Are there moral absolutes, or does everything just boil down to opinion?

bobcat

bobcat

Well-known Member
Location
Northern Calif
When we say someone is wrong, what we often mean is they are incorrect, but morality is a different thing, and it can lead one to wonder if there is an objective morality that is independent from personal viewpoint. For instance, Is it wrong to lie? Is capital punishment wrong? Is abortion wrong? Is it wrong to kill, and if so, why do we order soldiers to do it?

It doesn't seem to exist in nature, but humans seem to have some innate sense of right and wrong, but even that can change over time and in certain conditions. The Bible tells us that God says Thou Shalt Not Kill, but then commanded the Israelites to go in and kill the inhabitants of the land, which would seem to indicate that it's OK sometimes (Moral relativism vs moral absolutism).

So how can we make laws based on right or wrong, if it is subjective? If there were absolutes, then they would exist everywhere and at all times. But if right or wrong boils down to opinion and viewpoint, then how do you legislate morality from a legal perspective?
 

So how can we make laws based on right or wrong, if it is subjective? If there were absolutes, then they would exist everywhere and at all times. But if right or wrong boils down to opinion and viewpoint, then how do you legislate morality from a legal perspective?
Click to expand...
IMO...I think any situation can be subjective, but when it crosses a line, it becomes an absolute. That's what laws were created for, to determine where that line is. Different levels of charges, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, murder 2, murder 1.
 
For instance, there is no law to post threads here about almost anything except "politics", and any knowingly illegal pictures/videos. We all possess a different moral makeup. In this particular subject there volumes of books, and studies, and even professions that address the very complex variables that the citizens of a particular region make their laws. It seems some are universal, but they are not. Somewhere whatever is bad in most places is Ok there. Always exceptions to every rule. So we better be nice, or Santa Claus won't leave us any presents.
 

caroln said:
IMO...I think any situation can be subjective, but when it crosses a line, it becomes an absolute. That's what laws were created for, to determine where that line is. Different levels of charges, justifiable homicide, manslaughter, murder 2, murder 1.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess it's a bit scary when you think about it. The fate of what is moral and just, ultimately lies in the hands of 9 people on the Supreme Court. Even then, they are often divided on what they think, and sometimes it comes down to one person who casts the vote that decides for 300 million in the U.S., and it is simply based on that person's subjective view of life.
 
Paco Dennis said:
For instance, there is no law to post threads here about almost anything except "politics", and any knowingly illegal pictures/videos. We all possess a different moral makeup. In this particular subject there volumes of books, and studies, and even professions that address the very complex variables that the citizens of a particular region make their laws. It seems some are universal, but they are not. Somewhere whatever is bad in most places is Ok there. Always exceptions to every rule. So we better be nice, or Santa Claus won't leave us any presents.
Click to expand...
Yeah, don't want to end up on the "naughty list", even though it sometimes may be fun.
 
Humans are the ones who created ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for their own advantage. There is no right or wrong in nature. Storms, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods aren’t right, wrong, good or bad but mankind has made it that way and then has the audacity to blame our creator since it’s not on our preference list.

We created polarities and morally dedicated right, wrong, good and bad.

In my opinion, it’s done for power and control over people. The same reason why churches and religions were made. Even religions fight over which is right, wrong, better , worse etc. Thats not to suggest that religion has no good points; it certainly does but mankind is a greedy species that takes advantage whenever the opportunity arises.
 
bobcat48 said:
then how do you legislate morality from a legal perspective?
Click to expand...
Tough one

Not looking good these days
Morality has been placed on the back burner, seems

The Bible talks about it in Timothy;

4 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils,

2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron,
 
bobcat48 said:
So how can we make laws based on right or wrong, if it is subjective? If there were absolutes, then they would exist everywhere and at all times. But if right or wrong boils down to opinion and viewpoint, then how do you legislate morality from a legal perspective?
Click to expand...
I think all laws are subjective, because they arise from public opinion. Even Biblical law is subjective as your example taken from the Bible of "Thou shalt not kill," clearly demonstrates. Believing based on the depth of your opinion and emotion in an absolute, does not make it absolute. It's still opinion albeit a strong one, and often agreed upon by society at large.

There are many serious issues, like murder and theft, that are so vile, even to a marginally logical person, that they are viewed as absolutes. Even criminals recognize them, even though they ignore them.
 
bobcat48 said:
how do you legislate morality from a legal perspective?
Click to expand...
You can't. But it is possible to put in place laws that are for the good of society.

Murder in civilian life & military were used as an example. Both have something in place to deter what society determines as wrong.

Degrees of murder pointed out in Carolyn's post.
there is this for military.
The rules of war, or international humanitarian law (as it is known formally) are a set of international rules that set out what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict. The main purpose of international humanitarian law (IHL) is to maintain some humanity in armed conflicts, saving lives and reducing suffering
 
Thou shalt not kill was intended for personal issues, not military. No one back then ever thought it meant military.

eta
he Bible tells us that God says Thou Shalt Not Kill, but then commanded the Israelites to go in and kill the inhabitants of the land,

God's people were not the Gentiles, the rules in Old Testament applied for Israelites only, not goyim.

Considering yourselves part of the Old Testament: cultural appropriation.
 
Last edited:
PeppermintPatty said:
Humans are the ones who created ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ for their own advantage. There is no right or wrong in nature. Storms, earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods aren’t right, wrong, good or bad but mankind has made it that way and then has the audacity to blame our creator since it’s not on our preference list.

We created polarities and morally dedicated right, wrong, good and bad.

In my opinion, it’s done for power and control over people. The same reason why churches and religions were made. Even religions fight over which is right, wrong, better , worse etc. Thats not to suggest that religion has no good points; it certainly does but mankind is a greedy species that takes advantage whenever the opportunity arises.
Click to expand...
I guess the conundrum is that, if we pass laws on assisted suicide, rape, child abuse, and a thousand other things, how do we justify those laws if they are simply a matter of personal opinion? I don't know the answer, but I do find it perplexing.
 
The Bible is so full of contradictions that it absolutely cannot be used as a basis for "right and wrong." Even though it probably reflects most of the moral values of the Jews who lived 2000-3000 years ago, it is full of contradictions, many of them well-known. And the Bible is considered a "holy" book by only a fraction of the people on earth. So let's take a more secular look.

I believe that saying killing is always wrong makes no sense. There are clearly situations where killing is the only thing left to do (self defense, for instance). I think probably we can usually say murder is wrong (as opposed to "killing",) And war is too complicated to say right or wrong, in every situation. Who is the aggressor and who is the defender? What about wars to liberate innocent people from death camps or slavery, for instance? Maybe saying right and wrong don't fit here. It's more a question of "necessary."

Abortion is a topic that needs a thread of its own. Very few people would classify all abortions, in absolutely any circumstances, as right or wrong.
In general, human behavior is too complicated to lump it all into being either right or wrong. Each situation is different.

Interesting topic for discussion.
 
Knight said:
You can't. But it is possible to put in place laws that are for the good of society.

Murder in civilian life & military were used as an example. Both have something in place to deter what society determines as wrong.

Degrees of murder pointed out in Carolyn's post.
there is this for military.
The rules of war, or international humanitarian law (as it is known formally) are a set of international rules that set out what can and cannot be done during an armed conflict. The main purpose of international humanitarian law (IHL) is to maintain some humanity in armed conflicts, saving lives and reducing suffering
Click to expand...
Perhaps true, but not always followed. The Bay Of Pigs attempted invasion of Cuba to unseat Castro was an example. Maybe it was a lesson learned along the way to a better sense of right and wrong.
 
Sunny said:
The Bible is so full of contradictions that it absolutely cannot be used as a basis for "right and wrong." Even though it probably reflects most of the moral values of the Jews who lived 2000-3000 years ago, it is full of contradictions, many of them well-known. And the Bible is considered a "holy" book by only a fraction of the people on earth. So let's take a more secular look.

I believe that saying killing is always wrong makes no sense. There are clearly situations where killing is the only thing left to do (self defense, for instance). I think probably we can usually say murder is wrong (as opposed to "killing",) And war is too complicated to say right or wrong, in every situation. Who is the aggressor and who is the defender? What about wars to liberate innocent people from death camps or slavery, for instance? Maybe saying right and wrong don't fit here. It's more a question of "necessary."

Abortion is a topic that needs a thread of its own. Very few people would classify all abortions, in absolutely any circumstances, as right or wrong.
In general, human behavior is too complicated to lump it all into being either right or wrong. Each situation is different.

Interesting topic for discussion.
Click to expand...
So it would seem then that right or wrong is conditional. If it is deemed a just cause by that individual or group of people, then it becomes "necessary", and thereby the right judgment.
 
bobcat48 said:
It doesn't seem to exist in nature, but humans seem to have some i. The Bible tells us that God says Thou Shalt Not Kill, but then commanded the Israelites to go in and kill the inhabitants of the land
Click to expand...
Incorrect interpretation of what was said in the Bible. God meant no such thing. This was not a conquest to wipe out the Cananites, it was requiring Joshua and the Israelites to end the practices of this group. The problem was not with the Cananites but their cultural practices and idolatory rather than ending their lives.
If one is going to quote the Bible you must know the meaning behind the words...the language etc that was used in those times.
 
bobcat48 said:
I would agree, but would that also mean that the Israelites were wrong then by victimizing those occupying the land they wanted?
Click to expand...
No, because they were the choosing, chosen people. This is not my personal opinion, this is historical fact......the belief system of their time.
 
We as a species are a mixture of ignorance and knowledge. We need laws to keep us all in line. We need a government to limit what we do. Otherwise we'd be at the mercy of roaming lawless mobs. No I don't trust people to make up their own moral decisions. We have been around long enough to know what works and what doesn't. Therefore, we are without excuse.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top