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

[Sunny]

I think the problem with this whole question of right and wrong is that it's too general. People who say there is no such thing as gravity are wrong. People who say the earth is 5,000 years old are wrong. People who say that Covid vaccines do more harm than good are wrong. These things are scientifically verifiable, and those facts that are proven by the latest, state-of-the-art science can be considered "right" until disproved by even more advanced science. But it has to be provable science, not beliefs inculcated by what is considered holy.

Right and wrong when it comes to ethical behavior is not even applicable. All we can say is, "I BELIEVE that so-and-so would be right in this situation," not that anything is automatically right or wrong. There are general principles, but there are always exceptions.

So what are we left with? Well, electing lawmakers and judges who will make the "right" decisions is one way to begin. And there will always be differences of opinion. If enough people believe a law is unjust, in a free society at least, they can change the law.

What if you're stuck in a cruel, totalitarian regime? Probably then, war is the only thing that is "right."

 

[Murrmurr]

Animals have no inherent concept of morality, Their behavior is determined by what's good for the species. Since humans are just a more evolved animal, I would say we instinctively have no morals either. Our beliefs and actions are imposed on us by the society we live in, mostly because it's perceived as a benefit to that society. It becomes ingrained in that culture and is passed down.

I think we do, though.

Let's say the old story about cavemen choosing a wife really did involved bonking a woman over the head with a club and dragging her home. At some point, enough of them said "You know what?...that just isn't right" to effect change.

People do have a conscience about what is and isn't just. And while I'd agree it likely requires a normal brain (as opposed to an abnormal or impaired one), having a conscious could be entirely instinctual.

 

[bobcat]

I think:
You can't legislate morality.
It's OK to kill but not to murder.

There is no sin in the eyes of God.
Sin does not exist, only an absence of right.
Even the hells are part of God's plan.
This cannot be understood without explanation
and this forum is not the place.

In the relative field of life, values change according
to circumstances, time and surroundings.
The scope of vision in the human mind is restricted
and cannot be an adequate judge of right and wrong
when you set this against the unlimited multiverse.

Basically, If an action produces a good influence everywhere,
it is considered right. Where discord is created, it's said to be bad.
From a higher perspective, all souls are evolving toward
eternal contentment, to the absolute in nature, and all is
occurring as it should.

I know my views conflict with doctrines, dogma, teachings.
I know I stand alone in my beliefs, but that's fine.

This is an interesting and thought provoking question!

Interesting views, as always, and I'm sure you're right about the "God's plan" discussion. That would probably be a fool's errand here.
I did wonder though about the part I highlighted. How does one determine that.

For instance, the bombs dropped on Japan that helped put and end to that war. Was it good or bad, right or wrong? It didn't create a good influence on the innocent people who lost their lives that day, and I'm sure it created discord, but it did prevent a full invasion by an oppressor. Perhaps we may not know the right answer because we just don't know everything, and it is just a matter of viewpoint. I don't know.

 

[bobcat]

That's why an appeals process was created.

And bear in mind, the judgement of those 9 people must be made within the legal framework of our Constitution and their impartial interpretation of it.

Moreover, whether through individually elected federal and state congressional representatives, grassroots movements, or with their own voice, citizens have the legal right and means to demand the Constitution be further defined, amended, and otherwise changed.

To your points, I am assuming the appeals process you mentioned wasn't in reference to the Supreme Court.

I would politely disagree that the judges there are all impartial to their interpretation of the Constitution. We have some liberal justices, and some conservative ones, and they interpret the Constitution through the lens of their bias views. I think it would be absolutely wonderful if they could set those aside, but it doesn't happen as often as we would wish. When liberals have the majority, you have a better chance of getting rulings that favor liberal matters, and vice versa.

As for amending the constitution, it can happen, but you have to have a 2/3 majority, which we haven't seen in some time. Most of the time voting is down party lines, with the exception of a few that have backbone (A rare species in congress).

Anyway, just my opinions, and that's all it is.

 

[MarkD]

People do have a conscience about what is and isn't just. And while I'd agree it likely requires a normal brain (as opposed to an abnormal or impaired one), having a conscious could be entirely instinctual.

And some might argue that conscience is just the internalization of familial/tribal prohibitionists. But I don't tend toward reductionism. I think I agree with you that we have an innate sense of right and wrong morally (as dogs do as well) which families and societies try to nurture and shape. In the same way, we have an innate appreciation of beauty and truth. No one arbitrarily decides what is beautiful or ugly. Given recent US national politics, it is harder to say that no one arbitrarily decides what is true or alternative - but even there of course it isn't arbitrary, it is merely self-serving.

In Jonathon Haidt's The Righteous Mind, he argues that morality is deeper than our rational thoughts about it. To describe the intellect's relation to moral behavior he used the metaphor of a mahout sitting on the neck of an elephant to direct is movement. The elephant is obviously much more powerful than the mahout and the latter's ability to direct the former is pretty limited. He says that the mahout, our intellect, spends most of its energy rationalizing or apologizing for the offenses the elephant commits. To actually behave morally requires having a functional relationship with the elephant. Its intuitions are also our own. What's the saying? I have met the enemy and it is me.

 

[Murrmurr]

To your points, I am assuming the appeals process you mentioned wasn't in reference to the Supreme Court.

I would politely disagree that the judges there are all impartial to their interpretation of the Constitution. We have some liberal justices, and some conservative ones, and they interpret the Constitution through the lens of their bias views. I think it would be absolutely wonderful if they could set those aside, but it doesn't happen as often as we would wish. When liberals have the majority, you have a better chance of getting rulings that favor liberal matters, and vice versa.

As for amending the constitution, it can happen, but you have to have a 2/3 majority, which we haven't seen in some time. Most of the time voting is down party lines, with the exception of a few that have backbone (A rare species in congress).

Anyway, just my opinions, and that's all it is.

Those aren't just your opinions, they're facts.

But where I mention appeals, that would include the Supreme Court. As you know, particularly in constitutional matters, when a person isn't satisfied with a lower court decision, they have a right to take their appeal to the Supreme Court.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

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.

When I stated that humans created the idea or right or wrong, I didn’t mean that none of these concepts aren’t necessary or justified. Logically if we want to live in a civilized world then we can’t all act like the Vikings did. Laws were made to protect individuals from harm and possible death from others.

But even animals practice rape, and even some kill their mate or even their young and eat them. I not sure they know it's wrong.

We don’t even understand humanity. We certainly don’t have all the answers to the entire animal kingdom but the praying mantis , the black widow spider, scorpions, Kalutas, arachnids, amphipods, copepods, and gastropods all kill and eat their male counterparts right after mating. It’s in their DNA to do so. Many even eat their own young.

10 Animals Who Die Immediately After Mating

I don’t believe we have murderous intentions written in our DNA.

 

[Murrmurr]

And some might argue that conscience is just the internalization of familial/tribal prohibitionists. But I don't tend toward reductionism. I think I agree with you that we have an innate sense of right and wrong morally (as dogs do as well) which families and societies try to nurture and shape. In the same way, we have an innate appreciation of beauty and truth. No one arbitrarily decides what is beautiful or ugly. Given recent US national politics, it is harder to say that no one arbitrarily decides what is true or alternative - but even there of course it isn't arbitrary, it is merely self-serving.

In Jonathon Haidt's The Righteous Mind, he argues that morality is deeper than our rational thoughts about it. To describe the intellect's relation to moral behavior he used the metaphor of a mahout sitting on the neck of an elephant to direct is movement. The elephant is obviously much more powerful than the mahout and the latter's ability to direct the former is pretty limited. He says that the mahout, our intellect, spends most of its energy rationalizing or apologizing for the offenses the elephant commits. To actually behave morally requires having a functional relationship with the elephant. Its intuitions are also our own. What's the saying? I have met the enemy and it is me.

There's another saying, "I have a gut-feeling." If that's instinct, dog's get a gut-feeling, too. If it isn't, then it likely refers to the sayer's moral compass.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

To your points, I am assuming the appeals process you mentioned wasn't in reference to the Supreme Court.

I would politely disagree that the judges there are all impartial to their interpretation of the Constitution. We have some liberal justices, and some conservative ones, and they interpret the Constitution through the lens of their bias views. I think it would be absolutely wonderful if they could set those aside, but it doesn't happen as often as we would wish. When liberals have the majority, you have a better chance of getting rulings that favor liberal matters, and vice versa.

As for amending the constitution, it can happen, but you have to have a 2/3 majority, which we haven't seen in some time. Most of the time voting is down party lines, with the exception of a few that have backbone (A rare species in congress).

Anyway, just my opinions, and that's all it is.

I don’t think it’s humanly possible for mankind to be completely unbiased.

 

[Murrmurr]

We certainly don’t have all the answers to the entire animal kingdom but the praying mantis , the black widow spider, scorpions, Kalutas, arachnids, amphipods, copepods, and gastropods all kill and eat their male counterparts right after mating. It’s in their DNA to do so. Many even eat their own young.

We do understand why that happens; why the fertilized female will eat the male...her brood greatly benefits from that meal. Though they can survive without it, dining on dad ensures optimum health for mom's offspring.

 

[perplexed]

We must have some form of laws to keep order in our society, I think morality is another story, how do you police morality I think that is where laws come in to place.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

We do understand why that happens; why the fertilized female will eat the male...her brood greatly benefits from that meal. Though they can survive without it, dining on dad ensures optimum health for mom's offspring.

Of course we might understand the basics but I don’t think we understand all of life’s species and why they do the things they do.
If we knew all about all the animal species then why did we kill off 82% of them and why is it we are only finding out recently that if we lose all our bees then we’ll lose half our vegetation? If we knew all about our species why didn’t we protect them from global warming? Why did we steal ivory horns and all the other horrid things we do if we understand them so well?

 

[Murrmurr]

We must have some form of laws to keep order in our society, I think morality is another story, how do you police morality I think that is where laws come in to place.

That's it in a nutshell. And if there were no policing agency, I believe we would police ourselves and each other.

That could get ugly, but there'd still be some form of law or at least a moral standard that would benefit the majority.

 

[bobcat]

And some might argue that conscience is just the internalization of familial/tribal prohibitionists. But I don't tend toward reductionism. I think I agree with you that we have an innate sense of right and wrong morally (as dogs do as well) which families and societies try to nurture and shape. In the same way, we have an innate appreciation of beauty and truth. No one arbitrarily decides what is beautiful or ugly. Given recent US national politics, it is harder to say that no one arbitrarily decides what is true or alternative - but even there of course it isn't arbitrary, it is merely self-serving.

In Jonathon Haidt's The Righteous Mind, he argues that morality is deeper than our rational thoughts about it. To describe the intellect's relation to moral behavior he used the metaphor of a mahout sitting on the neck of an elephant to direct is movement. The elephant is obviously much more powerful than the mahout and the latter's ability to direct the former is pretty limited. He says that the mahout, our intellect, spends most of its energy rationalizing or apologizing for the offenses the elephant commits. To actually behave morally requires having a functional relationship with the elephant. Its intuitions are also our own. What's the saying? I have met the enemy and it is me.

I am almost finished with reading "The Moral Animal - Why We Are The Way We Are", and a great deal of the content follows Darwin and his many discoveries and insights. Along the way, following close on his heels was the creeping realization that we are all slaves of biology and our robotic nature. Whether true or not, I am content leaving that heavy discussion to neuroscientists and philosophers, who hopefully will all lock themselves into a room and beat each other up with their thorough understanding of the human mind.

Meanwhile, i can fully appreciate the metaphor of the elephant and the rider. Although, I do believe that the majority of that elephant is in the domain of our subconscious, and not easily accessible. However, I do get your point that it may be possible to establish a functional relationship with the beast hidden in all of us. Another great book on that is "Strangers To Ourselves" by Wilson.

Anyway, great input, and it is appreciated.

 

[Murrmurr]

Of course we might understand the basics but I don’t think we understand all of life’s species and why they do the things they do.
If we knew all about all the animal species then why did we kill off 82% of them and why it is we are only finding out recently that if we lose all our bees then we’ll lose have our vegetation? If we knew all about our species why didn’t we protect them from global warming. Why did we steal ivory horns and all the other horrid things we do if we understand them so well?

True, we don't. Fortunately, we have the capability to discover and then ultimately understand that kind of stuff.

 

[bobcat]

Those aren't just your opinions, they're facts.

But where I mention appeals, that would include the Supreme Court. As you know, particularly in constitutional matters, when a person isn't satisfied with a lower court decision, they have a right to take their appeal to the Supreme Court.

Oh, ok, we were saying the same thing, just a misunderstanding. When I said I assume you meant that it wasn't in reference to the Supreme Court, I meant that you can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling. So we were on the same page. Sorry.

 

[bobcat]

We do understand why that happens; why the fertilized female will eat the male...her brood greatly benefits from that meal. Though they can survive without it, dining on dad ensures optimum health for mom's offspring.

Lol. For some reason, the dining on dad conjured up this little sketch in my head of the male coming home from work, kissing his wife, and saying "So what's for dinn....... Aghhh".
(Sorry, morbid sense of humor.)

 

[Murrmurr]

Lol. For some reason, the dining on dad conjured up this little sketch in my head of the male coming home from work, kissing his wife, and saying "So what's for dinn....... Aghhh".
(Sorry, morbid sense of humor.)

"Something very special, Dear. The kids are gonna love it."

 

[bobcat]

That's it in a nutshell. And if there were no policing agency, I believe we would police ourselves and each other.

That could get ugly, but there'd still be some form of law or at least a moral standard that would benefit the majority.

I am reminded of Lord Of The Flies. They start out with rules that they all should abide by for the good of the group, but then it descends into anarchy. It seems there are two instincts at work in humans: The instinct to get along and work together for the good, and the competing instinct to survive, no matter how you do it.
However, these were children, and one can only wonder how it would work with adults.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

True, we don't. Fortunately, we have the capability to discover and then ultimately understand that kind of stuff.

We DO have the capacity but unfortunately we don’t have enough care or compassion to stop doing it. We might not like it but we ARE the most greedy and ruthless animal on the planet and will kill off most of the worlds species including ourselves. We won’t have enough food to feed the population and I highly doubt our killing methods for obtaining food will improve any.

 

[Murrmurr]

I am reminded of Lord Of The Flies

Yeah, I'd hope folks with more maturity and experience would take the lead in my scenario.

 

[Murrmurr]

We DO have the capacity but unfortunately we don’t have enough care or compassion to stop doing it. We might not like it but we ARE the most greedy and ruthless animal on the planet and will kill off most of the worlds species including ourselves. We won’t have enough food to feed the population and I highly doubt our killing methods for obtaining food will improve any.

I'm a bit more optimistic. Hunger is a very powerful motivator.

 

[bobcat]

I'm a bit more optimistic. Hunger is a very powerful motivator.

Yeah, it motivated the female Black Widow.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

I'm a bit more optimistic. Hunger is a very powerful motivator.

I highly doubt we will kill off animals we consume on a daily bases but I also highly doubt our killing methods will improve any.
When it comes to food we eat, we don’t care that animals suffer needlessly.

 

[PeppermintPatty]

I am reminded of Lord Of The Flies. They start out with rules that they all should abide by for the good of the group, but then it descends into anarchy. It seems there are two instincts at work in humans: The instinct to get along and work together for the good, and the competing instinct to survive, no matter how you do it.
However, these were children, and one can only wonder how it would work with adults.

We are still pack animals by nature so probably have some natural survival instincts that kick in regardless of age. I hope I’m never in that type of situation to find out.