Moral absolutes

by Aztec 163 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Big Tex

  As I said earlier, alot of this is semantics.

  Interesting discussion. And you could easily be right Pete, and I'm just too stubborn to acknowledge it. Wouldn't be the first time.

  And I won't argue that it's a conundrum, because it is. I guess what I'm doing right now is exploring the idea that there are two absolute, knock down, in all situations, moral and ethical absolutes. From that standpoint then I'm willing to listen to scenarios that challenge my stand. I'm still not convinced. Even in Reborn's example, the two options he presented both were harmful (or what I would label as "wrong"), so I don't see that scenario as being about helpful or harmful. I see it more as the lesser of two evils. Pick your poison, if you will.

  I do agree with you wholeheartedly about appreciating the sensitivity of a situation. A good example I think is homosexuality. Many people view it as immoral. I choose to take the stand that it is possible genetics and/or biology plays a role we don't understand, as well as it's none of my business how someone else lives their life so long as no one is harmed. In that question I see the possibility of benefits not only to the people involved but to society in general.

  Jack

  Thank you. I don't know how courageous I am, I may just be foolish. I hope I don't come off like some whiny little man making a plea for sympathy. And I hope I don't embarass anyone by being so frank. That was not my intention. It's just that I don't feel what happened is my fault, and though there is still some shame, it's much easier to talk about now than 15 years ago when I was in therapy. I try to be sensitive toward how a statement sounds, and so I try not to go into details or say too much about it out of respect for others.
• 

  Reborn2002

  Even in Reborn's example, the two options he presented both were harmful (or what I would label as "wrong"), so I don't see that scenario as being about helpful or harmful. I see it more as the lesser of two evils. Pick your poison, if you will.

  Not true. This is where the majority of people (myself included) make an error. I thought the exact same thing when I took an ethics course in graduate school and proceeded to argue with my professor on this very topic. The example I gave is that which was given tro me. I know how you feel and rationalize this BigTex, so I sympathize, all the moreso knowing your personal experience.

  Moral absolutes do not exist, because there is no action that is unacceptable under any and all circumstances period.

  In the example I gave, was it "moral" to sit and allow the rape to take place? Was it the "morally appropriate" thing to do to protest even if it meant death? If being raped would subsequently save the lives of 4 people, it makes it the right thing, therefore, moral, because it saved lives. Others would argue this and say it was the lesser of two evils, but it can also be perceived as a necessary action of sacrifice to save life. This only serves to prove my original assertion that morals are preconceived notions ingrained in people due to factors in their environment (i.e. religious upbringing, culture, etc.)

  To sit and say unequivocally that there exist absolutes under which any and all circumstances something is wrong is narrow-minded in my opinion.

  Just my additional 2c on the topic.
• 

  plmkrzy

  War similarly is harmful and therefore morally wrong but yet at times justifiable due to choices needing to be made.

  I have not read each and every single word, but isn't this topic swaying too much? For example, when is incest ever justifiable? Or necessary? In addition, there is the possibility that the "protection" would fail and the actions of the parties could very well produce a harmful situation for years to come should a child be born from it. What are the chances a child of siblings would be normal and if it beat the odds and was normal, what kind of life would he/she have to look forward to anyway?
• 

  Reborn2002

  For example, when is incest ever justifiable?

  Again, a person's individual beliefs of what is moral or immoral are coming into play here.

  As an example for incest, say the nuclear holocaust takes place (not that I wish for it, but it is plausible) and there are survivors, but an extremely limited amount. A brother and sister managed to survive but are alone in a region and truly believe they are the last humans on earth. Would it be morally wrong for them to procreate so as to attempt to continue the human race? Or would it be wrong because society dictated that sex between siblings is always inappropriate, a moral absolute, no matter the circumstances?

  There are no moral absolutes, only standards in people's minds of what is right or wrong.
• 

  drwtsn32

  Reborn2002,

  I like your points. I think you, Aztec, and others have convinced me that indeed there are no moral absolutes. People need to realize that saying there are no moral absolutes is not the same thing as saying "all actions are good." Indeed, sometimes something disturbing must be allowed because it results in a greater good.
• 

  plmkrzy

  Reborn

  I think there comes a time when morals stop having anything to do with it. Morals are set aside due to circumstances.

  For those who watched the rape of their child, they did not make a choice of morality but a choice due to fear of a worse fate for their child. I doubt they were thinking about morality.

  Say, the siblings do procreate as you say in your scenario; they produce deformed children and most do not live past the age of one.

  Are they procreating out of necessity? Moreover, what necessity would that be? The necessity to have sex? Or procreate?

  What would they be creating?

  What if there was only one person left on earth and a few animals? This could go on forever.
• 

  Reborn2002

  I think there comes a time when morals stop having anything to do with it. Morals are set aside due to circumstances.

  For those who watched the rape of their child, they did not make a choice of morality but a choice due to fear of a worse fate for their child. I doubt they were thinking about morality.

  Irregardless, they made a moral choice. For those who attest to a belief in moral absolutism, morals cannot conveniently be set aside due to circumstance as you suggest. In the example I first gave, for many it would be considered the "moral" thing to do to allow the rape of one if it meant survival of all four.

  You hypothesize:

  Say, the siblings do procreate as you say in your scenario; they produce deformed children and most do not live past the age of one.

  Are they procreating out of necessity? Moreover, what necessity would that be?

  You asked when is incest ever justifiable. I provided a scenario which shows when it would be "moral" for a brother and sister to reproduce to attempt to continue the survival of mankind. Necessity is irrelevant. Was it "moral"? We are discussing moral absolutes, and if some actions are wrong under any and all circumstances.

  Contrary to those who would suggest that morals are absolute, and therefore ecumenical, examples have shown that morals are not a universally accepted belief or set of standards, and vary from culture to culture.

  Furthermore, that analogy is but one example. In some primitive cultures incest is not unheard of. They readily accept it into their belief system and do not think it to be "wrong." Others touched on historical records where sex with minors was viewed as normal. Who are you or I from a different culture to ride in on our high horse and tell them they are monsters?

  Catholicism spawned the Inquisition to convert what they thought to be morally devoid heathens.

  There are NO moral absolutes.
• 

  expatbrit

  Something else that occured is that it is very easy to confuse an action with a label for an action.

  Take rape for example. Rape is not actually an action. Rather it is a label for a specific occurence of an action that fits certain criteria. The action is sexual intercourse.

  In order to make a moral judgement on a specific occurence of sexual intercourse, we ask questions that will shed light on the context and circumstance of that specific occurence. Questions such as: what were the ages of the participants? Was the act mutually consensual? What are the personal circumstances of the participants as respect to relationships with others etc?

  Once we have this individual information, we then assign a moral label to the specific occurence of the act. These can be negative, such as "rape" or "adultery", or they can be positive, such as "making love" etc. There are a range of labels to suit the various circumstances of the specific act.

  In order to be a moral absolute, you would have to say that all occurences of the act (i.e. sexual intercourse) are either wrong, or right. This is obviously unworkable, and show why moral absolutes do not exist.

  It is also why saying that "rape is an absolute wrong" doesn't really have any meaning, because,"rape" is a morally relativistic label, applied using the process of moral relativism.

  Same goes for "murder". That too is not an act, but a label for a specific occurence of an act. The act is killing a human, and again, there are a whole range of labels to be applied to specific occurences of that act e.g. murder, manslaughter, suicide, execution, euthanasia.

  When you analyse it, there are no acts which are not subject to moral relativism i.e. making a moral judgement by taking into account the context of the act.

  Expatbrit
• 

  siegswife

  Reborn,

  These sick predators love an audience. They beat the boy into a bloody pulp but leave him alive.. and the girl.. well the girl does not share the same fortunate fate. They strip her of her clothes, beat her, and force themselves upon her, ravaging her again and again. As the parents protest they make it painstakingly clear that if they continue to protest they will be killed. The children will die. The entire family will die. The parents sit in submission while this horrifying act is committed, and sure enough, as all sexual predators are, when they finish, they do leave, but not after beating everyone bloody again. Yet, all are still alive...

  My take on this is that the parents' inaction doesn't ivolve their morality. Their innaction makes them neither immoral or amoral. The immoral actions are those of the two drunks who put all of those people in that situation to begin with.

  A person who believes it's wrong to kill, yet kills in self defense doesn't become an immoral or amoral person. Such a person would probably feel some measure of regret for their actions. But, a person who has no qualms about killing another under any circumstances lacks a moral base.

  Maybe I'm confused about where everyone is coming from, but to me, having morals means that you have something inside of you that acts as a restraint...keeps you from deliberately engaging in actions that can and will harm others. Absolutes, you bet. That doesn't mean that certain reactions aren't understandable or justifiable. It also doesn't mean that moral absolutes are nonexistant or that a person who finds themselves in such a situation has somehow left all moral sense and obligation.

  Your situation has nothing to do with the morality of the parents and everything to do with the lack of morality of the drunks. The same is true of sexual contact with a child, rape and killing in self defense. It's the perpetrators morals that are in question, not the victims.
• 

  plmkrzy

  Irregardless, they made a moral choice.

  Reborn, I am afraid this is something we will probably have to agree to disagree on because IMO none of these, or I should say neither of these, scenarios have anything to do with morality. In order for the parents to have made a choice based on morality, a set of moral standards, they would have had to allow their conscience to play a part in their decision, but under such circumstances, unless they were cold blooded parents who cared more about how they viewed them selves then the fate of their child, their decision was based on fear and morality had nothing to do with it. However, if the parents then hunted down the monsters and killed them, in cold blood, that I would view as a scenario where the morality card would have to be played and would they be justified?

  edited to extend this sentance for a clearer meaning...

  unless they were cold blooded parents who cared more about how they viewed them selves then the fate of their child

  they would not be sitting there discussing with each other a moral dilemma and or consequences, pro's and con's in order to reach an "appropriate" outcome. The only thing between them and the decission they made was the survival of their child and that is all.

  After it was over, then is when they may or may not struggle with the decission they made based on morality. Like an aftershock.