Moral Absolutism

[secondeve]

If theft is deemed to always be wrong, and there is a set statute to that effect with a certain punishment, neither reason nor circumstance enter into it. Otherwise a police officer would have to weigh the circumstances before deciding whether to arrest or not.

No, they wouldn't. You bring people in in order to ascertain the circumstances of a crime, not because of how things seem.

I disagree. It has been deemed by society that theft is always wrong regardless of circumstance. If it were otherwise then we would have to define crime by circumstance. We cannot deem one type of theft acceptable simply because of circumstance: It's either always right or always wrong. Is the man who robs the local liquor store of $100 in order to feed his family less guilty than the man who, for the same reason, robs the same amount from a bank? What if both used a gun? What if either man were let go because the law took pity on their situation? Could I therefore rob a bank and attempt to make the same argument before a judge in order to escape punishment for the crime?

Something I perhaps should have made clear: the fact that I don't believe in moral absolutes doesn't mean I believe, pragmatically, that it would be easy to run a society along these lines. I'm simply stating my objections to the idea of absolute morals, not attempting to critique the existing legal system.

In any hypothetical system I might care to devise, there would obviously have to be some basis for law - but the idea that some things are prohibited, and that some behaviours are reprehensible, does not mean by default that my laws are based on moral abolutes, only on likelihoods. Assuming I believe that there can be instances where theft is justified, but that these are few and far between, I would still need a law against theivery. There would simply have to be a legal provision for the judge to use discretion in circumstances where a case could be made that the thief was acting reasonably, hwoever rarely that happened in practice.

How is a man driven to theft by poverty any different than a man driven to theft to feed an addiction? It could be argued that poverty causes depression, depression causes addiction, addiction drives criminal activity. Should we take pity on that section of society in poverty, who happen to be addicted to certain drugs or alcohol, and allow them to commit crimes? No. It would be unthinkable to excuse criminal activity because of circumstance. And it would be ridiculous to change the laws in order to cater to certain types of activity, or because of certain circumstances.

You're making a massive mistake here - you seem to be assuming that I'm advocating a blanket 'get out of jail free' law for those who are poor. I'm not. I'm simply arguing against moral absolutes: that I do believe that circumstances exist in which theft would be justified. I'm not saying they'd be often; I'm just making a point that the act itself is not inherently reprehensible in each and every possible instance. You seem to be taking this to mean that I'd be granting thieves leeway for all kinds of reasons: I'm not - and as I said above, I'm not even trying to argue this in terms of how society should function, or on how it does. Intellectually, I simply hold the position that there are no moral absolutes, and am trying to demonstrate this by saying that if even one person could be shown to have good reasons for stealing and no other recourse of action, then the act iself cannot be intrinsically abhorrent.

The problem with this hypothetical is, "His only option is to steal the medicine." It sets up an false dilemma by stating that criminal activity is the only option. This is not reflective of reality. What if, in this scenario, murder was involved? What if the man, in the commission of his crime, killed another person? Even if it was an accident, does the ends justify the means? I think that most of those kids would probably have said, "no."

Also, what if the man who steals $100 to get medicine for his mother happens to steal that money from another man who needed that money to buy food for his starving children? Is the crime still justified?

You're missing the point - you're trying to elaborate on a simple "what if" in order to make it fit your ideas. Yes, what you propose is possible and no, I would not condone it in either instance - but in order to hold your position from these examples, you're essentially saying that nobody in the entire history of the world could ever, possibly, be in a situation like the hypothetical presented to the children, where it really would be as simple as theft, no other crimes involved, taken from someone who could easily afford it for someone who truly needed it. And I just don't believe that's true.

Again, I disagree. Theft is always wrong. It takes away the right to property or priviledge from one person and uses it to the advantage of another. Having or using a gun is a poor comparison. While the use of a gun removes one persons "right or priviledge to life," in cases where guns are used to take life through a justified means (Legally, such as when a police officer shoots a dangerous person with a weapon), it is assumed that a person has forfeited his right to life through his own acts. A person from whom a thief steels has done nothing to justify the removal of his property or his priviledge to such property.

You're making blanket assumptions again, by saying that nobody could ever deserve to be stolen from - and yet you're willing to make the assertion that some people can, as a result of their own actions, forefit a right not to be shot by police. What if our hypothetical thief was stealing from a crook, one who had committed henious crimes? If this person has forefited one kind of protection by their actions, why doesn't this similarly indemnify our thief? I don't mean in terms of existing laws - I mean morally, if these laws are based on morals.

You appear to to be saying that the moral laws of a society should not apply to a certain type or subset of people within that society.

No, I'm not saying that. You're equating the idea of a case by case look at crime with a blanket exception to certain kinds of people. It isn't. Saying that one person can have no way to feed a family bar theft is not the same as saying that all poor people should be able to steal what they want.

[Joshua-777]

My Moral Absolution, though some may disagree

1. Love the Lord God with all my heart sould and mind

2. Love my neighbor as myself

by these two laws, all the law balances,

1You shall have no other gods before me.

Well If I love God with all my heart soul and mind, then he would come first

You shall not make for yourself any 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 nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Once again, why would I make an idol, and serve foreign idols if I loved God with all my heart soul and mind?

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

I loved God with all my heart soul and mind, I wouldnt say his name 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 the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

That commandment was given to the Jews and not the gentiles, I am a gentile, But I try to keep time for God as much as I can,

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

Father, well the only father I have is God, dont know my real dad, It took me a while to forgive my step dad, but I do honor my God, and my mother.

You shall not murder.

Well If I loved my neighbor as myself why would I murder? I'm not suicidal or anything.

You shall not commit adultery.

well If I loved my wife, as I love myself, then why exactly would I commit adultery?

You shall not steal.

well if I loved someone as myself, I wouldnt steal

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Well I'm not much for gossip and rumors, But why would I lie to get someone in trouble? if I loved him as myself

You shall not covet your neighbor

[ethical.atheist]

If not for absolutes, anything goes, right?

What? No... How do you figure that?

[ethical.atheist]

What would God say...?

No one really knows that for sure.

The best we can do is trust the reason and logic we've got to make good decisions.

I have several illustrations ready to explain where absolute morality fails, but it seems that the problem is the redefinition of morality as law.

A law doesn't have to be moral. For example, in the country I live in, we drive on the right side of the road. It wouldn't really matter if it was the left. We just have to all agree on a side.

A moral issue does not have to apply to law. For example, it may be seen as immoral to smoke in private, since it destroys your body and there are others who rely on you for their wellbeing. The law should not limit this freedom though, since our body is our own to make decisions about.

Saying that a thief did not act immorally does not save him from the law. ...but the law is not about punishment. When a law is broken, that means that there is something wrong with the structure of society. Most often, the wrong is the individual involved, but sometimes, like the thief example, the structure of society is the one to blame. If we had the time and resources, the legal system should only be about rehabilitation of the individual and the society. I'm sure most would agree that it is far better to help someone to become a beneficial part of society than to just punish them.

Seeking punishment as a form of revenge is childish.

[CSLewis]

Many in society are doing just that - punishing just for retribution. I think there are five states that now have a guilty but insane plea. This is obvious a callous attempt to seek retribution on someone who is mentally incapable of commiting a crime.

I think that Jesus cared more about people than ideas. When we as christians start to put people in catagories and judge people by a strict adherence to rules we run the risk of being terribly wrong. All sin stems from selfishness. Only when we rely on the Spirit will we see the light and be empowered to look past people's sin and selfishness and love them unconditionally. As Christ has loved us.

[ethical.atheist]

Only when we rely on the Spirit will we see the light and be empowered to look past people's sin and selfishness and love them unconditionally.

That is the thing I like about religion! If only loving your fellow human being where always kept at the forefront.

[redeemed098]

What would God say...?

No one really knows that for sure.

The best we can do is trust the reason and logic we've got to make good decisions.

I have several illustrations ready to explain where absolute morality fails, but it seems that the problem is the redefinition of morality as law.

A law doesn't have to be moral. For example, in the country I live in, we drive on the right side of the road. It wouldn't really matter if it was the left. We just have to all agree on a side.

A moral issue does not have to apply to law. For example, it may be seen as immoral to smoke in private, since it destroys your body and there are others who rely on you for their wellbeing. The law should not limit this freedom though, since our body is our own to make decisions about.

Saying that a thief did not act immorally does not save him from the law. ...but the law is not about punishment. When a law is broken, that means that there is something wrong with the structure of society. Most often, the wrong is the individual involved, but sometimes, like the thief example, the structure of society is the one to blame. If we had the time and resources, the legal system should only be about rehabilitation of the individual and the society. I'm sure most would agree that it is far better to help someone to become a beneficial part of society than to just punish them.

Seeking punishment as a form of revenge is childish.

Vengeance is mine says the Lord, I will repay, again I say I will repay.

Does this make God childish...Or Just..?

The problem with this discussion is that it has been once again set up from a false premise....Underneath it all it is an attempt to condemn God by justifying the actions of sin. You are creating and fabricating hypothetical and moulded circumstances to try to justify wrongful actions. You have completely missed the whole point of Gods Justice....You cannot try to justify the Laws that have already been broken. This is not opportunity to to hypothesise.....or justify by examples fabricated to suit your argument....This is not a what IF....This is not a circumstance that you NEED to fabricate for you are LIVING it right NOW.... There is nothing you can hypothesise about Gods judgement. You are simply doing exactly what the pharisees were doing to Jesus. Trying to trap him by way of argument...He said, "go, and sin no more." He didnt elaborate for them on what sin was..They already knew. As gentiles who do not believe, YOU are shown what sin is through the Laws of God.....This is not done for your attempts to try to justify it.....It is done to show you the need to repent.....The need for the saviour to set you free from the penalty of sin.

Using examples of husbands speeding pregnant wives to hospital doesnt justify the offense. Nor does a penniless man stealing to feed his children. It was not Gods intent for there to be any poor people. If Gods laws had been acknowledged and used for the very purpose they were implemented, there would be NO poor people at all. No famine, no pestilence, no drought. The word of God tells us all that the lying pen of the scribes has handled the Law falsely..... The purpose of the Laws of God were for the protection and nurturing of Life. When these laws are handled falsely, then the pupose for which the Law was set up in the first place is completely nullified. When you step outside of the boundary line, you have left the playing field. You have become a law unto yourself.

The speeding husband KNOWS that he broke the Law and the hungry father KNOWS that HE broke the Law. When they did so, they put aside all legal restraint and stepped outside the law. Of which they KNEW there were consequences. Your trying to justify THEIR actions hypothetically is simply trying to place yourself in the same circumstance and telling us how YOU would like to be judged.

Welll let me give you a hypothetical answer.....

I am a father of three, but I was once a father of six....You see one day while we were out on a family drive, some maniac lost control of his speeding car whilst attempting to get his pregnant wife to the hospital, and in the process. Though we didnt collide, in my attempt to avoid collision I swerved onto the other side of the road mounted an embankment and hit a tree killing my wife and three of our children.

There are no hypotheticals allowed once the law has already been broken. This is simply an attempt to justify.......You cannot bargain with sin....You cannot bargain with God either..

His forgiveness has been given one and one way only....Jesus. This is not a circumstance that COULD happen, this is a circumstance that DID happen....Its not a possibility that you are a sinner destined for judgement by God. It is a promise by God...."For ALL have sinned"

"God has set aside a day whereby he will judge all men by the man he has appointed. He has given evidence of this by raising him from the dead."

"It is appointed for every man to die once and then the judgement."

You can only be justified by Jesus.....Stop trying to create hypotheticals in order to Trap people and justify sin...This is not a hypothetical circumstance you are living in...It is reality.

"The wages of sin is death, but the gift from God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."

How will you justify neglecting such a great salvation, having heard. You cannot trap God, nor can you trick the followers of God with clever fabricated circumstance. None of these things will help you. Eve blamed the serpent for deceiving her.....Adam tried to blame God because he was the one who gave him Eve in the first place. Were any of THEIR arguments convincing to God....?

What kind of what ifs did Adam and Eve offer God to justify their action.....? And what was the end result of it all....?? Were they allowed to stay in the garden....NO...!!! Sin has consequences. God is perfectly Just. How trustworthy and reliable would God be if he didnt keep his word. You know the fall came about simply because God IS faithful to his word. He left us with no doubt that he is serious and that he will NOT be compromised......You might like to think that you could justify your sins, but God has set his standard in place and has already shown through the example of his word that with sin comes consequence. He is interested in Perfect Justice and nothing Less. That is why he will not be mocked...Men who mock him now are only fooling themselves.

Please stop trying to find ways to call "good" that which is evil in the sight of God. Ultimately the Lord is the Final Examiner. According to his Word, there is no SELF justification for any man.

Only Jesus justifies because only Jesus provided a pleasing offering to God FOR us. Our own offering is as that of Cain. Unacceptable.

"Without Faith it is impossible to please God, for those who seek him must believe that he IS and is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him."

"Man does not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God."

You were created not just with the desire to eat and drink food and water. We were created with a spiritual hunger also.. That is why Jesus alluded to something more than bread that fills the stomach. The bread that fills your stomach doesnt lead to eternal life...It only leads to a few temporary years. The word of God leads to eternal life.

Do you want to know why it is that you even THINK about eternity....? Ecclesiastes will answer that for you..."For God has set eternity in the hearts of ALL men, yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." The only reason you even wonder what happens after you die is because God has set eternity in your heart. He has given you the realisation that the death of the body is not the end.

If you want to hear God speak, pick up a bible open it and read it aloud.......You will hear God speak through YOU. If you are an UNbeliever, then praise God, for he just spoke through the mouth of man who doesnt even believe he exists.

"Your Word is a lamp to my feet and light to my path. How I love your word."

"God has exalted above all things, his Word and his Name."

Dont trivialise it with what ifs.....

Regards,

Ben.

[cjrose]

How can one truly evaluate the proper ethical or moral perspective without absolutes?

I don't know that I agree with your statement that absolutes are dangerous in ethics. After all, the hippocratic oath is taken by most (If not, all) medical physicians. Also, attorneys must follow a standard of ethical behavior in every state in order to practice law. These are both absolutes, are they not?

For myself, I would say that these are promises made; not an automatic adherence to a moral absolute, and that for individual doctors or practitioners, there may be times when, were it not for the legally binding constraints of these promises, they might feel that morality lay in breaking them in certain circumstances.

Here's an example of a dangerous moral absolute: Stealing is always wrong. It can never be justified; all thieves are evil. Then consider a man who is caught stealing food because he does not earn enough money to feed his children. Because of the way in which his society works - by heirachy or within a caste structure - there is no room for him to advance to a better-paying position. He has no recourse for appeal to any higher authority to give him money, or a job, or to help his family. So the man steals food for his children. He is caught. Under a law of moral absolutism, there would be no leeway to take into account why or what he stole, or what circumstances might have explained his actions. He is deemed evil, and will be punished the same as, for instance, someone well able to look after themselves in society but who chooses to steal for the fun of it. To me, this is a perfect example of why moral absolutism does not and cannot work: because it assumes that the act or crime itself is always motivated by the same underlying cause - evil - with no regard to specifics.

Secondeve,

That is the whole point...When man is a sinner, NOTHING works......You can fabricate as many situations as you like and hypothesise over as many examples that come to mind.

Noone is saying that it does or does not work. Clearly Jesus challenged his own people with the situation of the adulterous woman. The legally right thing to do would have been for the woman and man to be stoned to death, the first stone being thrown by the one who caught them as witness to the act. Jesus said to them, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." There are two issues here...Law and motive. Jesus convicted them all of their own sins and so they all went away one by one. Then he told the woman that everyone had gone and there was no one left to condemn her, and that neither would HE condemn her. YET he still acknowledged her sinfulness and told her to go away and sin NO MORE. The acknowledgement of sin was still there...The whole purpose of that situation from the beginning was an attempt to trap Jesus in issues of the Law. Their intent was not so much the punishment of the adulterous woman...It was to trap Jesus. It is still morally absolute however that adultery is adultery. There is no justification for adultery....Just as there is no justification for stealing. Read the bible on the issues of stealing and lying and adultery etc, and stop saying things like, "For myself" and "I would say." Start to listen to what God says. The rich man who denies this mans rightful wages for the work he provides is in great danger too...Listen to this..

"Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look..!!! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in Luxury and self indulgence. You have fatttened YOURSELVES in the days of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men who were not opposing you." (James 5:1,6)

Gods absolutes are well aware of motive secondeve......God knows a mans heart. David when hungry ate bread from the temple....Did he steal....??? What would God say...?

Once again secondeve, just as man thinks he can determine what evil is, he also thinks he can trick God by creating a situation that will undermine his intended purpose.

By handing us the example of the man who NEEDED to steal, you have just done what the Israelites did to Jesus when they confronted him with the adulterous woman.

How did Jesus settle it......????? by revealing that ALL are sinners. Noone is any better than anyone else, for all have fallen short. The law doesnt contain within itself the power to stop a man from breaking it....It is absolutely wrong to steal...Clearly God would not say, "You shall not steal" if stealing were not wrong. Absolutely wrong... It cannot be right for some and not right for others.....Its not Gods desire for a man to go hungry either, yet clearly he does....This is not due to a flaw in Gods absolute Laws...This is due to the sinful nature of man. It wouldnt matter if every man in the world had an equal distribution of wealth. There would still be those who covet and want more...There would still be those who would steal someone elses share....People would still kill each other to take what is not theirs. Its not the laws that are flawed....Everything about God is perfectly right. He is perfectly Just, perfectly loving, perfectly forgiving and perfectly merciful. Man might think he can alter or change Gods Laws, he might even think he can do away with them altogether. But the day of Judgement will bring with it the knowledge that Gods Laws never really went away at all. Man just pushed them to the side in favour of his own.

There is nothing dangerous about an absolute standard at all....Not when God is the judge. You can be absolutely certain that Gods justice will be perfectly right.

"Far be it for the God of all creation to do anything wrong."

Regards,

Ben.

My view on this is stealing is wrong and there is no justification for it. I will not even try first of all to justify a hypothetical. There is one answer and that is called Trust. If you would like more words, then Faith and Trust. I would rather beg or offer to do whatever is morally right and follows not only the Laws set before us by our fore fathers but the Laws and commandments of God.

Lean not on our own understanding but Trust in Him and He will make straight your paths. This passage is etched into my heart as I know, out of my Faith and complete Trust that He will provide. Many many people of this world rely on their own self controlled mind and body without the focus on God, breaking the Laws have no remorse since there is no accountability. Break a law. go to jail unless a technicallity fails the system or a crooked judge or so many factors are involved. And if prison were so bad, why do we have such a high recidivism rate? They are fed, clothed, kept warm, can get an education, have telivision, work out equipment. For those who feel they cannot do better in life, it may as well be the Ritz Carlton.

[kat8585]

If not for absolutes, anything goes, right?

What? No... How do you figure that?

If something is wrong, why is it wrong? Is it that everyone should decide for themselves what is wrong, and to what degreee?

[ethical.atheist]

If something is wrong, why is it wrong? Is it that everyone should decide for themselves what is wrong, and to what degreee?

Point 1:

I, as the most prominent ethical theorists would agree, think that every person has an obligation to evaluate every situation that they are presented with themselves. Due to a change of circumstances, simple rules must be reevaluated.

Justification of Point 1:

This is for the reason of combating the failings of moral absolutes. General rules like, "Thou shalt not steal," work in almost all circumstances. Sometimes, as has been noted, you have a moral obligation to break these rules. Even God breaks his own commandments (thou shalt not kill) by ordering murder (Deuteronomy 17:12, Leviticus 20:27, Deuteronomy 13:7-12, Zechariah 13:3, etc.). Even Jesus breaks a rule of God's (Leviticus 20:10) by letting a woman who commits adultery live (John 8:9).

Point 2:

We do not need rules to know the difference between right and wrong.

Justification of Point2.

The capability to understand the difference between right and wrong is something that all sane individuals possess regardless of their religion or background. (see Insanity) Our capability to understand and apply our understanding to a situation defines us as "good" or "bad" people.

Many people who commit murder quote bible verses as justification. When there is a conflict between two moral "absolutes" which one is "right?"