone's behaviour
Nonsense. One may be a moral subjectivist, and simply not tolerate other behaviour, because one does not want to tolerate it.

Although some African tribes imagine female circumcision is morally good, I do not want to tolerate that, because of my internalisation of Western values. I will use rationalizations to persuade such tribes that what they are doing is 'wrong' - all the while being aware that the only 'reason' is not reason, but desire.


markg:
probably nearly everyone thinks that it is legitimate to object, on moral grounds, to at least some peoples' actions.
People from different cultures will disagree if their ethics strongly conflict. We internalise our culture's values well.


markg:
"... That is, it is possible to disagree about moral issues.”
Michael Fleming, Ph.D. Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia
Of course it is possible to disagree. Ethical disagreements stem from desire, even if expressed as rational or objective. They are entirely subjective.


markg:
“[Moral relativism] is a very convenient philosophy when you want to do something rather shabby. But as soon as someone does something shabby to you, you don’t want to be a moral relativist.
One does not 'choose' ethics to be subjective. Ethics simply have no objective basis in reality, and by definition are subjective.


markg:
To take the same argument positively, I think those who honestly look inside themselves will admit that at first they were absolutists.
Fallacious emotivist appeal. "All honest people will agree with me that... and if you don't agree, you can't be honest"


markg:
our first moral experience is always an experience of a real obligation.
Our first moral experience comes after being enculturated. We are not born as moral beings. A person in a void will have no morals; be entirely amoral. Ethics is a product of a society.


markg:
We bump our consciences up against a real right and wrong,
We "bump our consciences" up against feelings and desires. There is nothing 'real' or 'intrinsic' or 'essential' about 'right and wrong'.


markg:
just as we bump our bodies up against real walls. The evidence is in the data.
There is no "data" of ethics in the world.


markg:
Everybody has a conscience, even moral relativists don’t usually admire people who deliberately disobey their own consciences, so there is something, at least, they regard as having real moral authority.
Consciences are not 'real'. Conscience is pure subjectivity.

“The laws of conscience, which we pretend to be derived from nature, proceed from custom; every one, having an inward veneration for the opinions and manners approved and received among his own people, cannot, without very great reluctance, depart from them, nor apply himself to them without applause.”
- Michel de Montaigne, Essays (1588)

Conscience is a metaphor pointing to the specifically moral dimension of the human person.

Conscience is the internalisation of our own awareness of approvals and disapprovals of fellow men. It is the awareness of the ethos of society, universalized by the self, as the ultimate reinterpretation (to the self). Conscience is the introjection of society’s culture.

As Arthur Schopenhauer wittily said:
“Many a person would be amazed to see the actual structure of his conscience, which he believes to be quite respectable: it consists of about one-fifth human fear, one-fifth fear of idols, one-fifth prejudice, one-fifth vanity and one-fifth sheer habit, which makes him basically no better than a certain Englishman who flatly stated that he could not afford to have a conscience.”

Hope that helps.

Robyn

[jimbo]

Yo, markg,

What is up with the selective quoting, bro?

Here is how you quoted me, without an important qualification:


Jimbo

...I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong. Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these "moral absolutes" are. So I would like to know if any of the Christians here can tell me what these "moral absolutes" are and where they are to be found. Are they in the Bible? If not, where are they?

Here is the original paragraph that I wrote. Note the difference in meaning between the two citations due to the missing qualification in your quote:


I have had discussions with Christians who have told me that because I am not a Christian, I have no knowledge of "moral absolutes" and I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong. Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these "moral absolutes" are. So I would like to know if any of the Christians here can tell me what these "moral absolutes" are and where they are to be found. Are they in the Bible? If not, where are they?

Please don't do this in the future, homebrew.

Peace Out,

Jimbo

[markg]

Jimbo,

Please accept my apology for the truncated quote from your original post.


It was not done deliberately but that is no excuse for my carelessness in posting it as I did. I am sorry that the quote as it stands implicates you yourself as the source of the statement “I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong”, without the sentence that went before it which identifies that source as being from some third party directed at you. That is wrong and that sentence should not be included, and I ask that you will forgive me the error of its presence. The quote should have started with your request for details of moral absolutes “Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these ‘moral absolutes’ are.” Or it should have been quoted fully.

I appreciate the offence it would cause you and hope that my present post will bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

I know that one can edit one’s posts on the TheologyWeb so I can certainly do so but I need advice from the moderator whether this would be appropriate since you have drawn attention to it and to remove it might appear underhand.

I am not sure if you have actually read my post for there you will plainly see that no comment is made about your personal morality or moral position, certainly no statements or allusions are made by about you not knowing “if anything is morally wrong”. The post addresses your original and repeated request for a list of “moral absolutes”. I therefore supplied a list of objective moral values derived from the secular philosophical objectivist/realist position that also affirms the existence of moral laws that are universal. I also gaves some background information about the concepts of objectivism subjectivism, relativism and absolutism. Also included are quotes from various scholars critical of moral relativism/subjectivism.

You did not address or acknowledge any part of this material I presented in response to your call for some examples of moral absolutes so perhaps you may care to do that now.

Perhaps you yourself are not a moral relativist/subjectivist and that you are therefore not merely expressing your personal distaste or abhorrence for something you do not like. Rather you were affirming that the practice of selective quoting is inherently wrong in and of itself and is therefore unethical. So, that is something good (sic) that has come from this incident. I happen to adhere to the moral position that selective quoting is objectively wrong which is why I must wear the blame and offer my apologies.

One further point:
The handle that I use on this list is “markg”, being my first name and the initial letter of my surname. You use the pseudonym “jimbo” which is your privilege but you have also used many other names to sign off various posts to this list. I am not complaining about this as it totally your business. But I will request this of you:


Do not refer to me in the future as “homebrew” or any other offensive appellation (as judged by me). Such terms are unnecessary and mere noise. I will let “bro” slide even though I am probably old enough to be your father.

My apologies, once more,
markg

[markg]

A couple of posters have presented quite lurid and extreme moral dilemmas far removed from the ordinary experiences of most of us, brandishing these as if they offer some kind of triumphant demolition of the case for objective absolute morality. All they really demonstrate is an ignorance of the actual nature of moral absolutism as held by most Christian thinkers. Before examining moral absolutism I need to make a couple of introductory remarks.

It was not my intention to go into details about specifics of absolutist models, for the debate in hand concerns the simple but crucial distinction between relative and absolute morality and what constituted examples of the latter. But some further elaboration seems necessary. I do need to say that moral absolutism is not merely a Christian viewpoint or even a religious viewpoint, for there are atheist philosophers also espouse the reality of the closely related position of Objective Morality. Historically, until the twentieth century, no society has seriously espoused relativist morality. It is the new kid on the block, and one should not argue too dogmatically in favour of the new and novel. Humility would also not be out of place among the advocates of relativism in this forum. Nor would rational, cogent, constructive comment be out of place, instead of the interminable use of non-sequiters, emotional outbursts and disparaging one-liners…

The use of hypothetical and extraordinary “moral dilemmas” as an argument in favour of relativism and against absolutism was highlighted in my original post as one of the common tactics and fallacies employed by relativists. The very fact that they involve scenarios that will never be encountered by the majority of people in the normal course of their lives reveals it as an exercise in getting the tail to wag the philosophical dog.

In that original post I explained that the existence of an absolute reference point or moral law does not preclude that two absolute moral injunctions may, in particular situations, be in conflict and have to be weighed one against the other in order that the higher law is followed, or the greater good or the lesser evil is chosen. A moral dilemma does not, of itself, refute the existence of an absolute moral law; it only confirms the fact that we, as “free” moral agents, are held morally accountable for our actions and choices in all the situations we encounter.

While affirming moral absolutes against moral relativism, I was also putting forth a nuanced view of moral absolutism - for it is not a monolithic concept. Play was made by a respondent upon the difference between “moral subjectivists” and “moral relativists”. The fact is that “moral subjectivism” is a subset of “moral relativism”, along with “cultural relativism”. Moral subjectivism is thus relativistic through and through. Further it does not seem to be appreciated that there are distinctions within moral absolutism. An earlier poster has already pointed this out with reference to the work of Norman Geisler but this information has apparently not been taken in. Let me summarise:

There are three forms of moral absolutism -

1) Unqualified Absolutism, which views moral conflicts as illusory.

2) Conflicting Absolutism, which asserts that conflicting moral choices are real and result in greater and lesser evils. One must choose on the basis of the lesser evil.

3) Graded Absolutism, which holds that in conflicting moral choices the higher of two moral laws is to be obeyed.

Each view is actually a refinement of the preceding one.
Graded Absolutism, which is the dominant view of Biblical Christians, affirms the truths of the two previous views but it goes beyond them by recognising that there are higher and lower laws. The Graded Absolutist affirms the existence of universal absolute morality because he views God’s moral laws as universal and unchanging in that they are based on God’s own unchanging nature. But he also recognizes that in a fallen world conflicts between two absolute moral laws will arise and that a choice between them must be made by moral agents. In doing so no guilt is imputed for following the higher law. When two moral laws conflict, there is a hierarchy by which responsible moral decisions can be made. The guiding principles in this hierarchy are:

a) God comes before people.

b) People come before things.

c) Moral laws take precedent over civil laws

As for the obvious rejoinder: How can an ethical system can be considered a form of absolutism when it admits there are sometimes exemptions for a universal rule? I quote Norman Geisler:

“Graded absolutists point to three senses in which it is still legitimate to call such a view absolute. First, the moral laws are absolute as to their source (God). Second, each moral law is absolute in its sphere. For example, lying is always wrong as such. When it conflicts with life-saving, however, one is exempt from truth-telling, even though the duty remains in force. Just as a magnet overpowers the pull of gravity without gravity ceasing its pull, even so the duty to love God overpowers the duty to love human beings. Third, each moral law is absolute in its hierarchy. That is to say, for a Christian the hierarchy of values is set up by God in accordance with His nature and is therefore absolute. God has established that He is first, persons are next, and things are last.”

Two examples of the resolution of moral dilemmas from the graded absolutist perspective as put forward by Geisler:

1) believing that mercy to the innocent is a greater moral duty than telling truth to the guilty, a Graded Absolutist would be convinced it is right to lie in order to save a life.

2) the same God who instructs us to obey our parents also tells us not to worship idols. Hence, if a parent should command his or her child to worship an idol, the child's higher moral obligation is not to do so.”

[markg]

Jimbo,

Please accept my apology for the truncated quote from your original post.


It was not done deliberately but that is no excuse for my carelessness in posting it as I did. I am sorry that the quote as it stands implicates you yourself as the source of the statement “I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong”, without the sentence that went before it which identifies that source as being from some third party directed at you. That is wrong and that sentence should not be included, and I ask that you will forgive me the error of its presence. The quote should have started with your request for details of moral absolutes “Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these ‘moral absolutes’ are.” Or it should have been quoted fully.

I appreciate the offence it would cause you and hope that my present post will bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

I know that one can edit one’s posts on the TheologyWeb so I can certainly do so but I need advice from the moderator whether this would be appropriate since you have drawn attention to it and to remove it might appear underhand.

I am not sure if you have actually read my post for there you will plainly see that no comment is made about your personal morality or moral position, certainly no statements or allusions are made by about you not knowing “if anything is morally wrong”. The post addresses your original and repeated request for a list of “moral absolutes”. I therefore supplied a list of objective moral values derived from the secular philosophical objectivist/realist position that also affirms the existence of moral laws that are universal. I also gaves some background information about the concepts of objectivism subjectivism, relativism and absolutism. Also included are quotes from various scholars critical of moral relativism/subjectivism.

You did not address or acknowledge any part of this material I presented in response to your call for some examples of moral absolutes so perhaps you may care to do that now.

Perhaps you yourself are not a moral relativist/subjectivist and that you are therefore not merely expressing your personal distaste or abhorrence for something you do not like. Rather you were affirming that the practice of selective quoting is inherently wrong in and of itself and is therefore unethical. So, that is something good (sic) that has come from this incident. I happen to adhere to the moral position that selective quoting is objectively wrong which is why I must wear the blame and offer my apologies.

One further point:
The handle that I use on this list is “markg”, being my first name and the initial letter of my surname. You use the pseudonym “jimbo” which is your privilege but you have also used many other names to sign off various posts to this list. I am not complaining about this as it totally your business. But I will request this of you:


Do not refer to me in the future as “homebrew” or any other offensive appellation (as judged by me). Such terms are unnecessary and mere noise. I will let “bro” slide even though I am probably old enough to be your father.

My apologies, once more,
markg

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Mark:

There is a time limit on editing posts by members in fairness to those who may respond quickly. I appreciate the graciousness you have just shown in your last post, and I think that more than sufficiently sets the record straight with the indvertant quote truncation.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Mark:

Also, I have enjoyed your posts very much.



The use of hypothetical and extraordinary “moral dilemmas” as an argument in favour of relativism and against absolutism was highlighted in my original post as one of the common tactics and fallacies employed by relativists. The very fact that they involve scenarios that will never be encountered by the majority of people in the normal course of their lives reveals it as an exercise in getting the tail to wag the philosophical dog.


Amen!!

[markg]

Jimbo,

Please accept my apology for the truncated quote from your original post.


It was not done deliberately but that is no excuse for my carelessness in posting it as I did. I am sorry that the quote as it stands implicates you yourself as the source of the statement “I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong”, without the sentence that went before it which identifies that source as being from some third party directed at you. That is wrong and that sentence should not be included, and I ask that you will forgive me the error of its presence. The quote should have started with your request for details of moral absolutes “Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these ‘moral absolutes’ are.” Or it should have been quoted fully.

I appreciate the offence it would cause you and hope that my present post will bring the matter to a successful conclusion.

I know that one can edit one’s posts on the TheologyWeb so I can certainly do so but I need advice from the moderator whether this would be appropriate since you have drawn attention to it and to remove it might appear underhand.

I am not sure if you have actually read my post for there you will plainly see that no comment is made about your personal morality or moral position, certainly no statements or allusions are made by about you not knowing “if anything is morally wrong”. The post addresses your original and repeated request for a list of “moral absolutes”. I therefore supplied a list of objective moral values derived from the secular philosophical objectivist/realist position that also affirms the existence of moral laws that are universal. I also gaves some background information about the concepts of objectivism subjectivism, relativism and absolutism. Also included are quotes from various scholars critical of moral relativism/subjectivism.

You did not address or acknowledge any part of this material I presented in response to your call for some examples of moral absolutes so perhaps you may care to do that now.

Perhaps you yourself are not a moral relativist/subjectivist and that you are therefore not merely expressing your personal distaste or abhorrence for something you do not like. Rather you were affirming that the practice of selective quoting is inherently wrong in and of itself and is therefore unethical. So, that is something good (sic) that has come from this incident. I happen to adhere to the moral position that selective quoting is objectively wrong which is why I must wear the blame and offer my apologies.

One further point:
The handle that I use on this list is “markg”, being my first name and the initial letter of my surname. You use the pseudonym “jimbo” which is your privilege but you have also used many other names to sign off various posts to this list. I am not complaining about this as it totally your business. But I will request this of you:


Do not refer to me in the future as “homebrew” or any other offensive appellation (as judged by me). Such terms are unnecessary and mere noise. I will let “bro” slide even though I am probably old enough to be your father.

My apologies, once more,
markg

[jimbo]

Markg,

I appreciate your lengthy responses to my questions. I do have just a couple more questions which I hope you could answer.

You claimed that the following statements represent moral absolutes.


It is morally wrong to torture people for fun.

Do not kill innocent people.

Do not cause unnecessary pain or suffering.

Do not cheat or steal.

Keep your promises and contracts.

Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom.

Do justice to others, treating like cases similarly, and different ones differently.

Tell the truth

Help other people

Do good wherever feasible

By referring to these as "moral absolutes," are you implying that that it is always morally right to follow them? Yes or no?

Is it your position that these "moral absolutes" come from the Christian god? If so, how did the Christian god transmit these "moral absolutes" to the human race? Are they clearly explained in the Bible, for example?

Thanks.


Do not refer to me in the future as “homebrew” or any other offensive appellation (as judged by me).

I won't as long as you don't misquote me again.

Later,

Jimbo

[markg]

jimbo:
Markg,

I appreciate your lengthy responses to my questions. I do have just a couple more questions which I hope you could answer.

You claimed that the following statements represent moral absolutes.

By referring to these as "moral absolutes," are you implying that that it is always morally right to follow them? Yes or no?

Is it your position that these "moral absolutes" come from the Christian god? If so, how did the Christian god transmit these "moral absolutes" to the human race? Are they clearly explained in the Bible, for example?

Thanks...

Jimbo

In my post # 17126 entitled Graded Absolutism I did respond to these.


The list I provided is of universal moral principles that transcend culture or individuals. The list comes from the philosophic position known as Moral Objectivism or Realism, a position that is not specifically religious but rather posits the supremacy of reason in identifying real objective universal moral laws based upon the nature of the world and human nature. Moral objectivists would use the terms “objective” and “universal” in preference to “absolute”, and would speak about “natural law” rather than “God’s law” because of a desire to distance themselves from a particualar theistic foundation. But the principles are essentially the same.

For the Christian theist his moral position is unashamedly absolutist because he affirms God as the source and standard of morality and moral law. However no Christian I know of - and certainly no moral objectivist - would hold to the position of Unqualified Absolutism which seems to be the issue which gets you and other skeptics so hot under the collar. I am afraid this is straw man. (Some radical Muslims may hold to unqualified absolutism but I have done no research into that.)

Neither the moral objectivist nor the Christian moral absolutist denies the possibility of moral dilemmas in which appropriate choices must be made if two conflicting objective, universal, (absolute) moral injunctions come into play. Then for the Christian the issue is one of the higher law prevailing; for the non-Christian moral objectivist it is probably the principle of the lesser evil or the greater good which would prevail.


Of course moral relativism, which is fairly widespread in the humanities and social sciences and among the general Western population will reject both absolute and objective moral values, arguing that such things do not exist: they are merely the projection of individual’s ideas and feelings or cultural norms.

But moral dilemmas also exist for relativists and can be equally perplexing for them. Here are two moral dilemmas for relativists:

Type 1 Relativism: Moral Subjectivism

The Situation: A man abducts you and your family for the purposes of his own sadistic enjoyment. He takes you and your family to a secluded farm house, and tortures your family members for five days before they finally die of the severity of their injuries. You miraculously escape just before he is about to do the same to you.

The Implications of Relativism: So long as the assailant in this case does not believe he has done anything wrong, he has indeed done nothing wrong. You have no basis to complain about his actions, even if he acted with full knowledge that you and your family objected to his actions, and that society views such actions as grossly immoral. Although you might wish to avenge his actions by harming him, if you do so your actions are no more praiseworthy (or blameworthy) than his. You may appeal to the law, but no court would be justified on a moral basis to convict or imprison the assailant. If this is done, the actions of the court are no more praiseworthy (or blameworthy) than those of the assailant. In fact, a legal system which would condemn the actions of the assailant would be no better on moral grounds than one that allowed such actions, or even one that would reward the assailant for his actions by paying him $3 million from public funds.


Type 2 Relativism:. Cultural Relativism

The Situation: There is a country, Xenophobia, that contains two distinct cultural groups: the majoritarians and the minoritarians. The majoritarians make up 90% of the population, the minoritarians the remaining 10%. There is a long history of suspicion and hatred in majoritarian culture against the minoritarians. According to majoritarian cultural history, the majoritarians are a culturally superior race that were the original inhabitants of Xenophobia, and they therefore see minoritarians as inferior and usurpers of their native lands. You are a minoritarian. The fragile truce between the majoritarians and minoritarians disintegrates over a murder case in which a minoritarian is charged with the assassination of a prominent majoritarian politician. There is a quick move in the legislature of Xenophobia to round up all minoritarians and place them in internment camps and to suspend judicial procedures in all cases where minoritarians are charged with crimes. The bill is quickly approved, and you and your family are interned. Your brother was charged with a robbery some years ago, and because the repressive law against minoritarians is retroactive, the commander of the camp takes your brother to the firing range where he is executed by firing squad.

The Implications of Relativism: So long as the actions taken by the majoritarians are consistent with their cultural beliefs, there is nothing wrong with their actions. You have no moral basis upon which to complain about their actions, even if the majoritarians understand that world opinion condemns their actions. You and other minoritarians might wish the world community (e.g., the United Nations) to place economic sanctions against the majoritarians, or even intervene militarily, but if it did, these actions against the majoritarians would be no more praiseworthy (or blameworthy) than those of the majoritarians. Alternatively, you and other minoritarians might believe that you are justified in taking up arms against the majoritarians, if you can manage it. But an armed revolt against the majoritarians would not be just or right in any significant moral sense. Morally speaking, such an action would be no more meritorious than the repressive actions of the majoritarians to which you react.
If you find these implications objectionable then you cannot accept ethical relativism.
(From Richard Field, Department of History, Humanities, and Philosophy Northwest Missouri State University)


Briefly, to answer your questions:

Question one:
a) Yes, they are always right in principle, but
b) No, in certain dilemma situations the higher moral law must take precedence over the lower (or one should choose the greater good or the lesser evil )with no imputation of wrongdoing for so having chosen.

[I’m sorry if perhaps you find this answer does not fit your understanding of absolutism - see post # 17126]

Question two:
a Yes, ultimately, but they can be found by reason as they were in this case
b) By general revelation in nature (i.e. natural law, conscience, the Golden rule, reason etc.) and by special revelation through his word and in his son
c) Yes, but they still must be “worked out” in the particular situations one finds oneself.

[ditto]


Some Biblical absolute moral injunctions ( cf original list):

In the OT

You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the LORD your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor's.

And this:

He has told you, O man, what is good;
and what does the LORD require of you
but to do justice, and to love kindness,
and to walk humbly with your God?


The commandments of God are summed up by Jesus in the NT in this statement:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

[You will note this a hierarchy of graded absolutism with the emphasis on applying principles rather than particular injunctions]

markg

[jimbo]

Markg,

Okay, so you have pointed out that "moral absolutes" are not necessarily moral "absolutes" because in certain situations they should not be followed. So we should probably call these moral rules not "moral absolutes" but rather "moral suggestions," to be followed only in particular situations, depending on the circumstances. For example, you posted this as a "moral absolute":


"Do not deprive another person of his or her freedom"

Well, we deprive people of freedom when they act against the laws of this country. After 9/11, we deprived people of their freedom without much evidence, yet I think we can all agree that it was the right thing to do under the circumstances.

You also posted this one:


"Tell the truth"

In times of war, when people's lives are at stake, sometimes the right thing to do is lie to an enemy to protect your fellow soldiers.


"Do not cheat or steal"

I think we can all agree that if our family was starving we would have no problem stealing food from an orchard or a farm to feed our children.


"Help other people"

What if those "people" are terrorists?


Do good wherever feasible

Of course people have different views of what is good. Islamic religious extremists think that killing as many Americans as they can is "good." We think that killing as many of them as possible is "good." These two notions of what is "good" are somewhat at odds.

You wrote that:


The commandments of God are summed up by Jesus in the NT in this statement:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets."

Do you consider this a "moral absolute"?

Jimbo

[Sheepdog]

Define "Absolutes." this post is for both sides.

i believe we are arguing past each other because of a descrepency in the definition of "absolute." one side argues (as i do) that "moral absolutes are true for everyone, at all times, under all circumstances." the other side seems to be arguing "must have no moral exceptions."

from www.dictionary.com, it seems the former is more justified:

Absolute
n.
Philosophy
2b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
(note: irrelavent definitions omited)

hence, Christian moral absolutes may, by definition, exist indepentant and unrelated to culture the person lives in; and also admit moral exceptions (i.e. lying to Nazi soldiers about Jews hidden in your basement). from this point on the burden of proof is on the skeptic to show that absolutes must have no exceptions.

to say that morals are relative, or even subjective, is a cop out. the only justification for such is to allow people to forego morals when they become inconvenient (i.e. illegally downloading mp3's, evading a speeding ticket by arguing "everyone else was speeding," adultry)

[Socrates]

Hey folx, MarkG and I have both pointed out that Christian morality is "graded absolutism" with a hierarchy of absolutes. Mark is right about the way the hierarchy works: Duty to God > duty to man > duty to property; obeying God's laws > obeying the government. Under this system, there are exemptions rather than exceptions to moral absolutes; i.e. the duty to obey the higher absolute exempts one from the duty to obey the lower one.

[flipper]

So some things are more absolute than others? Or is it that some things stop being absolute and become relative when superceded by other things? They're generally absolutes, except when they're relative to something else, right?

Interesting. Do I misread you?

[Sheepdog]

flipper:
So some things are more absolute than others? Or is it that some things stop being absolute and become relative when superceded by other things? They're generally absolutes, except when they're relative to something else, right?

Interesting. Do I misread you?

if you are refering to me, aparently so... read again what the definition says and doesn't say. if you are refering to someone else, sorry.

[Sheepdog]

an example of an absolute statement with an exemption: "an apple will fall to the ground unless caught mid-air by a person, animal, or object." our understanding of physics tells us that this is true, no matter what your personal opinion of it is, what time in history you are in, or what place on earth you live. however, the absolute allows an exemption: that the apple is caught by something, keeping it from hitting the ground, if only mommentarily

[Hoosier]

TheFiveSolas,

>>Here's one.
Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and strength.

Why is that a "moral absolute"?

Jimbo


That is the first great commandment. The second is like it: love your neighbor as yourself.

Love is the moral absolute. All other moral imperatives are subsumed within it. Every "ought" presupposes value. Love is active recognition and response to intrinsic value.

Most atheists have no basis to justify love or morality, even if they advocate them. One cannot get an "ought" from an "is", and inevitably they beg the question when trying to rationally defend moral absolutes.

Others claim there are no moral absolutes, and that values obtain only from society, or from personal preference. Few philosophers argue this view, as it fails without turning all common sense understanding of ethics on its head, or condoning many aknowledged atrocities. It is still popular with people who don't spend their lives laboring in thought on the issue however.

I'm short on time now, but will try to respond in greater detail later.

[c0bra]

All ethics are developed by a society.


How?

[Calvinist4Him]

Hi,

I have had discussions with Christians who have told me that because I am not a Christian, I have no knowledge of "moral absolutes" and I really cannot say that anything is morally wrong. Presumably Christians are knowledgeable of what these "moral absolutes" are. So I would like to know if any of the Christians here can tell me what these "moral absolutes" are and where they are to be found. Are they in the Bible? If not, where are they?

Thank you in advance for your help.

Theodore

Theodore,

I do not deny that the non-Theist, the non-believer can be moral in their behavior. According to Scripture; "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15 in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them," - Romans 2:14 (also see Romans 1:20)

If you are a moral relativist, then you deny the existence of any moral absolutes, thus you would deny knowledge of any actual moral absolute. The reason a Christian would say you "cannot say that anything is morally wrong" is because the Atheist has no moral foundation other than his self or her self. IOW, according to moral relativism morals are personal relative, and or cultural relative. Cultural moral relativsim is not a solid moral foundation for the simple fact that the majority is not always right. Personal moral relativism is not a solid moral foundation either because there is nothing with which to compare. IOW, the personal moral relativist has no standard other than their own personal standard to say that anyone else is right or wrong. When the moral relativist attempts to make a moral judgement apart from self, all the other person has to say is "Who are you to judge, and by what standard are you right? What makes your standard higher than mine?"

Now to get to the specifics of your post. For the Christian, moral absolutes, the foundation of moral judgements is found in the greatest possible conceivable being ie...God. There is no higher authority, there is no higher moral command than from the mouth of God almighty. For in God, there is no evil, He is pure and Holy, incorruptable, and as was revealed to the "minor" prophet Malachi (3:6) "For I, the LORD, do not change" and as the author of Hebrews (13:8) wrote "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

Now we know that a moral is not something we can study under a microscope to say "eureka, I have seen an absoulute moral!". Moral absolutes exist in the same way that mathamatics exist. They exist as concepts. However, morals do not exist apart from minds, because morals apply to thoughts, words, and actions of living beings.

Finally, I wish to give you a specific moral absolute...

It is absolutely wrong to rape or torture a baby. You may say that we both agree that it is wrong, but how does our mutal agreement actually make it wrong? We both know that the majority or the minory may not always be right. If it's not absolutely wrong to rape or torture a baby, then who are we to judge the ethics of the Nazi's? If it's not absolutely wrong to rape or torture a baby, and the Nazi's ethical system can be justified, then in reality, there is no absoulute right or wrong, and therefore anything we might call "morality" is essentially a "holier than thou" hypocritical joke because there is no standard or foundation of morality.

[jimbo]

Apologist,


Finally, I wish to give you a specific moral absolute...

It is absolutely wrong to rape or torture a baby. You may say that we both agree that it is wrong, but how does our mutal agreement actually make it wrong? We both know that the majority or the minory may not always be right. If it's not absolutely wrong to rape or torture a baby, then who are we to judge the ethics of the Nazi's? If it's not absolutely wrong to rape or torture a baby, and the Nazi's ethical system can be justified, then in reality, there is no absoulute right or wrong, and therefore anything we might call "morality" is essentially a "holier than thou" hypocritical joke because there is no standard or foundation of morality.

I am curious-where did you derive this "moral absolute" from?

Jimbo

[Calvinist4Him]

Apologist,

I am curious-where did you derive this "moral absolute" from?

Jimbo

From the holiness of an unchanging God to the moral law He has written on the hearts of men to the conscience by which the Holy Spirit convicts men to confess "I know I'm a sinner, I have sinned against God".

[jimbo]

Apologist,


From the holiness of an unchanging God to the moral law He has written on the hearts of men to the conscience by which the Holy Spirit convicts men to confess "I know I'm a sinner, I have sinned against God".

Can you demonstrate that this "moral absolute" came from the "holiness of an unchanging God"?

We both agree that torturing little babies is evil, but why should I believe you when you claim that this idea somehow originated from your god?


Jimbo