Column: 'Benedict will drive atheists crazy'

[Jas]

Calgary Sun Column (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Licia_Corbella/2005/04/20/1004503.html)

"We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires," the 78-year-old said.

The new pope nailed it. As the belief in absolutes diminishes, our society stumbles. People increasingly think that you determine what is right by what FEELS good. Only problem is, for Clifford Olson, that means raping children and driving nails into their skulls. For others, it's shooting drugs into their veins, and for others its stealing your car.

As Calgary's Catholic Bishop Fred Henry said yesterday, Pope Benedict XVI "is a humble and brilliant man who defends the truth and doesn't bend with the trends."

That's got to drive the atheists crazy.


I think I'm definitely writing a letter to the editor with this one. So far, I've got:

As as atheist, I find it personally offensive that Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children (last I checked, a large number of instances of paedophilia occurred within the organization she is defending as being the source of moral .....(I can't think of the word I want to use here...any suggestions?). As far as my opinion of the new pontiff, perhaps Ms. Corbella might have a deeper understanding if I put it in these terms: If the newly appointed head of the Invisible Pink Unicorn hunting club decides uphhold such controversial edicts such as not allowing women to join the invisible pink unicorn hunt, do I really care?

Any suggestions for the letter, or comments about this column?

[IllegalArgument]

Funny thing I just got through reading this:

Christian Europe RIP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1464758,00.html

[IllegalArgument]

She's troting out some nice strawmen in that article, with dose of fear mongering.

[rustypouch]

Ah, the Calgary Sun. Proof that the Liberal Media (TM) controls everything we see and hear.

Wow. Seriously. The whole bit about AIDS in Africa was just too harsh. I don't know how to express the outrage I feel. Granted, the not endorsing condom use is not the cause, but it is a contributing factor.

As for the letter I might put 'the sole source of moral guidance.'

Also, I would try not to come off as too bitter and judgemental, because we already have a reputation of unfeeling montsers, as wrong as it may be, and I don't think that being super confrontational is the way to go, just because many people pass judgements based on the tone of the message, rather than the actual message.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by Jas

I think I'm definitely writing a letter to the editor with this one. So far, I've got:


Any suggestions for the letter, or comments about this column?

Other than the fact that this column contains implicit dismissal of democracy, no. Coming from the RCC, it's no surprise.

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by IllegalArgument
Funny thing I just got through reading this:

Christian Europe RIP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1464758,00.html

I am sorry, but I immediately stopped reading that article when he started off, not misspelling, but putting a space in "atheist".

Don't these people have proofreaders anymore?

[Jas]

Originally posted by rustypouch
Ah, the Calgary Sun. Proof that the Liberal Media (TM) controls everything we see and hear.

Wow. Seriously. The whole bit about AIDS in Africa was just too harsh. I don't know how to express the outrage I feel. Granted, the not endorsing condom use is not the cause, but it is a contributing factor.

As for the letter I might put 'the sole source of moral guidance.'

Also, I would try not to come off as too bitter and judgemental, because we already have a reputation of unfeeling montsers, as wrong as it may be, and I don't think that being super confrontational is the way to go, just because many people pass judgements based on the tone of the message, rather than the actual message.

Thanks, for some reason I couldn't think of a word that would fit there. One of those days, I guess. BTW, am I coming off as bitter and judgemental? I didn't think I had assumed that tone, but it can be hard to tell for yourself, so your feedback is appreciated.

As as atheist, I find it personally offensive that Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children (last I checked, a large number of instances of paedophilia occurred and were tacitly condoned within the organization she is defending as being the sole source of moral guidance). As far as my opinion of the new pontiff, perhaps Ms. Corbella might have a deeper understanding if I put it in these terms: If the newly appointed head of the Invisible Pink Unicorn hunting club decides uphhold such controversial edicts such as not allowing women to join the invisible pink unicorn hunt, do I really care?

[pgwenthold]

If the newly appointed head of the Invisible Pink Unicorn hunting club decides uphhold such controversial edicts such as not allowing women to join the invisible pink unicorn hunt, do I really care?

Absolutely hilarious. Unfortunately, I am guessing the point will be lost upon those sufficiently fanatical.

[Valmorian]

*SIGH* Good old Alberta, the "south" of Canada. Sometimes I'm ashamed of our province. :(

[pgwenthold]

As as atheist, I find it personally offensive that Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children (last I checked, a large number of instances of paedophilia occurred and were tacitly condoned within the organization she is defending as being the sole source of moral guidance).

BTW, you might want to take that last point out of the parantheses, as it is extremely important. Her example of raping children is the ultimate in irony, and your counter should not only not be in parantheses, but highlighted.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If the newly appointed head of the Invisible Pink Unicorn hunting club decides [to] uphhold [such] controversial edicts such as not allowing women to join the invisible pink unicorn hunt, do I really care?
I believe this sentence dooms your letter. Tone it down if you want it published.

~~ Paul

[Jas]

As as atheist, I find it personally offensive that Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children. Last I checked, a large number of instances of paedophilia occurred and were tacitly condoned within the organization she is defending as being the sole source of moral guidance. As far as my opinion of the new pontiff, perhaps Ms. Corbella might have a deeper understanding if I put it in these terms: If the newly appointed head of the Invisible Pink Unicorn hunting club decides uphhold such controversial edicts such as not allowing women to join the invisible pink unicorn hunt, do I really care?

Like this?

[Jas]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
I believe this sentence dooms your letter. Tone it down if you want it published.

~~ Paul

I was wondering if it was a bit much. I might have to think of another way of putting it.

[geni]

On the basis that his article on wikipedia is getting vandalised more often than the one about George W. Bush he is clearly driving some people crazy.

[geni]

Originally posted by Jas
Like this?


You might want to check out Benedict's Good Friday reflections in 2005. Accusing him of tacitly condoning paedophilia suggests a lack of reseach.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by geni
You might want to check out Benedict's Good Friday reflections in 2005. Accusing him of tacitly condoning paedophilia suggests a lack of reseach.

She accused the organization, not him personally.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Jas
Like this?

I wouldn't bold it, but the stand alone sentance is good, IMO. I might throw an exclamation point at the end to give it the exclamatory umph, if you want.

[rustypouch]

It's not that I think you are too bitter. I share many of the same opinions.

I think it is that the people you want to reach will not react well harsh truth, blunt honesty, and sarcasm. They tend to need coddling and like things nice and fluffy.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by rustypouch
It's not that I think you are too bitter. I share many of the same opinions.

I think it is that the people you want to reach will not react well harsh truth, blunt honesty, and sarcasm. They tend to need coddling and like things nice and fluffy.

That's why I said the point will probably be lost. OTOH, I still think it is really funny.

[Jas]

As as atheist, I find it personally offensive that Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children. Last I checked, a large number of instances of paedophilia occurred and were tacitly condoned within the organization she is defending as being the sole source of moral guidance. As far as my opinion of the new pontiff, perhaps Ms. Corbella might have a better understanding if I put it in these terms: If the newly appointed head of the Invisible Pink Unicorn Hunting Club upheld controversial edicts such as not allowing women to join the invisible pink unicorn hunt, would she really care?

Hmmm, I think I'll stay with the pink unicorn analogy. While it would most likely doom my letter in most newspapers, the Sun is a bit of an exception (as are most papers with 'Sun' in the title). Is my grammar and punctuation correct? Exclamation mark or no? I don't think highlighting would show up.

[geni]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
She accused the organization, not him personally.

Considering the way the church is run if you don't accuse him you can't accuse the organisation. At most you can accuse a section of it.

[Gulliamo]

How does this sound?
"As an atheist, I find it personally offensive that Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children. A number of instances of pedophilia have recently occurred within the organization she is defending as her source of moral guidance! I find it humorous that Ms. Corbella defends an organization that refuses to let women be a part of its management."

If you want to get published, and therefore read by more than two people, you should keep it short, simple, unoffensive, and strike a cord. And you should respond quickly!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by geni
Considering the way the church is run if you don't accuse him you can't accuse the organisation. At most you can accuse a section of it.

As far as I know, Cardinal Law is still part of the organization, and has, in fact, been moved into upper management by his superiors.

That's why the "approval" is tacit and not overt. The vatican most certainly not responded actively, and was extremely slow to respond in the first place. That is certainly an institutional issue.

[rustypouch]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
That's why I said the point will probably be lost. OTOH, I still think it is really funny.

I think we are in complete argeement on this one.

[Jas]

So I sent it off, with the pink unicorn comment. Mainly because if it does get published (unlikely), I'm pretty sure the editor's comment (they have a snarky one-liner at the end of every letter), will be 'There's no such thing as pink unicorns'. Which would make me laugh pretty hard.

[hgc]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Absolutely hilarious. Unfortunately, I am guessing the point will be lost upon those sufficiently fanatical. Agreed. Who cares what atheists think? A large portion of Catholics will be driven crazy though. And add to that all the non-Catholics who practice pope-worship. They might get a little crazy too.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hgc
Agreed. Who cares what atheists think? A large portion of Catholics will be driven crazy though. And add to that all the non-Catholics who practice pope-worship. They might get a little crazy too.

Actually, I think the bigger issue is that they won't see the relevence of the IPU analogy. They won't grasp the concept that to an atheist, the IPU Hunting Club and the Catholic Church are equally baseless organizations.

To them, God is special, and therefore he must be special to everyone. Atheists are just in denial. Everyone knows the IPU doesn't exist.

[Meadmaker]

Actually, Jas, I think your letter was on shaky grounds on several issues.

First, she isn't equating child rape with atheism, she's equating it with relativism. And she has a point. If you accept the premise of relativism, then you have to explain why driving nails into childrens' skulls is wrong. Is it truly wrong, or is it just wrong because our society says it's wrong?

Second, Cardinal Ratzinger was extremely harsh on the sex abuse scandal. I can't remember his exact words used, but it was something like "the filth within the church". If rhetoric translates into action, this new Pope won't tacitly condone any of this in the future.

Furthermore, it is the Catholics in this part of the world who are supposed to be dismayed about the election of the new Pope. In other words, the very people who gave us the sex abuse scandal are the ones who are complaining about the new Pope. I think the editorial writer would also take that as reinforcement.

Finally, the existence of your letter seems to indicate that he is already driving at least one atheist crazy.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Second, Cardinal Ratzinger was extremely harsh on the sex abuse scandal. I can't remember his exact words used, but it was something like "the filth within the church".


And in his next speech, he'll call all the priests who did it "poopy pants"



If rhetoric translates into action, this new Pope won't tacitly condone any of this in the future.


While Cardinal Law still holds a cushy position in the Vatican...

[hgc]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Actually, Jas, I think your letter was on shaky grounds on several issues.

First, she isn't equating child rape with atheism, she's equating it with relativism. And she has a point. If you accept the premise of relativism, then you have to explain why driving nails into childrens' skulls is wrong. Is it truly wrong, or is it just wrong because our society says it's wrong?
...You are no closer to explaining why it's wrong with religion than you are without it. "Relativism" is another demonic myth, like "Darwinism" is for creationists. Just because you might claim that the taboo against killing children is a human construct, evolving with civilization from natural inclinations, doesn't mean that it is any less a palpable ethic for "relativists" than it is for Saint (premature?) Benedict.

As a matter of fact, I'd like to talk to Benedict and Cardinal Law about the relative morality of child rape.

[Brahe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Finally, the existence of your letter seems to indicate that he is already driving at least one atheist crazy.
Meadmaker, the column asserted that atheists would be driven crazy over Pope Benedict XVI because he "is a humble and brilliant man who defends the truth and doesn't bend with the trends." Jas is angered because "Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children." Big difference.

Let me put it this way: suppose I were to claim that Republicans are pedophiles and that my condemnation of pedophiles would drive them crazy. I should think this would make Republicans angry. Do you think they're angry because I took a moral position or do you think they're angry because of something else? Would it be moral for me to claim that their anger is proof of my earlier assertion rather than face the fact that I slandered them?

[geni]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
[B]As far as I know, Cardinal Law is still part of the organization, and has, in fact, been moved into upper management by his superiors.[/b[

You think that a institution that has been around for centuries hasn't figured out how to kick people upstairs?

[I'll_buy_that]

I think i'm missing something here.

The assertion of the article was that atheists will be driven crazy by the election of a conservative pontif. Jas' contention with the article, as is mine, is the fact that atheists don't or shouldn't really care. Atheists aren't catholic, even if a lot of them used to be. The Pope is the head of a religeous organization, not all religions. I don't think Jew's will be driven crazy. I really don't care what this guy thinks.

Licia, stated in the article a comment that basically says the same thing when speaking to an atheist friend, "So, what's it to you?" I asked. "Why should the Catholic church listen to the likes of you?"

The commentary itself seems to be not focused and doesn't keep to one point. And her ending argument doesn't really follow what was written above.

My feeling is a softly written reply by an atheist to this article should suffice. It was poorly written and probably, outside of this thread, not greatly read. I don't think Alicia Corbella is going to be published anywhere outside of the sun anytime soon.

by the way, her comments about the inequity of the condom debate is off base. She states that people aren't listening to the sex outside of marriage law in the church, so why is it assumed that people are listening to the no condom law. Well what I would think is happening, is that because the church comes down so hard anti birth control, there is no education and little access to birth control in some countries. People are still going to have sex, no amount of abstinence teaching is going to stop that, but they aren't going to use condoms because of what i stated above. and the church can carry a lot of responsibility for that

[I'll_buy_that]

By the way, when has relativism had anything to do with raping children and driving nails into their heads. People of all faiths see this as just plain wrong, whether you believe in eternal punishment or not.

the problem with the new pope is he doesn't see a middle ground. He sees if you are bending to the wills of those who want to use birth control, was women or married clergy, then you are bending to the will of those child rapists.

[Jas]

Meadmaker, the column asserted that atheists would be driven crazy over Pope Benedict XVI because he "is a humble and brilliant man who defends the truth and doesn't bend with the trends." Jas is angered because "Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children." Big difference.

Precisely.

The entire column is all over the place, although these were the letters today (http://www.canoe.ca/CalgarySun/editorial.html#letters) . I think the column was poorly written, poor a start, however, now that I've slept on it, I can see the problems with my letter. I'm of two minds about the columnist in question. Sometimes she hits the nail on the head, and other times I think she took a couple hits off of a crack pipe before submitting her editorial. I think she does 'selective research', and filters out anything that might affect her worldview.

[I'll_buy_that]

I guess they selectively post letters too.

"I echo your excellent April 20 columns, 'Benedict will drive atheists crazy,' by Licia Corbella and 'Papally incorrect,' by Rick Bell. Many post-modern atheists would like to see a watered down version of the Christian values and call it progressive. However, Pope Benedict XVI seems to fail their expectations.

Mark Ng "

that statement, "...atheists would like to see a watered down version of the christian values..." No they/we don't, atheists don't follow the church, we don't care anymore than catholics care about the rules in the muslem faith.

[c4ts]

Wait until Jack T. Chick finds out the Pope was in Hitler Youth. He is gonna have a field day with that...

[hgc]

Originally posted by I'll_buy_that
...

the problem with the new pope is he doesn't see a middle ground. He sees if you are bending to the wills of those who want to use birth control, was women or married clergy, then you are bending to the will of those child rapists. Oh, he'll go to the middle ground plenty -- when it suits his purpose. Annulments are free for the taking for powerful constituents. Hypocracy, in general, galls me. But that's their problem.

As for the use of condoms in Africa or the child rape cover-ups and enabling, these are areas where church policies and actions intersect with public policy concerns that anyone might care about. I strongly believe that church officials should be investigated for aiding and abetting child rape. Since the pope has influence over the birth control/desease control policies in Africa, where there is a epidemiology crisis with STD's (especially AIDS), the pope is open to criticism for making a negative difference, even on the basis of internal church "doctrine."

Once again, the "relativists" thing is just a demonization of church critics, and a ridiculous distraction. Benedict is a first-rate scumbag.

[c4ts]

Not being Catholic, the Pope doesn't exactly strike me as a threat.

[Renfield]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
How does this sound?
"As an atheist, I find it personally offensive that Ms. Corbella equates atheism with sexual assault on children. A number of instances of pedophilia have recently occurred within the organization she is defending as her source of moral guidance! I find it humorous that Ms. Corbella defends an organization that refuses to let women be a part of its management."

If you want to get published, and therefore read by more than two people, you should keep it short, simple, unoffensive, and strike a cord. And you should respond quickly!

The irony is almost too thick, a letter associating atheism with child abuse coming from someone who is a big CATHOLIC supporter. It must be nice to be capable of such grand feats of self delusion, to be so free from the confines of logic and reality.

Sometimes I envy conservatives.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by c4ts
Wait until Jack T. Chick finds out the Pope was in Hitler Youth. He is gonna have a field day with that... Do you have a link supporting this? I'd really love to read it!

[Bob Klase]

Wait until Jack T. Chick finds out the Pope was in Hitler Youth. He is gonna have a field day with that...

The kind of field day people have when they get to use only 1/2 the facts. The new pope was in the Hitler Youth. After that he was also in Hitler's Nazi army.

The rest of the story seems to be that:

1- all youths were required to join the Hitler Youth at age 14.

2- The pope was drafted into the Nazi army and deserted the first chance he got.

3- Both points can be used by either side to try and score some kind of point. Neither means anything.

[Camillus]

Originally posted by Gestahl
I am sorry, but I immediately stopped reading that article when he started off, not misspelling, but putting a space in "atheist".

Don't these people have proofreaders anymore?

The article's from the Guardian newspaper, which is often referred to as the Grauniad because of its frequent and sometimes amusing typos.

A few years ago the newspaper relaunched itself with a claim that the typos were going to be a thing of the past. In reality nothing changed. Personally I think they do it deliberately. I suspect they have editorial meetings about it.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Bob Klase
The kind of field day people have when they get to use only 1/2 the facts. The new pope was in the Hitler Youth. After that he was also in Hitler's Nazi army.

The rest of the story seems to be that:

1- all youths were required to join the Hitler Youth at age 14.

2- The pope was drafted into the Nazi army and deserted the first chance he got.

3- Both points can be used by either side to try and score some kind of point. Neither means anything.

Like that ever stopped Chick from perpetuating BS about Nazi-Catholic conspiracies before...

The way I see it, at the time most Germans didn't see Hitler as bad, and Hitler Youth was something all the kids were doing, like the Boy Scouts.

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by Camillus
The article's from the Guardian newspaper, which is often referred to as the Grauniad because of its frequent and sometimes amusing typos.

A few years ago the newspaper relaunched itself with a claim that the typos were going to be a thing of the past. In reality nothing changed. Personally I think they do it deliberately. I suspect they have editorial meetings about it.

Maybe the claim itself was a typo.

[dann]

Originally posted by c4ts
... and Hitler Youth was something all the kids were doing, like the Boy Scouts.
Not all the kids, only 'Arians'. http://www.norreg.dk/tysk/hj1.htm

[Kopji]

That's got to drive the atheists crazy.

Actually, the notion that the Great God, the Almighty, King of Kings, Lord of Lords... is represented here on earth by a bunch of funny dressed old geezers in pointy hats who converse in a language that's been dead for over a thousand years...

helps me sleep better at night.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by Jas
Calgary Sun Column (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Licia_Corbella/2005/04/20/1004503.html)



I think I'm definitely writing a letter to the editor with this one. So far, I've got:


Any suggestions for the letter, or comments about this column?

How about "... as the source of moral absolutes."

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by hgc
You are no closer to explaining why it's wrong with religion than you are without it. ("it" in the above referred to driving nails into children's heads.)

When a religion says that it is wrong to drive nails into the heads of children, they haven't "explained" anything. They have simply made an assertion that this is bad behavior. They usually also insist that one or more deities find this behavior offensive. But no explanation is necessary, really.

But a relativist, confronted by the same assertion, would have to assert that this behavior is not absolutely wrong, only wrong relative to the morals of society. Intuitively, most people recoil from that assertion.

One mistake that many people make, possibly including Benedict XVI, is that atheists are all moral relativists, which is not the case.

I, for one, have come to the conclusion that evil is very real, and that certain things are absolutely wrong, and not just because God said so. But can I justify that position in a rational manner? I'm not sure I can. I don't know exactly why I think it is wrong to drive nails into children's heads. But I'm pretty certain that it is, in fact, wrong to do so.

In exploring this thought in other threads, I have suggested that the Golden Rule, usually stated as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." is a statement of absolute morality. Note that it doesn't refer to a God, and is independent of religion.

But as for Benedict XVI, he is certainly starting out his reign in a divisive note. Or, more accurately, he is perceived as divisive. It seems that he will not back down on his principles, and that this is indeed causing much consternation among Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

[Orwell]

What's so upsetting about "relativism"? I mean, the way I see it, nobody can claim to have the "thruth", in absolute terms. To say that something is "true", you often have to carefully circumscribe and define what you're talking about. Old Socrates knew this more than 2000 years ago! Each of us can only have partial grasp of “the� truth. It doesn't mean there is no "truth", just that anyone can grasp only a limited piece, if that. So truth arises in a cumulative, ongoing, tentative way.

Why this seem to bother so any people is quite beyond me!

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
But a relativist, confronted by the same assertion, would have to assert that this behavior is not absolutely wrong, only wrong relative to the morals of society. Intuitively, most people recoil from that assertion.


Bear in mind that in practise extreme relativists, that would make such a claim, are fairly rare. Most people who embrace relativism that I've run into will admit (if you poke them) that they don't consider things like torture proper subjects for relativism.


One mistake that many people make, possibly including Benedict XVI, is that atheists are all moral relativists, which is not the case.


Indeed.


I, for one, have come to the conclusion that evil is very real, and that certain things are absolutely wrong, and not just because God said so. But can I justify that position in a rational manner? I'm not sure I can. I don't know exactly why I think it is wrong to drive nails into children's heads. But I'm pretty certain that it is, in fact, wrong to do so.


I think your problem is that you are trying to justify an absolute conclusion (that some things are absolutely wrong) with reason, and reason properly applied will almost never get you to an absolute conclusion that isn't tautological.

The rational conclusion is that driving nails into children's heads is dreadfully wrong under almost any conceivable circumstances. Nonetheless, in really contrived circumstances it might be moral to do so. Say, if I demonstrated to you beyond any doubt that everyone in the world would be tortured to death unless you drove some nails into a child's head.


In exploring this thought in other threads, I have suggested that the Golden Rule, usually stated as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." is a statement of absolute morality. Note that it doesn't refer to a God, and is independent of religion.


You could take it as a statement of absolute morality, but it can lead to silly conclusions unless you qualify it with an array of subsidiary commandments. Should masochists go around hurting people? If I'd genuinely rather die than accept charity is it therefore moral to let someone starve? If it would please me for beautiful women to sneak into my bedroom and proposition me, should I therefore sneak into their bedrooms and proposition them? :)

[Earthborn]

I don't know exactly why I think it is wrong to drive nails into children's heads. But I'm pretty certain that it is, in fact, wrong to do so.Suppose a child had an accident and its skull is shattered. The only way to save it is for a skilled surgeon to repair the skull under sterile circumstances by nailing and screwing titanium plates to it. Still 'absolutely immoral' ?

Remember: absolute means that it is the same for everybody under all circumstances. So by definition there cannot be any exceptions.the Golden Rule, usually stated as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." is a statement of absolute morality.No it isn't. It makes what is moral completely relative to what 'you would have them do unto you.'

If something depends on something else (especially one's own wishes) it cannot be absolute.Most people who embrace relativism that I've run into will admit that they don't consider things like torture proper subjects for relativism.I fail to say why the subject of torture would be more difficult to discuss from a purely relativistic point of view. There are many people who consider torture not bad at all. Until we can prove objectively that they are wrong, I don't see how anyone can claim that 'torture' is absolutely bad. Just because I am of the opinion that it is bad is not good enough to show the absoluteness of it.

[Riddick]

@#1: don't forget to run spellcheck

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

The rational conclusion is that driving nails into children's heads is dreadfully wrong under almost any conceivable circumstances. Nonetheless, in really contrived circumstances it might be moral to do so. Say, if I demonstrated to you beyond any doubt that everyone in the world would be tortured to death unless you drove some nails into a child's head.

I don't think this really addresses the point. If I search for a moral absolute, I am not searching for a legal statement that will survive intense scrutiny if only I can forsee every circumstance. I'm not looking for something that will hold up in court. (Similarly to Earthborn's objection. I'm not trying to find a linguistic statement that covers every possible circumstance, and remains true in every possible circumstance. That is not what is meant by "absolute truth".

When discussing driving nails into children's heads, the columnist from the original post was not discussing whether in some circumstances it might be ok to drive nails into childrens' heads. She was discussing a particular example in which nails were driven into children's heads in order to murder them.

I am willing to say that we all find that action, murdering children, upsetting, and unless we simply say that there is no such thing as morality, we would all say that it is immoral.

But why? A moral absolutist would say that it is wrong because it is wrong. It is just plain wrong, dammit. A religious moral absolutist might go on to say that it is wrong because God said so, and God only says things that are absolutely true. A moral relativist would say that it is wrong because society has decreed that it is wrong, or in more general terms, it is wrong, relative to some defined notion of what is right. However, a different person might have some other notion of what is right, so what is right for you might not be right for me.

So when the Aztecs held down enemies and ripped their hearts out of their chests, there was nothing wrong with that, because according to the norms of their society, they were just doing the correct thing relative to what they believed their gods had told them to do.

I can't accept that, but I don't know if I could prove my case.

Pope Benedict, in his last homily as Cardinal Ratzinger, called such thinking, "the dictatorship of relativism". I hope he explains what he meant by that.



Should masochists go around hurting people?

This would not be an application of the Golden Rule, unless those other people were also known to be masochists. Inherent in any meaningful application of the Golden Rule has to be the state of mind of the persons involved. You might like to have beautiful women sneak into your bedroom because it gives you pleasure. I suppose if you truly believed that it would give them pleasure for you to do the same, then you ought to do that. Indeed, the average man eventually finds exactly one woman for whom that is true, and then indeed he ought to do that.

The key to the Golden Rule is not the specific actions that might be taken, but the notion that when performing an action that affects another person, you consider whether they will want that to happen, just as you would wish the same.

Meanwhile, Pope Benedict has a whole list of things he thinks are absolutely wrong. This will drive some people crazy for two reasons. Some will be upset that his list doesn't match theirs, and others will be upset that he dares to have a list.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
No it isn't. It makes what is moral completely relative to what 'you would have them do unto you.'


Interesting point. It does almost define absoluteness in relative terms. I'll have to think about that.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
Meanwhile, Pope Benedict has a whole list of things he thinks are absolutely wrong. This will drive some people crazy for two reasons. Some will be upset that his list doesn't match theirs, and others will be upset that he dares to have a list.

Yeah - that's sure to annoy the heck out of me. For the latter reason if not for the former. In fact for both. How dare he?

Oh yeah. He's the Pontiff.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by c4ts
Like that ever stopped Chick from perpetuating BS about Nazi-Catholic conspiracies before...

Even today there are still an ample number of cases demonstrating the anti-Semitism with which the Roman-Catholic Church has poisoned itself. Perhaps there was no conspiracy between the two institutions, but the teachings of Catholicism certainly helped to establish certain psychological segues—e.g. "The Jews killed Jesus!"—which the Nazis took advantage of to feed into the minds of the general public the ideas professed in their campaign of Jewish scapegoatism.
Originally posted by c4ts
The way I see it, at the time most Germans didn't see Hitler as bad, and Hitler Youth was something all the kids were doing, like the Boy Scouts.
That's the problem. They viewed Hitler as the messiah who rescued them from all the money-grubbing Jews.

[Batman Jr.]

From http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Licia_Corbella/2005/04/20/1004503.html
"We are moving towards a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires," the 78-year-old said.

The new pope nailed it. As the belief in absolutes diminishes, our society stumbles. People increasingly think that you determine what is right by what FEELS good. Only problem is, for Clifford Olson, that means raping children and driving nails into their skulls. For others, it's shooting drugs into their veins, and for others its stealing your car.
The best response to this distinction between "absolutism" and "relativism" is to point out that it's none other than "one's own ego and one's own desires" that causes a person to subscribe to the religious doctrines which comprise Catholicism.

I like how she adds that he's a "78-year-old." It sounds like she's trying to intimate that we're supposed to be so impressed that he can talk with at least coherent syntax if not with the benefit of meaningful content in this stage of his senility.

[arthwollipot]

Originally posted by c4ts
Like that ever stopped Chick from perpetuating BS about Nazi-Catholic conspiracies before...

The way I see it, at the time most Germans didn't see Hitler as bad, and Hitler Youth was something all the kids were doing, like the Boy Scouts.

So long as you imprison people who don't join the Scouts. Membership in the Hitler Youth was mandatory!

[Earthborn]

I'm not trying to find a linguistic statement that covers every possible circumstance, and remains true in every possible circumstance.Then you are not discussing an absolute. Things that are absolute do remain true in every circumstance, even hypothetical ones no matter how contrived.That is not what is meant by "absolute truth".What does it mean then, in your view?She was discussing a particular example in which nails were driven into children's heads in order to murder them.The problem word here is 'murder'. What constitutes 'murder' is socially defined, is different in different cultures. 'Murder' just means 'immoral killing' and killings that are not considered immoral within a culture are not considered murder.

It is easy to argue that an 'immoral killing' is immoral, because it is obviously true. But it is also circular. It tells us nothing about what characteristics an act must have to be considered immoral or murder.

The same is true if you argue that driving nails into children's heads is immoral when it is done in an immoral way or for immoral reasons. Then you end up defining something circularly instead of finding an absolute.So when the Aztecs held down enemies and ripped their hearts out of their chests, there was nothing wrong with that, because according to the norms of their society, they were just doing the correct thing relative to what they believed their gods had told them to do.And they probably considered the norms of their society absolute truths, to be honored at all cost.I can't accept that, but I don't know if I could prove my case.I'm fairly sure you can't.Pope Benedict, in his last homily as Cardinal Ratzinger, called such thinking, "the dictatorship of relativism". I hope he explains what he meant by that.Since he has studied theology long enough to understand what is meant by 'The Absolute' (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01060c.htm), I'm guessing that he means a morality without God.Interesting point. It does almost define absoluteness in relative terms.I don't think that quote defines absoluteness at all. But absoluteness must indeed be defined in relative terms. There is just no other way to define it. Or anything else.

[hammegk]

Ineresting concept for atheists to live by: The only Absolute is that there are no absolutes. ;)

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Ineresting concept for atheists to live by: The only Absolute is that there are no absolutes. ;) Where do you get your absolutes? Don't be slippery now, little toad. It's a simple question.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Where do you get your absolutes? It's a simple question.
Indeed. Does "MYOB" mean anything to you?

Originally posted by hgc

Don't be slippery now, little toad.
Not up to your minimal level of invective ... try again?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by hammegk
Indeed. Does "MYOB" mean anything to you?


I don't blame you for not sharing, hammegk. Considering the number of times you've been torn a new a-hole in threads where you do share your beliefs, it's probably for the best that you don't divulge any more.

I also suspect that you are only here to mock and ridicule others. Thus, you certainly don't want to leave yourself open for others to do the same to you.
Clearly you are a member in good standing of the "Can dish it out, but can't take it" club.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Considering the number of times you've been torn a new a-hole in threads where you do share your beliefs, it's probably for the best that you don't divulge any more.

Whatever you say, bunkie. Eh?

Go club a baby seal. Or find something to suck on ...

[Gestahl]

Originally posted by hammegk
Ineresting concept for atheists to live by: The only Absolute is that there are no absolutes. ;)

Hey, the only thing constant is change ;-).

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
Indeed. Does "MYOB" mean anything to you?Yes. It means that you don't have the answer to a most basic and simple question, which is, by the way, directly relevant to your post.
Not up to your minimal level of invective ... try again? But you've only just begun to make an ass of yourself in this particular thread. Try harder, and if you are deserving, I'll give you the top-drawer treatment.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by hgc
Yes. It means that you don't have the answer to a most basic and simple question, which is, by the way, directly relevant to your post.
Relevant? Did I propose something as "absolute" for me, personally? Are you, personally, looking for assistance in this regard?


But you've only just begun to make an ass of yourself in this particular thread. Try harder, and if you are deserving, I'll give you the top-drawer treatment.
Even your top-drawer insults are puerile. And sfaik, insults are all you have to offer.

[Dr Adequate]

Orignially posted by c4ts
Wait until Jack T. Chick finds out the Pope was in Hitler Youth. He is gonna have a field day with that... Pope joined authoritarian institution shock... bears may defecate in woods.

My Pope Poem (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56139).

[Meadmaker]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Earthborn

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is not what is meant by "absolute truth".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What does it mean then, in your view?

I shouldn't have used the phrase "absolute truth" because I was actually talking about "absolute morality", and here is what it means. It means that certain actions may be considered immoral or moral, independent of any personal or societal view. Something is "absolutely immoral" if its immorality does not depend on anyone's opinion of its immorality.

Let's go back to those Aztecs. It's a bright sunny day in Tenochtitlan in the 16th century, and an Aztec priest is about to cut the heart out of a prisoner. He thinks that if he does so, Huichilobos will be kind to his people. (Huichilobos is the name used in one Spanish account for the Aztec main war god. I can't remember what the Aztecs called him.)

Many of us would say that this act was an immoral one. I, for one, would say that it was in fact immoral.

Now I could say that it is always immoral to cut the hearts out of people while they are alive and without the use of anesthetic, and if we were discussing the "absolute truth" of that statement, we might try to find some circumstance under which such a thing is acceptable. However, that isn't what we are talking about. I am talking about that one specific incident which is about to occur. That priest. That victim. Those circumstances.

I have declared the action immoral. Why? I would say that it is simply wrong. It is absolutely wrong to do that. A moral relativist would say that it is wrong relative to the norms of our society. Our society condemns human sacrifice, so in our society, it is wrong. However, their society encouraged human sacrifice, so in their society, it was ok.

A lot of people use Nazis in their examples, but I like to use Aztecs, because Nazis are so easy to pick on, and nobody except a few wackos defends them. Aztecs, on the other hand, were bloodthirsty SOBs who routinely ripped the hearts out of their political opponents and POWs. Every bit as nasty as the Nazis, and just as hated by those they oppressed. Nevertheless, Aztecs have their defenders. A lot of people would say that they were acting in a perfectly normal way based on their own system of morality. That is the statement of a moral relativist. I, a moral absolutist, would say, "Hogwash. Decent people don't rip other people's hearts out."

How would I justify my condemnation of the Aztecs? There is no way to "prove" that ripping out hearts is absolutely wrong. But I would offer a few arguments.

Societal norms are often cited as the source for the relative measure against which morality is defined. I would say that there are certain actions which, if allowed to persist within a society, will result in the downfall of that society. Such actions might be considered absolutely wrong, because no set of society can sustain itself unless those actions are condemned. "Thou shalt not steal" is part of every society that actually provides a good life for its citizens, although there might be quibbling about exactly what "stealing" means, and when there might be exceptions. A society that accepts stealing as normal will collapse. If it is impossible to define a stable society that does not condemn a particular act, then that provides a strong argument that the act is absolutely wrong.

In the case of the Aztecs, their cutting out of hearts caused a great deal of hatred against them, and they were overthrown when the Spaniards showed up sparked a revolt. (The conquest of Mexico is often presented as if a few Spaniards showed up and conqured a united opponent through the use of superior technology, or immunity to smallpox. However, it is more accurate to say that the Spaniards showed up and sparked a rebellion against an unpopular regime. Then, with the aid or a truly horrific smallpox epidemic, they installed themselves as the new power.)

I have suggested the Golden Rule as a basis for determining whether or not an action is absolutely wrong, although Earthborn pointed out that the Golden Rule is an inherently relativist idea. Nevertheless, I still think that I might accept the statement that it is absolutely wrong to take an action that you would not wish done to you if the circumstances were reversed. I'll have to think about that some more, before I defend it further. However, it is absolutely true that I won't be able to get up for work in the morning if I don't go to bed, so that will be for some other day.






Since he has studied theology long enough to understand what is meant by 'The Absolute' (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01060c.htm), I'm guessing that he means a morality without God.

Perhaps. Probably. The part I hope he explains more fully is his characterization of relativism as a "dictatorship", as opposed to just some sort of doctrinal error.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Meadmaker

Now I could say that it is always immoral to cut the hearts out of people while they are alive and without the use of anesthetic, and if we were discussing the "absolute truth" of that statement, we might try to find some circumstance under which such a thing is acceptable. However, that isn't what we are talking about. I am talking about that one specific incident which is about to occur. That priest. That victim. Those circumstances.

I have declared the action immoral. Why? I would say that it is simply wrong. It is absolutely wrong to do that. A moral relativist would say that it is wrong relative to the norms of our society. Our society condemns human sacrifice, so in our society, it is wrong. However, their society encouraged human sacrifice, so in their society, it was ok.

Can you provide a citation where a self-professed moral relativist claims that the Aztec murder of prisoners is morally acceptable? When I search the web, I find lots of Christian sites that say that moral relativists find that action acceptable, but I cannot find any moral relativist that describe the action as acceptable. [to be fair, I will admit that I am not good at web searching]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
"Thou shalt not steal" is part of every society that actually provides a good life for its citizens, although there might be quibbling about exactly what "stealing" means, and when there might be exceptions. A society that accepts stealing as normal will collapse. If it is impossible to define a stable society that does not condemn a particular act, then that provides a strong argument that the act is absolutely wrong.


I don't understand how moral absolutism can discuss "when there might be exceptions" to an immoral act? If you are a moral absolutist, then wouldn't you provide the same moral condemnation for the starving man who steals food from a millionaire and the millionaire who steals food from a starving man?




Originally posted by Meadmaker

Nevertheless, I still think that I might accept the statement that it is absolutely wrong to take an action that you would not wish done to you if the circumstances were reversed.

But if I ask ten people to define when, if ever, stealing is permissable, I could easily end up with twelve different opinions. Where is the absolutism?

[username]

Originally posted by Ladewig

But if I ask ten people to define when, if ever, stealing is permissable, I could easily end up with twelve different opinions. Where is the absolutism?

If something is absolutely right or wrong it doesn't require anyone to agree that it is right or wrong to be what it is.

I have trouble understanding how anyone other than theists can believe in moral absolutes because to my way of thinking a creator diety is required for moral absolutes.

If the creator says such and such is wrong, then it is wrong because he is the boss and has the power/authority to make the rules. Every person can disagree that it is wrong, but it remains wrong 'because god says so'.

Lacking that omnipotent arbiter of morality there can be no absolute morality because there is no objective source for it to exist from.

Without a god morality can only be constructed by individuals and enforced by societies of like minded individuals. There is nothing about any one individual that makes his her morality the one true morality.

[Earthborn]

Huichilobos is the name used in one Spanish account for the Aztec main war god. I can't remember what the Aztecs called himHuitzilopochtli. (I had to look up the exact spelling)Our society condemns human sacrifice, so in our society, it is wrong. However, their society encouraged human sacrifice, so in their society, it was ok.I don't see how anyone could argue with that. In their society it was okay, and in ours it is wrong."Hogwash. Decent people don't rip other people's hearts out."By saying that, all you do is tell us your opinion of what decent people are supposed to be like. You do not show the absoluteness of that opinion.If it is impossible to define a stable society that does not condemn a particular act, then that provides a strong argument that the act is absolutely wrong.No, all you do is make your idea of morality dependent on (relative to) the stability of a society. If morality is absolute, it cannot depend on societal stability as it cannot depend on anything. With absolute morality something is moral or immoral, whether it leads to a stable society or not. So you are making a relativistic argument, not an absolute one.

Personally I think it is a bit silly to make morality dependent on the stability of a society. Many ancient civilisations survived hundreds or thousands of years while being totally ruthless. Would you say that slavery and gladiatory games are 'absolutely moral' ?

Remember that moral relativism does not mean that all cultural values must be accepted as equivalent and no morality is better than any other. For a relativist it is perfectly possible to argue that some cultures are more successful than others because they have specific values. Just like an evolutionary biologist can sum up the characteristics of animals and show that cheetahs are at an evolutionary dead end, and cockroaches have much better change of survival, a cultural anthropologist can try to explain why some cultures end up being confined to a few villages in a forrest and others spread around the world. Some moral values have better survivability than others, not because they are 'absolutely better', but because they happen to be better adapted to the human environment they depend on.Nevertheless, I still think that I might accept the statement that it is absolutely wrong to take an action that you would not wish done to you if the circumstances were reversed.Oh, is it? So a police officer commits an immoral act by throwing the crook in jail, because he would not want to be thrown in jail by the crook? Remember, absolute means: no exceptions.The part I hope he explains more fully is his characterization of relativism as a "dictatorship"Rhetorical exaggeration? Like when Shanek calls not being allowed to have a toilet than uses more than 6 liters of water per flush 'tyranny' ?

[Earthborn]

I cannot find any moral relativist that describe the action as acceptable.A moral relativist would say that it was acceptable in Aztec society and it is not acceptable in a modern Western society and that trying to discuss morality outside of societal norms is simply not meaningful.I don't understand how moral absolutism can discuss "when there might be exceptions" to an immoral act?A moral absolutist can't. By the very definition of absolutism, there cannot be any exceptions to it. The Pope is an absolutist, because according to him abortion is always wrong, euthenasia is always wrong, no exceptions. I don't think Meadmaker is much of a moral absolutist, but instead just wants to think his own society's values are superior to all the others. Which may even be true, if you measure it by his own society's moral yardsticks.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Earthborn
With absolute morality something is moral or immoral, whether it leads to a stable society or not. So you are making a relativistic argument, not an absolute one.



Hmmm, how is "All things that lead to stable society are moral. All things that lead to society not being stable are immoral" not an absolute statement of morality?

[Earthborn]

Hmmm, how is "All things that lead to stable society are moral. All things that lead to society not being stable are immoral" not an absolute statement of morality?Because it makes morality relative to the stability of society, not independent of all that exists.

And that is not the only problem with calling it absolute. What it means for a society to be stable is still a value judgement made by humans, and so is the assumption that a 'stable society' is somehow desirable.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't see how anyone could argue with that. In their society it was okay, and in ours it is wrong.

(Good points in your response. I'm only going to pick one, at least for the moment.)

Let's think about this for a moment. This is the statement of the moral relativist. It could be contrasted with my statement that it was wrong then and would be equally wrong today.

First, one might say that the Aztecs believed that their god ordered them to cut out hearts, while the Christian God did not. However, in each case, each of the actors, Christians or Aztecs, were just following what they believed to be the wishes of their deities. Therefore, they are really doing the same thing, according to the moral relativist. Each is doing the right thing, relative to the wishes that he believes his god wants.

I think there is something wrong with that statement. The two acts aren't as comparable as they might seem.

The nature of the disparity of the acts lies in the disparity of the gods. I left the Christian God capitalized above deliberately. This is not because I think he is more "real" than Huitziwhatsisname. This is because the word "God", for Christians is a proper noun, describing the one and only. Furthermore, one of the attributes of this God fellow is that he is all good. One follows him because he is right.

Huichilobos (I think I'll stick with the Spanish rendering. I can remember how to spell it.), by contrast, was not one almighty and all powerful being who was also all right and all good. He was just a very powerful spiritual being, who was capable of doing his friends favors if they were nice to him. Being "nice to him" consisted of cutting out hearts.

So the motive of a Christian, at least ideally, is to follow God because he is good. The motive of the Aztec was to make some god happy so they got fed, and if he wanted them to cut out some hearts, well then they would round up some enemies and cut out their hearts. They weren't trying to be good, in any sense of the word. They were just in it for their own good, and totally unconcerned with the welfare of their victims.

And so I feel justified in calling their actions absolutely wrong, in their society and ours. They were not doing what they thought was right. They were doing what they thought would get them some rain. Not the same thing.

username
If the creator says such and such is wrong, then it is wrong because he is the boss and has the power/authority to make the rules. Every person can disagree that it is wrong, but it remains wrong 'because god says so'.

For what it is worth, this is not what Pope Benedict will be preaching. Catholic doctrine does not say that immoral things are wrong "because God says so". Catholic doctrine teaches that things are either right or wrong, and that God only tells people to do the right things.

It's a subtle difference, but I find it relevant. I find it relevant because of its implications for atheism. It allows an atheist to find some common ground even with Pope Benedict. An atheist can reject the existence of God, but still say that some things are absolutely right or absolutely wrong, because God isn't really the author of right and wrong, he just happens to always be right.

I am one of those people who object to Pope Benedict because his list does not match mine, as opposed to just having a list.

For a related topic, look in your catechisms under "perfect acts of contrition" versus "imperfect acts of contrition".

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Because it makes morality relative to the stability of society, not independent of all that exists.
.

Not at all. The morality is independent of all that exists.

The actions that constitute that morality do depend on other factors, but that doesn't mean that the concept of morality is not based on an absolute standard.

My statement was a statement of morality that can always be applied without exception. That's as absolute as anything.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What it means for a society to be stable is still a value judgement made by humans, and so is the assumption that a 'stable society' is somehow desirable.
What a goofy thought, unless you actually believe society begins when you are born and ends when you die.

[hammegk]

.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Because it makes morality relative to the stability of society, not independent of all that exists.

And that is not the only problem with calling it absolute. What it means for a society to be stable is still a value judgement made by humans, and so is the assumption that a 'stable society' is somehow desirable.

So let's examine this. If I say that the morality of an action depends on the stability of a society, is that a statement of relative morality, because, "it makes morality relative to the stability of society".

No. Not if properly understood.

The premise of many moral relativists (who in pure form are extremely rare, defined largely by their detractors, but we'll ignore that for now) is that there is no absolute morality. Morality changes depending on the culture. As an example, Earthborn said "In their society it was ok, and in ours it is wrong".

But what if the very nature of an action is such that it destroys the society that allows it?

I'm not trying to make a value judgement when I say that something cannot be considered moral by a society if it leads to an unstable society. I'm not saying that stable is "good" while unstable is "bad".

What I am saying is that if a society defines something as acceptable, but the existence of that something promotes instability, then the society that defined it as acceptable will be replaced. When that happens, then the thing they defined as acceptable will no longer be acceptable.

The Aztecs said it was acceptable, even commendable, to cut out hearts. Very well, in their society it was ok. However, the fact that they cut out hearts made everyone hate them, and those oppressed by them rose up and destroyed them. The system of morality that encouraged cutting out hearts led to the destruction of that system of morality.

So what I am really saying is that an action cannot be "good" or "moral" if it destroys the entity that defined it as good.

I tend to think that societies that encourage celibacy are immoral for the same reason, but the case against them is less obvious.



Comments?

[Max560]

Originally posted by Valmorian
*SIGH* Good old Alberta, the "south" of Canada. Sometimes I'm ashamed of our province. :(

On the upside, there's no PST.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
I shouldn't have used the phrase "absolute truth" because I was actually talking about "absolute morality", and here is what it means. It means that certain actions may be considered immoral or moral, independent of any personal or societal view. Something is "absolutely immoral" if its immorality does not depend on anyone's opinion of its immorality.


The problem is that right and wrong are judgements formed in human brains, and there is no such thing as an objective way of measuring right and wrong. So the idea of something being right or wrong independant of a being who makes that judgement is nonsensical.

Even if there was such absolute moral law, I have no idea how we could ever be absolutely sure we knew it.


Let's go back to those Aztecs. It's a bright sunny day in Tenochtitlan in the 16th century, and an Aztec priest is about to cut the heart out of a prisoner. He thinks that if he does so, Huichilobos will be kind to his people. (Huichilobos is the name used in one Spanish account for the Aztec main war god. I can't remember what the Aztecs called him.)

Many of us would say that this act was an immoral one. I, for one, would say that it was in fact immoral.


I would, because I happen to think that such acts hurt people and deny them their preferences, and I happen to think that moral codes based on hedonism and preference satisfaction lead to better outcomes than moral codes based on doing the will of Huichilobos.

That's just an opinion in my brain, however. I don't pretend that it's Absolute Truth.


Now I could say that it is always immoral to cut the hearts out of people while they are alive and without the use of anesthetic, and if we were discussing the "absolute truth" of that statement, we might try to find some circumstance under which such a thing is acceptable. However, that isn't what we are talking about. I am talking about that one specific incident which is about to occur. That priest. That victim. Those circumstances.


It did sound much more like you were trying to articulate an absolute moral rule, rather than an absolute prohibition against a specific act in a specific time and place with specific actors.


I have declared the action immoral. Why? I would say that it is simply wrong. It is absolutely wrong to do that. A moral relativist would say that it is wrong relative to the norms of our society. Our society condemns human sacrifice, so in our society, it is wrong. However, their society encouraged human sacrifice, so in their society, it was ok.


A perfectly good illustration of one (of many) ways in which moral relativism fails to be moral in any useful sense.


I would say that there are certain actions which, if allowed to persist within a society, will result in the downfall of that society. Such actions might be considered absolutely wrong, because no set of society can sustain itself unless those actions are condemned.


You can't get an absolute moral prohibition out of speculation like this, since you don't know what will and won't cause societies to collapse. In any case throughout history societies have survived despite people getting away with theft and murder in some circumstances.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a given society might be a bad society, and it might be best if it collapsed. If that could ever be the case, then this route to absolute moral guidance is a dead end.


"Thou shalt not steal" is part of every society that actually provides a good life for its citizens, although there might be quibbling about exactly what "stealing" means, and when there might be exceptions. A society that accepts stealing as normal will collapse. If it is impossible to define a stable society that does not condemn a particular act, then that provides a strong argument that the act is absolutely wrong.


Well, no. It provides a strong argument that it's wrong in any society you can envision but that doesn't make it absolutely wrong by a long chalk.

A sufficiently energy-rich advanced civilisation might well have no need to condemn stealing since none of its citizens lack for any of their wants.


I have suggested the Golden Rule as a basis for determining whether or not an action is absolutely wrong, although Earthborn pointed out that the Golden Rule is an inherently relativist idea. Nevertheless, I still think that I might accept the statement that it is absolutely wrong to take an action that you would not wish done to you if the circumstances were reversed. I'll have to think about that some more, before I defend it further.


That isn't going to work.

Imagine you are in charge of putting a ten year old to bed and the ten year old doesn't want to go to bed. How do you apply the Golden Rule, without slipping into the trap of doing unto others whatever you think is best for them? There seems no hope of finding absolute morality down that path.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
The problem is that right and wrong are judgements formed in human brains....
The problem is the blind faith that this statement is 'correct'; that, and the selection of the appropriate time-scale against which some specific behavior is being evaluated by human brains.

[Chaos Trigger]

As far as I've read utterances from our new pope, (2 texts) he first creates fear of the unknown and then comes up with his solution to the problem. He's wasting some of our energy with this, in his conversion attempts.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The morality is independent of all that exists.

The actions that constitute that morality do depend on other factorsIt seems you are contradicting yourself.that doesn't mean that the concept of morality is not based on an absolute standard.I think you need to clarify that, because I think it means exactly that.My statement was a statement of morality that can always be applied without exception. That's as absolute as anything.No, it is circular: whatever people think contributes to the stability of the society is moral, and whatever people think is moral is what constitutes stability of their society.Originally posted by hammegk
What a goofy thought, unless you actually believe society begins when you are born and ends when you die.I don't think I have ever claimed that I am the only person who makes value judgements. There were people before me who did, and there will be people after me who will.

[Earthborn]

who in pure form are extremely rareRare doesn't mean wrong. People who are somewhat able to understand quantum physics are also very rare.I'm not trying to make a value judgement when I say that something cannot be considered moral by a society if it leads to an unstable society. I'm not saying that stable is "good" while unstable is "bad".Then again you are not making a moral absolutist argument, but a relativistic one. Maybe that's why there appear so few moral relativists: some of them think they are moral absolutists, when in actuality they are not. :)So what I am really saying is that an action cannot be "good" or "moral" if it destroys the entity that defined it as good.What if everything is destined to be destroyed one day and that everything bears the seeds of its own destruction? And what if some forms of society end up in a cycle where one is replaced by the other and later the other is replaced by the one?

Suppose a dictatorship is unstable: one day people will be so fed up with authoritarian rule that they replace it with something more democratic.

Suppose a democracy is unstable: one day people will be so fed up with all the wishy-washy compromises that make everybody equally unhappy, that they will vote for an authoritarian ruler.

Both are unstable, because both bear the seed of their own destruction. Which one is the most moral?I tend to think that societies that encourage celibacy are immoral for the same reason, but the case against them is less obvious.Here in Europe we have a very wide spread use of contraceptives. Because of it, birthrate has dropped below replacement level, meaning that very slowly (we live an awful long time) we are going extinct. It will destroy our society, so does that mean that allowing people to freely choose birthcontrol is immoral? Maybe you think it is (your fellow moral absolutist the Pope does) but I think you'll have a very difficult time explaining why to anybody.

[Earthborn]

Originally posted by hammegk
The problem is the blind faith that this statement is 'correct'; that, and the selection of the appropriate time-scale against which some specific behavior is being evaluated by human brains.What does that mean? Please explain.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Even if there was such absolute moral law, I have no idea how we could ever be absolutely sure we knew it.

Aye, there's the rub. The absolute moral law is indeed unknowable and unverifiable.

So what shall we do? One approach would be to simply allow anything and everything, on the grounds that none of this really matters anyway, so whatever you want to do is just fine with us.

But that doesn't work very well as a society or as a species. Human beings have the capability of making moral judgements, and I believe those moral judgements can help us in our own lives and in helping other people. Furthermore, I think when we, as a society, give up on moral judgements, the results are questionable. It tends to lead toward societal decay, which also tends to limit individual health and freedom. Therefore, I believe it is the duty of every individual to try and search for the absolute truth, and the absolute moral law, in whatever way suits him.

And, recognizing that the absolute moral law is indeed unknowable and unverifiable, one should limit the efforts to enforce what you believe to be the absolute moral law to those cases where you are incredibly certain that you have got it right.

In practical terms, applied to my own life, that makes me a moral absolutist, who almost never advocates restrictive laws. One suspects that Pope Benedict is a bit more certain about his knowledge of the absolute, and would therefore be more willing to impose his version on the public. Fortunately, Pope Benedict has practically no power to do so. Unfortunately, George W. Bush is also a moral absolutist who seems to feel much certainty, and he has a lot more power than Benedict.




Imagine you are in charge of putting a ten year old to bed and the ten year old doesn't want to go to bed. How do you apply the Golden Rule, without slipping into the trap of doing unto others whatever you think is best for them? There seems no hope of finding absolute morality down that path.

I don't have to imagine anything, except that my kid is six instead of ten. This is a daily part of my life. However, the golden rule applies easily. Here is my comment that you were referencing, " Nevertheless, I still think that I might accept the statement that it is absolutely wrong to take an action that you would not wish done to you if the circumstances were reversed." The important part of the phrase is "if the circumstances were reversed".

A very similar situation occurred last Wednesday, which describes these circumstances and the application of the Golden Rule quite well.

I am a 42 year old man who cannot swim. This year, I decided to take swimming lessons. I was talking to my instructor, and I mentioned it was almost time for my son to start summer swimming lessons. He doesn't want to go to swimming lessons. However, I told my instructor that I knew how much I missed out on while I was growing up because I could not swim. I didn't want my kid to miss out, so he will be forced to go to swimming lessons, even though he doesn't want to.

I am applying the Golden Rule. I know that I wish my parents had forced me to stick with swimming lessons until I learned to swim. Instead, they gave in and let me get off. I am now "doing unto" my kid the way I wish someond had "done unto" me. The fact that he doesn't like it isn't relevant. The Golden Rule requires you to treat others the way you would wish to be treated, not the way they wish to be treated.

I must admit, though, punitive actions, especially when applied to adults, are especially difficult to reconcile with the Golden Rule. I have been contemplating whether there is ever any case where moral action contradicts the Golden Rule. In the case of punitive measures, I might have found such a case. It seems to me moral to lock up criminals, but I'm not sure that the Golden Rule can be applied in such a case.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
What if everything is destined to be destroyed one day and that everything bears the seeds of its own destruction?

Buddhism teaches that everything will pass away, and I occaisionally claim to be Buddhist. (I don't practice these days, but I have in the past, and I've never read any core Buddhist teachings that I disagree with.) So if societal stability is a key to moral absolutism, at least with regard to societal morals, can this be reconciled? I think so, because neither I nor Buddhism agree with the second part of the question.

I do think that everything is destined to pass away, but I don't think everything bears the seeds of its own destruction. Moral societies may pass away, indeed at some point they will. However, they don't destroy themselves.

Suppose a democracy is unstable: one day people will be so fed up with all the wishy-washy compromises that make everybody equally unhappy, that they will vote for an authoritarian ruler.

My opinion is that the self-destruction of democracies is not inevitable. With proper gardening, the seeds of destruction can be removed. That's just my belief. If i'm wrong, then I don't see how anyone can claim that Democracy is inherently more moral than Authoritarianism.

Here in Europe we have a very wide spread use of contraceptives. Because of it, birthrate has dropped below replacement level, meaning that very slowly (we live an awful long time) we are going extinct. It will destroy our society, so does that mean that allowing people to freely choose birthcontrol is immoral?

I think that a society that destroys itself is, in fact, immoral. However, I don't think Europe is in danger of disappearing soon, and I think if depopulation became a real problem, it's easy enough to correct, and I think it would be corrected. Therefore, I would not disallow birth control. Also, if an immoral society was on the verge of destroying itself through non-reproduction, the solution would not necessarily be to force reproduction. The society is immoral. Let it die and a moral one will replace it.

And if the whole darned species destroys itself through non-reproduction? Well, that's evolution for you. Their immorality wiped them out.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
A very similar situation occurred last Wednesday, which describes these circumstances and the application of the Golden Rule quite well.

I am a 42 year old man who cannot swim. This year, I decided to take swimming lessons. I was talking to my instructor, and I mentioned it was almost time for my son to start summer swimming lessons. He doesn't want to go to swimming lessons. However, I told my instructor that I knew how much I missed out on while I was growing up because I could not swim. I didn't want my kid to miss out, so he will be forced to go to swimming lessons, even though he doesn't want to.


This is precisely the trap I mentioned earlier of doing unto others whatever you think is best for them.

Suppose a sixty year old man knew how much he had missed out on because he didn't take up kickboxing at 42. By your reasoning, since he really wishes someone had held a gun to his head and made him do kickboxing when he was your age, it would be moral for him to go around to your house with a gun and make you take up kickboxing.

You don't want to do this (or at least I imagine you don't), but if your situations were reversed this sixty year old would honestly prefer that you force him to be a kickboxer.

The Golden Rule just doesn't work well when it comes to forcing other people to do things against their will.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Suppose a sixty year old man knew how much he had missed out on because he didn't take up kickboxing at 42. ...
The Golden Rule just doesn't work well when it comes to forcing other people to do things against their will.

I'll have to think about this. If person A sincerely believes that person B would want to do action X if person B understood the true situation, should person A force him to do X against the will of person B.

That is what the Golden Rule calls for.

While I can't imagine any sane person believing that another person would want to be forced into kickboxing lessons at 42 under circumstances you have described, I can think of similar issues that aren't too much different from what you described, in principle. (Example: Mandatory seat belt laws. If people understood the benefits, they would wear seat belts. Rather than trying to convince them of the benefits, the government just forces them to wear seat belts. That's the Golden Rule in action.

Example 2: Pope Benedict sincerely believes that people who perform abortions go to Hell. If he can convince politicians to outlaw abortions, he saves people from Hell, which is what they would want if they understood the "truth" about Hell. Is Benedict morally obligated to campaign against abortion, and is this an application of the Golden Rule.)

Is it right to force people to do things that are good for them? More thoughts to come.

[hammegk]

Boy am I dumb. I read "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and think that means do what others prefer to have done to them by me, as I prefer to have what I like done to me by them.

And yeah, someone will toss out a meaningless red herring about sadists & masochists. :(

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by hammegk
Boy am I dumb. I read "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", and think that means do what others prefer to have done to them by me, as I prefer to have what I like done to me by them.

And yeah, someone will toss out a meaningless red herring about sadists & masochists. :(

That would be, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

[Meadmaker]

I've given some thought to forcing 42 year olds to kickbox. Let's see if I can articulate a response.

Let us postulate the existence of a psychopath who happens to have more or less dictatorial powers. This particular psychopath is a hard-core, fanatical devotee of martial arts, and he believes, with all the sincerity that his twisted mind can pull together, that there is no one who would not benefit from kickboxing instruction.

As long as we are calling him a lunatic, we might as well make him really wacky. He believes that the age of 42 is the ideal age for the commencement of kickboxing instruction. Good Feng-shui, or something.

What does the Golden Rule tell him to do? It tells him he must force those people into kickboxing lessons. He "understands" that if he were in that position, he would want to be forced into kickboxing because even if he didn't appreciate it at the time, he would some day, in his next life probably, be much better off because he learned kickboxing at age 42 of his last life. (Which is all he lived to because he had a heart attack and died in the ring.)

So is it moral or immoral to force them into kickboxing? A moral relativist would say that it is neither, because it all just depends on personal or societal values.

Pope Benedict would probably be against it, but I'm not sure exactly how he would justify his opposition.

Max Brimstone, head of Christian Americans Against Satan, would be against it, because everyone knows that martial arts are really just eastern mysticism, and eastern mysticism is really just the work of Satan.

But what about me, a self identified, although tentative, Golden Rule Absolutist.

I would have to say that he is, indeed, morally obligated to force those people into kickboxing lessons.

However, I, a citizen, also have a moral obligation. I see people forced into kickboxing against their will. I would not want to be forced into kickboxing against my will. If someone tried to force me into kickboxing classes, I would want someone else to help me. So, "doing unto me", would consist of rescuing me from kickboxing. Therefore, I would be obligated to assist others in escaping kickboxing by, for example, attempting to overthrow the psychopath and removing his dictatorial powers.

One other element of this equation is that you are obligated to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That might appear to mean that you should do unto others whatever you think is good for them. That's not quite true. If you think something is good for them, but you aren't sure, you shouldn't impose your will on them. If someone else had some ideas about what would benefit you, but they were wrong about those ideas, would you want them doing unto you against your will? I think not. Don't do unto others unless you are pretty darned certain you would have them do unto you the same way.

So, its interesting to note that the Golden Rule might require two different people to do two different things. In that sense, Earthborn is right, in that it makes what is absolutely required relative to personal moral values.

And what would Kevin say? We know that you wouldn't want to force 42 year olds into kickboxing, but why not? Is it just an opinion? Is it absolutely wrong? On what grounds would you say it is wrong?

P.S. Probably an unfortunate example. My wife and son are both studying Tae Kwon Do, and I'm jealous. I would love to study it as well. I just don't want to spend the money for lessons. If GWB convinced congress to pass mandatory kickboxing laws, I would think I was on the receiving end of a benefit. But your point is well taken nonetheless.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
But what about me, a self identified, although tentative, Golden Rule Absolutist.

I would have to say that he is, indeed, morally obligated to force those people into kickboxing lessons.


I think we could extend this idea, by assuming that there are other things Mr Kickboxing Keeno wishes he had done at your age, to show that it would be perfectly moral to spend all of your time going around bullying other people into living the way you think they should.

For me that verges on being a conclusive reductio ad absurdam for this take on the Golden rule, although I can just barely see how others could differ.


However, I, a citizen, also have a moral obligation. I see people forced into kickboxing against their will. I would not want to be forced into kickboxing against my will. If someone tried to force me into kickboxing classes, I would want someone else to help me. So, "doing unto me", would consist of rescuing me from kickboxing. Therefore, I would be obligated to assist others in escaping kickboxing by, for example, attempting to overthrow the psychopath and removing his dictatorial powers.


Similarly it seems to me to present a problem for a moral system that claims to be absolute if two moral people can morally kill each other over what is moral within the bounds of the system.

So, its interesting to note that the Golden Rule might require two different people to do two different things. In that sense, Earthborn is right, in that it makes what is absolutely required relative to personal moral values.


Yay, consensus.


And what would Kevin say? We know that you wouldn't want to force 42 year olds into kickboxing, but why not? Is it just an opinion? Is it absolutely wrong? On what grounds would you say it is wrong?


I am a utilitarian when you get right down to it, and I do not think forcing people to do things they hate works out very well most of the time. Partially because people get less out of an activity they are forced to pursue than they do out of an activity they pursue of their own volition, but mainly because people are much happier when they have confidence that nobody is allowed to come along and coerce them "for their own good".

If people were different and liked being told what to do, or if the good were great enough, then I could be talked into morally endorsing the act of making someone take up kickboxing at gun point.

I would not call either judgement absolute because how you weigh up the costs and benefits is very much a matter of human judgement. We lack the capability to project a happyometer eighteen years into the future along different time streams to make concrete measurements of how happy our acts will make other people over the long run. So there will always be scope for reasonable people to disagree. Some people think conscription is a good idea, for example, and that is really a very similar proposal.


P.S. Probably an unfortunate example. My wife and son are both studying Tae Kwon Do, and I'm jealous. I would love to study it as well. I just don't want to spend the money for lessons. If GWB convinced congress to pass mandatory kickboxing laws, I would think I was on the receiving end of a benefit. But your point is well taken nonetheless.

P.S. Tae Kwon Do is a fun sport. I can't knock it as a fun sport. Some woos do like to spread the misconception that it has some utility for self defence above and beyond the strength and fitness benefits it brings however, so when people bring it up I feel obliged to mention that the available objective evidence tends to indicate that tae kwon do is relatively useless as a means of training for an unarmed confrontation. Or at least that is what is shown whenever people fight unarmed in front of video cameras.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
That would be, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."
Perhaps, if you treat life as a zero-sum game, and today's actions have no effect on the future.

Is sociability inherited, or learned?

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

I am a utilitarian when you get right down to it, and I do not think forcing people to do things they hate works out very well most of the time.

So what do you think of morality? If there is a case where doing unto someone else in a negative fashion would work out quite well for you, but not so well for him, is it immoral? From a utilitarian point of view, you win, he loses. No net loss as far as all humanity is concerned. So why not?

I contemplated that problem for a while. If there is no God, then, I thought, there should be no absolute morality. And if that was the case, then deciding what to do was just a matter of being expedient, and I couldn't come up with any logical reason not to behave selfishly.

However, that whole thought pattern left me a bit empty. I decided that, even if I couldn't justify it rationally, the Nazis and Aztecs weren't just acting out of there own sense of morality. They were wrong. Really wrong.

And I decided that the essence of their moral failings was not killing, but selfishness. There's plenty of killing in the world, and I don't condemn all of it all the time. But the Nazis lied about a people and killed them because they thought somehow it would do them some good, and the Aztecs killed people because it helped keep them in line, and maybe because they thought Huichilobos would send down some rain, for them, not for their victims. That struck me as wrong, not just from a utilitarian standpoint, but just plain wrong.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
So what do you think of morality? If there is a case where doing unto someone else in a negative fashion would work out quite well for you, but not so well for him, is it immoral? From a utilitarian point of view, you win, he loses. No net loss as far as all humanity is concerned. So why not?


I think it is generally true that people prefer to live in a society where people don't do each other over for personal benefit, and so it works out well for everyone if we socially and legally discourage such behaviour. That's why not.


I contemplated that problem for a while. If there is no God, then, I thought, there should be no absolute morality. And if that was the case, then deciding what to do was just a matter of being expedient, and I couldn't come up with any logical reason not to behave selfishly.


If everyone behaved selfishly it might work out worse for everyone than if everyone cooperated. The famous Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates one such scenario.


However, that whole thought pattern left me a bit empty. I decided that, even if I couldn't justify it rationally, the Nazis and Aztecs weren't just acting out of there own sense of morality. They were wrong. Really wrong.


Sure. They caused enormous amounts of suffering.


And I decided that the essence of their moral failings was not killing, but selfishness. There's plenty of killing in the world, and I don't condemn all of it all the time. But the Nazis lied about a people and killed them because they thought somehow it would do them some good, and the Aztecs killed people because it helped keep them in line, and maybe because they thought Huichilobos would send down some rain, for them, not for their victims. That struck me as wrong, not just from a utilitarian standpoint, but just plain wrong.

I suspect that if you try to define "just plain wrong", you'll run straight into all the problems we've already pointed out to you about claiming to believe in moral absolutes.

[Earthborn]

And if that was the case, then deciding what to do was just a matter of being expedient, and I couldn't come up with any logical reason not to behave selfishly.You can't? I find it very easy to come up with such reasons. It is even possible to come up with reasons to behave non-selfishly for completely selfish reasons: if you behave not too selfishly people will like you and treat you nicely and you can get things done from them that benefit yourself.

On the otherhand you can also have a logical reason not to behave selfishly for non-selfish reasons, if you value the happiness of others.the Nazis and Aztecs weren't just acting out of there own sense of morality. They were wrong. Really wrong.No, we think they were wrong. They didn't think they were wrong. There is no right or wrong independent of what anyone thinks.And I decided that the essence of their moral failings was not killing, but selfishness.They would have thought that when their victims resisted they did so out of selfishness. "How selfish of them to want to cling on to their own lives if their death can save thousands from the wraith of the Gods." "How selfish of them to demand that they be spared, burdening the Master Race to care for inferior races."

So it is not very useful to claim 'selfishness' is wrong. A group of people characterises those, who advocate something they consider immoral, always as 'selfish'.

[c4ts]

If the basis of morality is in the structure and survival of a functioning community, then certain models won't work even if everybody thinks they are right, since they are still self-destructive.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You can't? I find it very easy to come up with such reasons.


Good point. What I meant to say was that I could not come up with an reason that I should feel compelled to behave non-selfishly. I might still do so because I want people to like me, or just because my brain is wired so that I do it that way, but I couldn't come up with a moral reason to do so.


There is no right or wrong independent of what anyone thinks.


And thus you prove yourself to be that most rare of creatures, a true moral relativist.

But I wonder, in other places you have strongly argued for one point or another, in discussing appropriate social policy, for instance. Why does it matter? Or are your attempts at persuasion merely attempting to convince people to support causes that you also agree with or because they will benefit you, not because your position on the issues is somehow better than anyone elses.

Is our outrage at the Nazis just something we feel because they were creating a world we wouldn't like, or is it because they were wrong.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


I suspect that if you try to define "just plain wrong", you'll run straight into all the problems we've already pointed out to you about claiming to believe in moral absolutes.

And if the ultimate goal of human existence were to provide definitions, then that sort of problem would be something to worry about.

If, on the other hand, your goal was to do the right thing, whatever that means, then the fact that you run into a problem sometimes would just be a challenge to attempt to overcome.

Most of us have gone through some sort of mental exercise where a hypothetical situation is posted and you are to answer, "What would you do?" Such as, "3 people are on a spaceship. There is only enough oxygen left to get two people back to Earth. What is the right thing to do?"

Is the correct answer always, "There is no right or wrong answer."

At some point in my life, I concluded that there was no God, and so there was no absolute morality. As my life has gone on, I became more and more convinced that there was an absolute morality. If I failed to define it or articulate it, that was fine, because it would be a bit of a conceit to say that I should be able to define such a thing, and it would be even more arrogant to say that if I cannot define it, it does not exist.

Lately, I am even questioning whether or not my materialist views could possibly be correct, because pure materialism really would force one to the logical conclusion that there is no right or wrong. If I am sure that such a thing exists, then I have to question materialism as a philosophical position.

[Earthborn]

And thus you prove yourself to be that most rare of creatures, a true moral relativist.Rare does not mean wrong.But I wonder, in other places you have strongly argued for one point or another, in discussing appropriate social policy, for instance.I can't right now think of any social policy I argued strongly for. The way I see it, I mainly question other people's favourite social policies.Or are your attempts at persuasion merely attempting to convince people to support causes that you also agree with or because they will benefit youIs there any other kind of persuasion?not because your position on the issues is somehow better than anyone elses.Remember: relativism means that things depend on other things. Moral relativism means that morality depends on the moralities of people and the circumstances in which moral issues play a role. It does not mean, and it has never meant, that it is impossible to judge one kind of morality better than another. People do it all the time. Of course whether we judge one morality better than another depends on our own sense of morality.

I can condemn the morality of a mass murderer and it is easy for me to claim that my own morality is superior to his. I just realise that my own morality is superior according to my own standards.Is our outrage at the Nazis just something we feel because they were creating a world we wouldn't like, or is it because they were wrong.Both. They were trying to create a world we wouldn't like and that's why we feel outraged. But they were also objectively wrong because what they were trying to achieve was logically impossible. They tried to make their people (I wish the English language had a seperate word for 'Volk') stronger by elliminating those they considered weak. That was error in their thinking. My left eye is worse than my right, and my left arm is weaker than my right arm, but I do not become stronger by plucking my left eye out and chopping my left arm off. Similarly a people does not become stronger by removing the weak, you'll just end up with fewer people who are on average stronger. They were wrong because it is impossible to achieve the thing they wanted to achieve the way they tried to achieve it. To understand that, no moral judgement is necessary about whether their goal is desirable or not.

[kerfer]

Originally posted by Jas
Calgary Sun Column (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Calgary/Licia_Corbella/2005/04/20/1004503.html)



I think I'm definitely writing a letter to the editor with this one. So far, I've got:


Any suggestions for the letter, or comments about this column?

Not bad for a first draft...there are a lot of good suggestions here.

My suggestion is to change the IPU(pbuh) to something a little more mainstream...the IPU(pbuh) may be a little too much of a rec.atheism inside joke (that has gotten out of the bag). Maybe instead of the IPU(pbuh) hunting club (I am appalled that one would even think of hunting such a divine and marvelous creature, unmatched in her pinkness, except in her invisibility) (in saying so, I must admit here that I have been called a heretic over the whole pizza doctrine, but I claim it is they that commit heresy, as pizza with pineapple is foul, and she would never command such a thing. That is a mistranslation of the original texts, we believe), you may wish to use gnomes or trolls or fairies or elves, or anything else that the washed :-o will realize is a make believe entity...but I like the 'president of the club' angle.

Maybe something along th lines of "the president of the Pots of Gold at the End of the Rainbow Society." (PoGatEotRS)

You may be going a little off track with your slam about the lack of women priests. It sorta makes it look like that may be your issue, rather than you don't give a rat's patoot about what the leader of a religion that you don't believe in says as long as it doesn't affect you. Maybe you do have an axe to grin on this point, I dunno, but it didn't seem to fit with what I thought you were trying to say.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
I can't right now think of any social policy I argued strongly for.

Unless I totally missed the point, you were strongly supportive of gay marriage, or, at the very least, you were strongly opposed to any policy that was perceived to discriminate against homosexuals.

Is that correct? And was your objection, assuming it existed, based on a position that it was immoral to discriminate against homosexuals, or merely that there was no logical basis for discrimination against homosexuals, which would mean that those who wished to do so were making an error of fact, in the same way that the Nazis made an error of fact by assuming that destroying the Jews would make the world a better place.


They were trying to create a world we wouldn't like and that's why we feel outraged.

Perhaps that's all it was. Maybe.

For my part, I don't think that Poland without Jews is a whole lot worse place than Poland with Jews, so the practical effect of the holocaust was rather neutral to me. To me, it seems that the outrage I feel was not against the practical effect of the holocaust, which is what I mean by "a world we wouldn't like", but rather at the act itself.

I am not sure that the world today is a worse place, in any way, as a result of the Holocaust. Nevertheless, I will condemn it as wrong.

You are correct that you are not necessarily wrong, just because your beliefs are rare. As a materialist, I reached the conclusion that moral relativism was the only logical position. If there was no soul, no God, and if consciousness was just an incidental consequence of the manner in which the matter of our brains was arranged, then moral relativism is the only logical belief system.

But, just now, contemplating that sentence, I think I understand what Benedict, in his last homily as Cardinal Ratzinger, meant by the "dictatorship of relativism". I found that belief oppressive. In contemplating what I ought to do, I kept coming back to the belief that it didn't matter. That nothing mattered. That even my thoughts about what mattered did not matter, because I did not even have free will about what thoughts to think. If my brain were wired slightly differently, I would think something else. It was a totally oppressive, perhaps even dictatorial, belief system.

Of course, that doesn't make it incorrect.

On the other hand, it doesn't feel right. I feel like I have free will. I feel like my consciousness is more than just an illusion. I feel like the Nazis and Aztecs were not just simply acting out of some different value system, but were in fact just evil. And so, I am questioning materialism, and am much more open to the possibility of the existence of God, although not one much like Pope Benedict's.

And if I am wrong, I can be comforted that I have no choice but to be wrong.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
At some point in my life, I concluded that there was no God, and so there was no absolute morality. As my life has gone on, I became more and more convinced that there was an absolute morality. If I failed to define it or articulate it, that was fine, because it would be a bit of a conceit to say that I should be able to define such a thing, and it would be even more arrogant to say that if I cannot define it, it does not exist.


It looks like you are in a bit of a muddle.

You are convinced that X exists. You cannot define X. You cannot say why you have fixed the belief that X exists, except perhaps that believing in X makes you happy.

That sounds a lot like some people's belief in God.


Lately, I am even questioning whether or not my materialist views could possibly be correct, because pure materialism really would force one to the logical conclusion that there is no right or wrong. If I am sure that such a thing exists, then I have to question materialism as a philosophical position.

That would be a silly thing to do.

I would like it if there were an absolute morality. I would even like it if there were a genuinely omnibenevolent, omnipotent being keeping an eye on us. However I do not believe either of these things just because it would be nice or because it would make me feel better.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
However I do not believe either of these things just because it would be nice or because it would make me feel better.

But if you believe materialism, then you believe or do not believe whatever it is that you believe because you have no choice but to believe them.

[Earthborn]

Unless I totally missed the point, you were strongly supportive of gay marriageOh, yeah. That.you were strongly opposed to any policy that was perceived to discriminate against homosexuals.

Is that correct?Not quite. I am strongly opposed to any policy that segregates people based on arbitrary biological differences such as biological sex, or arbitrary social constructs, such as gender. I am not specifically in favour of or against gay marriage (that's something couples need to decide for themselves) but I am against government registering gender. I see no need for it and it just makes things needlessly complicated.And was your objection, assuming it existed, based on a position that it was immoral to discriminate against homosexualsI do believe it is immoral to discriminate against homosexuals simply based on the Golden Rule you mentioned. People don't like to be discriminated against, so they shouldn't discriminate others. The prohibition of same-sex marriage (as it still exist in the more backwards countries of the Western world) has little to do with discrimination against homosexuals, and has everything to do with discrimination against people on the basis of the M or F on their government papers.

Further it can be argued that same-sex marriage is the logical result of an ideology that exists in the Western World: that marriage should ideally be a voluntary union between people who love eachother. Once that concept was accepted logic dictates that same-sex marriage should be accepted as well.To me, it seems that the outrage I feel was not against the practical effect of the holocaust, which is what I mean by "a world we wouldn't like", but rather at the act itself.That "world we wouldn't like" is not solely characterised by having a Poland without Jews. It also means a world where people are judged by their ruthlessness, on arbitrary physical characteristics and where anyone who shows any weakness is eliminated. I would not want to live in such a world, and I doubt I'd survive for very long.If my brain were wired slightly differently, I would think something else. It was a totally oppressive, perhaps even dictatorial, belief system.In this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54850&postid=1870853260) Mercutio tells the story of a man that shows that such belief can also be liberating. His 4th post on that page.On the other hand, it doesn't feel right. I feel like I have free will. I feel like my consciousness is more than just an illusion.It does not feel right to you. I am perfectly comfortable with it. The way most people understand free will is something I am fairly certain I do not have. I don't feel that my consciousness is an illusion, but I also don't see how it is qualitatively different from what Kismet (http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/humanoid-robotics-group/kismet/kismet.html) experiences.I feel like the Nazis and Aztecs were not just simply acting out of some different value system, but were in fact just evil.They were evil. They were just evil according to your (or my) definition of evil.And so, I am questioning materialism, and am much more open to the possibility of the existence of GodI don't see why a belief in God would help you with your emotional objections against materialism and relativism. If God exists he could have made you a purely material being, a biological robot. And unless you know God's thoughts and morality, it won't provide you with an absolute morality. Suppose God favours the Nazis, what would you do then?And if I am wrong, I can be comforted that I have no choice but to be wrong.You can be influenced by outside stimuli like the argumentation of others.

[Meadmaker]

Interesting thoughts, but I'll be gone on a business trip for a week. I'll probably think about this and post something in a week.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
But if you believe materialism, then you believe or do not believe whatever it is that you believe because you have no choice but to believe them.

That makes no difference to whether or not my beliefs are correct.

[Meadmaker]

Earthborn,
I don’t know if Benedict will drive you crazy, but you will certainly drive Benedict crazy.

Perhaps the need to find something beyond the material is a trick played on us by evolution. For many years I said that I was a materialist, and that free will was just an illusion. Along with that, you have to acknowledge that “good� and “evil� are just made up terms with no absolute meaning.

I, like many others, found myself doubting those beliefs and seeking an alternative after my child was born. If there was no spiritual realm, and no good, no free will, and no evil, then there was no particular need to make sacrifices for my child. There was no need to worry if I was doing the right thing for him. Indeed, there was no particular need to keep him alive unless you count the legal consequences that arise from child neglect or abuse. Certainly there would be no need to spend my nights worrying that his sniffles might actually be a vicious form of influenza that would take his life during the night. After all, who cares? His consciousness was no more valuable than Kismet’s, so why should I worry that it might be snuffed out?

Perhaps, in order to prevent this, evolution plays a trick on homo sapiens, wiring his brain to think he is special, so that he will preserve his offspring and allow his genes to reproduce.

It’s possible, and I know no way to test the hypothesis. On the other hand, it is also possible that there is a different explanation. Buddhist teaching says that matter actually arises from consciousness, and not the other way around. I also don’t know how to test that hypothesis, but I have found myself drawn to that notion. Among the two untestable hypotheses, the latter is much more attractive to me, both emotionally and intellectually.

Emotionally, it makes my life and that of my son have some potential value. Intellectually, it solves some other problems relating to the existence of consciousness and the problem of the first cause. Partly in both cases, it gives meaning to my concern about ethics and morality. If materialism is real, then ethics and morality aren’t meaningful except as they allow us to form societies which help us reproduce, and perpetuate our genes. However, if there is something other than the material, then it is possible that my feeling that certain actions are just plain evil, even if no one thinks they are evil, is justified.

Originally posted by Earthborn
I do believe it is immoral to discriminate against homosexuals simply based on the Golden Rule you mentioned. People don't like to be discriminated against, so they shouldn't discriminate others.

That makes sense to me, and it seems a good foundation for supporting non-discrimination.

But is it discrimination to recognize genuine differences, and treat them appropriately? Some of us think that our biological sex is pretty important. If you refuse to recognize my biological sex in any manner, then are you treating me the way I want to be treated?


Further it can be argued that same-sex marriage is the logical result of an ideology that exists in the Western World: that marriage should ideally be a voluntary union between people who love eachother. Once that concept was accepted logic dictates that same-sex marriage should be accepted as well.

This isn't part of this thread, but since this thread has been dead for a week I hope I can be forgiven a bit of a derail. I just wanted to say that I couldn't agree more with this statement. It is absolutely right on the money.

And that's why I have really difficult problems with gay marriage. The idea that "marriage should ideally be a voluntary union between two people who love each other" misses the point entirely. Once you accept the false premise, then I agree with the conclusion, that same sex marriage has to be accepted.

The idea that “love� and “marriage� are somehow related has caused a lot of incorrect thinking about marriage. I think there should be an institution that is a voluntary union based on love, and I think that institution should be open to any two or more sentient beings who want to participate. I just don’t think that’s marriage.



Originally posted by Earthborn
I don't see why a belief in God would help you with your emotional objections against materialism and relativism. If God exists he could have made you a purely material being, a biological robot. And unless you know God's thoughts and morality, it won't provide you with an absolute morality. Suppose God favours the Nazis, what would you do then?You can be influenced by outside stimuli like the argumentation of others.

Good point. It isn't the existence of God that would help me, as such. When it comes to a God that is anything much like what the Christians call God, I don't believe in one. However, the existence of consciousness that is not inherently tied to matter is the significant part. If consciousness arises from matter, then it disappears when the arrangement of matter that produced consciousness disappears. Furthermore, free will is nonexistent, because our actions, and even our thoughts, are bound to the physical laws that move electrons and other matter.

If consciousness creates matter, whether the consciousness of man, God, rocks, or whatever, then we don't know if consciousness is bound by "laws" in the way matter appears to be. Free will then has meaning, and the possibility of the existence of "good" and "evil" becomes worth discussing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
...arbitrary social constructs, such as gender. I can't think of very many instances where it would be appropriate to discriminate based on gender. Choosing a female gynecologist because one feels more comfortable with a female gynecologist is appropriate I think. Selecting women to model bras is appropriate.

Women as Doctors, Basketball Players, Welders, Soldiers, Fire Fighters, Police Officers, etc. Men as nurses, maids, housekeepers, etc. Gender should absolutely not be a basis for discrimination.

Gender as an "arbitrary social construct"? What do you mean?

If you mean that cultural views of gender and the roles and comparative value of different groups in society based on gender are arbitrary "social constructs" then I absolutely agree.

If you mean that the determination of gender is largely environmental and not genetic then I don't at all agree.

The term "social construction" (http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Social_construct)

It is the job of science to quantify and categorize. It is not perfect but it does a pretty good job. Dismissing observable biological differences does not solve anything. Trying to use science to right sociological ills is wrong. On the contrary while it is well intentioned it potentially can cause more problems than those it could possibly solve.

Please see the case of David Reimer (http://www.learner.org/channel/courses/biology/archive/images/1506.html)

Brenda and Brian are identical twins. Brenda was born a male and named Bruce. After a botched circumcision, scientists believed it was best to change him into a girl. This case, termed the "Joan/John case" in medical literature, has been used often in the argument for nurture's role in the gender identity. At 14, Brenda shed her upbringing as a female and began to live as a male. He took the name David, and has said that he never felt right as a female, disproving what the scientists believed: that nurture could fully override his genetic makeup.X + Y = Z An account of the John/Joan case, in which doctors tried to turn a baby boy into a girl. (http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/02/20/reviews/000220.20angiert.html)

[Earthborn]

I don't know if Benedict will drive you crazy, but you will certainly drive Benedict crazy.And I am not even an atheist! :)Perhaps the need to find something beyond the material is a trick played on us by evolution. For many years I said that I was a materialist, and that free will was just an illusion.Maybe. I just think that it isn't much of an illusion; I'm not fooled.Along with that, you have to acknowledge that "good" and "evil" are just made up terms with no absolute meaning.Like all words.If there was no spiritual realm, and no good, no free will, and no evil, then there was no particular need to make sacrifices for my child.No teleological need. It is just that the parents who do are better able to pass their genes unto the next generation and if some of those genes influence then in worrying that much, their children will too.After all, who cares?Apperently you do. Is that not enough justification?Emotionally, it makes my life and that of my son have some potential value.But it also means that you can never know that value. What if God or whatever considers your life or that of your son as being of negative value and wants you both destroyed? You'll never know.

I personally think the subjective and relative value is much more comforting because it least it is knowable: there is the value of your son to you - and if you do your job well - the value of you to your son.However, if there is something other than the material, then it is possible that my feeling that certain actions are just plain evil, even if no one thinks they are evil, is justified.You don't believe anything is evil if no one else thinks it is evil. Your beliefs about what is evil is influenced by others.But is it discrimination to recognize genuine differences, and treat them appropriately?Please give an real life example.If you refuse to recognize my biological sex in any manner, then are you treating me the way I want to be treated?If I refuse to recognise your biological sex then I simply refuse to recognise an objective reality. If you want to be treated differently because of your biological sex, you are just demanding special treatment.I think there should be an institution that is a voluntary union based on love, and I think that institution should be open to any two or more sentient beings who want to participate. I just don't think that's marriage.So what do you think marriage is? Or should be?

This concept of marriage is the one most commonly recognised in the Western World. Maybe your concept of marriage is so different that same-sex/gender marriages can be fairly excluded, but that does not mean it has any relevance to the issue of such marriages.When it comes to a God that is anything much like what the Christians call God, I don't believe in one.Are you sure? If you believe in some abstract entity that provides an absolute morality, then I don't think your concept is all that much different from that of Pope Benedict's.Free will then has meaning, and the possibility of the existence of "good" and "evil" becomes worth discussing.But are they then knowable? If they are not, then you'll end up with a bigger problem because you'll never know whether you do 'good' or 'evil' whatever you do.

[Earthborn]

Choosing a female gynecologist because one feels more comfortable with a female gynecologist is appropriate I think.Only because someone has learned to feel that way because of cultural attitudes.Selecting women to model bras is appropriate.Only because culture has defined bras as women's clothing.(snip) Basketball Players (snip) Gender should absolutely not be a basis for discrimination.And yet most sports remain strictly segregated on gender...Gender as an "arbitrary social construct"? What do you mean?

If you mean that cultural views of gender and the roles and comparative value of different groups in society based on gender are arbitrary "social constructs" then I absolutely agree.I mean that gender = "cultural views of biological sex and the roles and comparative value of different groups in society based on biological sex"

As such it is a social construct.Dismissing observable biological differences does not solve anything.I don't dismiss any observable biological differences.Trying to use science to right sociological ills is wrong.Why?Please see the case of David ReimerIrrelevant. I haven't said anything about 'gender identity', which is something else entirely.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Earthborn
Only because someone has learned to feel that way because of cultural attitudes. Agreed, but still apropriate.

Only because culture has defined bras as women's clothing. Should culture not define them as such?

And yet most sports remain strictly segregated on gender. Doesn't negate my point.

I mean that gender = "cultural views of biological sex and the roles and comparative value of different groups in society based on biological sex" Distinctions noted, doesn't change anything, we are as far as I can tell in agreement on this. Though I think the term "gender" is getting a bad rap though not completly without some reason.

Why? I can't imagine how I could have worded something so poorly. Misusing science to correct social ills is wrong. Pretending that there are no differences between men and women to correct social ills is wrong.

Irrelevant. I haven't said anything about 'gender identity', which is something else entirely. Gender identity was at one point behind much of the arguments a decade or so ago that posited that there are no real differences between men and women and therefore there should not be distinctions be men and women.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by Earthborn
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it discrimination to recognize genuine differences, and treat them appropriately?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please give an real life example.


My relationship with my wife is totally inseparable from my relationship with my son, whom she bore.

My identity as a man allowed me and my wife to get together and create our son.

My identity as a man allows me to be a potential father in conjunction with those who have identities as women. If someone has selected a gender role that society identifies as female, "she" still can't bear my child, unless she happens to be a real woman and has a functioning reproductive system.



So what do you think marriage is? Or should be?

This concept of marriage is the one most commonly recognised in the Western World.



This isn't Benedict's view of marriage. Catholic teaching is that marriage exists for the purpose of creating children. It's more complicated than that, as is usually the case with Catholic doctrine, but the bottom line is that marriage and kids are completely inseparable in Catholic teaching.

The usual objection to this statement is that both mainstream society and the catholic church allow marriages among people who, for whatever reason, cannot have children. From a Catholic perspective, this objection is easily disposed of. The institution of marriage has a purpose. The fact that there are people admitted to the institution that cannot share this purpose doesn't change the purpose. Furthermore, if God wants them to share this purpose, they will, as happened with Abraham and Sarah.

And this is what will drive atheists crazy about Benedict. He will doggedly insist that this view of marriage is the correct one, and no amount of mainstream thought will sway him.

As for me, I don't agree completely with Benedict on marriage, but I do think that we, as a society, need to somehow recognize our roles as actual or potential parents, and somehow recognize those roles in societal institutions. The religious arguments related to marriage make that difficult to enact in legislation, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Furthermore, I respect Benedict for sticking to his beliefs, despite pressure to get along by going along. I don't think his beliefs on marriage are ridiculous. I just don't fully agree with them.


Are you sure? If you believe in some abstract entity that provides an absolute morality, then I don't think your concept is all that much different from that of Pope Benedict's.


My own view is that absolute morality is not provided by some abstract entity. My own view, which is rather fluid and subject to change at the moment, is that absolute morality exists. It isn't "provided".

What I reject, based on evidence, is a historical God that takes a personal interest in human beings through miraculous intervention. A more abstract, deistic, God is a possibility. Also, I am agnostic on the issue of anything which ought to reasonably be called "God", but I am strongly leaning toward a view of consciousness that makes it somewhat separate from matter.


But are they then knowable? If they are not, then you'll end up with a bigger problem because you'll never know whether you do 'good' or 'evil' whatever you do.


They are certainly not provable or verifiable. But are they "knowable". I am leaning toward a belief that they are. Intuitively, almost all of us seem to have similar beliefs about what is good and what is not good. Some manage to rationalize bad things, like death camps and human sacrifice, but independent observers don't take those people seriously. We tend to look at Aztecs and Nazis and say that they were acting out of selfish interests unrelated to any desire to do good.

I am leaning toward the belief that if one sincerely attempts to discover what is good and what is evil, that you can learn something about those, and be more likely to do one or the other.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Meadmaker
My own view is that absolute morality is not provided by some abstract entity. My own view, which is rather fluid and subject to change at the moment, is that absolute morality exists. It isn't "provided".For what it's worth, I think this does approach Benedict's point of view on the matter. I very much doubt that he believes absolute morality is provided or defined in any anterior sense by God. The Catholic perspective on this, as I understand it, is generally not that the good is good because God calls it so, but that God necessarily calls it so because it is good.

[Ladewig]

"Thou shalt not steal" is part of every society that actually provides a good life for its citizens, although there might be quibbling about exactly what "stealing" means, and when there might be exceptions. A society that accepts stealing as normal will collapse. If it is impossible to define a stable society that does not condemn a particular act, then that provides a strong argument that the act is absolutely wrong.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Well, no. It provides a strong argument that it's wrong in any society you can envision but that doesn't make it absolutely wrong by a long chalk.

A sufficiently energy-rich advanced civilisation might well have no need to condemn stealing since none of its citizens lack for any of their wants.

Can you explain that last part? I can imagine a society energy-rich enough that if my bicycle, car, or stereo were stolen I could easily replace it. But what if I use my spare time to create a painting - one that I am very proud of and that I enjoy immensely. If someone steals that painting, then no amount of free energy is going to allow me to replace it. I am harmed and thus that theft should be condemned.

[Meadmaker]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
The Catholic perspective on this, as I understand it, is generally not that the good is good because God calls it so, but that God necessarily calls it so because it is good.

I stand corrected. In fact, I made the same point somewhere upthread.

[Earthborn]

My relationship with my wife is totally inseparable from my relationship with my son, whom she bore.

My identity as a man allowed me and my wife to get together and create our son.I don't see what this has to do with gender/sex differences. I'd imagine that if you had a daughter instead of a son, you would have a relationship with her that was in many ways similar to your relationship with your son you have now, but quite different from your relationship with your wife. So it is not a dinstinction of sex but of the type of relationship.The institution of marriage has a purpose.Have you considered that the Church institution of marriage may not have the same purpose as the government institution of marriage?I do think that we, as a society, need to somehow recognize our roles as actual or potential parents, and somehow recognize those roles in societal institutions.That's fine. But it still does not give a justification to limit marriage to people with an M in their passport to people with an F in their passport. M-M or F-F couples can also be actual or potential parents.My own view, which is rather fluid and subject to change at the moment, is that absolute morality exists.Where does it exist? And how can we know about it?Intuitively, almost all of us seem to have similar beliefs about what is good and what is not good.That's true, but it doesn't help you find the absoluteness of morality. People have similar ideas of what is good and bad, but they did not come up with those ideas independently. Those ideas became similar because people are influencing eachother. Some manage to rationalize bad things, like death camps and human sacrifice, but independent observers don't take those people seriously.There are no independent observers. All observers make their moral judgements using the values of the society they come from.We tend to look at Aztecs and Nazis and say that they were acting out of selfish interests unrelated to any desire to do good.No, that's just you. :)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Can you explain that last part? I can imagine a society energy-rich enough that if my bicycle, car, or stereo were stolen I could easily replace it. But what if I use my spare time to create a painting - one that I am very proud of and that I enjoy immensely. If someone steals that painting, then no amount of free energy is going to allow me to replace it. I am harmed and thus that theft should be condemned.

A good point.

If the society is sufficiently advanced you could probably have an identical copy constructed for you I suppose, but essentially you have a point.

Then again, in a rich enough society such thefts might not be seen to matter. They might be the equivalent of calling people bad names, offensive and very slightly immoral but not worth invoking the law over.