Just as an example, is abortion right for some and wrong for others or is it wrong for everyone. Or you could say the same about lying, drinking, whatever. If another culture does something different from us do we have a right to call them immoral?
2006-06-29 05:35:27 · 25 answers · asked by brodie g 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The only moral truth I know is that we all are very nosy and need to mind our own lives. This world would be peaceful if everyone concentrated on their own family and self.
What I don't understand is how some religions can actually think that if they don't recruit and witness to everyone else, and if someone else doesn't think the exact same way they do, that hell is involved.
2006-06-29 05:39:54 · answer #1 · answered by sweettea 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. After all, it was another culture that did 9/11. Would you say to the victim's families that we don't have the right to pass judgment, and though we don't like it, it actually wasn't wrong of them to do? That borders on insanity. Everyone knows that the acts of 9/11 were morally wrong, and no culture has the right to say that it wasn't. That should be the real question. What culture has the right to say that ANYTHING they do is morally right? Certainly not theirs or ours. That's why we need a moral standard. If we of ourselves don't have the right to call someone immoral because we are just people like them, we also don't contain the right in and of ourselves to say that they are right. So we need a standardized system.
2006-06-29 05:41:03 · answer #2 · answered by RandyGE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
An absolute Truth? That is only if you consider morals as the common sense practices everyone should have... Like actions that foster the greater good: Caring for the poor, helping the environment...
Many people confuse morality with religious beliefs, and while some may be similar, the two are not the same.
2006-06-29 05:47:42 · answer #3 · answered by Onyx Dracona 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Bible isn't a popular answer because you could be wrong...think through the history of its creation and acceptance as canonical.
And another thing, your absolute truth is not necessarily everyone else's. Each person comes to a conclusion of what they think is morally correct usually based on cultural influences. Religion has tried to base truths off of blind faith and acceptance of rules forged from cultures that existed in that time, but that doesn't mean it's correct.
2006-06-29 05:44:16 · answer #4 · answered by b-in-oc 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
well killing is killing... lying is lying...drinking is drinking... example a friend of mine was at a job interview and the employer asked if he could pass a drug test he answered no... and told her I have just graduated for college and for graduation I partied and did all kids of drugs... so I am not sure... His class mate who can't start his day with out smoking a joint applies for the same job, tells the employer he can pass a drug test... The pot head gets the job and has since lost the job... Where was I going with this...Oh...wrong is wrong what is done in the dark comes out in the light... My friend got a second interview and got the job because he made a mistake and owned up to it... And know he has pot heads job
2006-06-29 06:00:05 · answer #5 · answered by CreateSomthing 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. This is tricky. But consider Nazi Germany. What they did was Morally wrong, because they inflicted their stupidity on others. You can hate and be a racist, but you need to keep it to yourself. As for abortion, etc. If we live in a free country, what one does to oneself should be allowed, but not to others, thus, no murder, etc. And as an individual, you have the right to decide what is morally right or wrong, thus you can be for or against abortion, drinking, etc. What is interesting is the left hates this. Try to oppose abortion, or illegal immigration, and instead of being allowed to voice an argument, you get called names. Control the language and you control the masses.
2006-06-29 05:43:56 · answer #6 · answered by ndmac 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"provided that with none absolute moral truths one is left to wade in a sea of opinion without consensus" And yet there is consensus. usually uneasy consensus, yet consensus though. "Then why is it widely used through moral relativists?" lower back, localized consensus. i'm optimistic your moral absolutes are in conflict with those of the common fundamentalist Muslim. an ethical relativist only calls moral absolutes what they're, reviews and options. "If people or societies do no longer agree on morality does that recommend morality is relative? only because no longer anybody concurs on morality does no longer recommend there is not any absolute morality." you're mind-blowing, yet we do not have any reason to presuppose the existence of absolute morality. "which will be like putting forward only because there will be competing scietific theories that there is not any precise concept obtainable. the best result will be medical chaos. Similarily, moral relativism ends up in moral chaos." yet there are a good number of "precise theories" of what's maximum best for someone to do, given their objectives, if there are sparkling and useful reason-result relationships which may be seen for them to attain those objectives in the perfect way obtainable. as an instance, all of us do not ignore that if we favor no longer to have lung cancer, then it really is "properly" to keep away from smoking cigarettes. it really is extra ambiguous the position the perfect plan of action won't be able to be determined from thinking the circumstances (what lets do with area extraterrestrial beings?).
2016-11-15 10:21:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No simply because absolutes are not obtainable in this universe. Perfection, absolute happiness, absolute knowledge, etc. cannot be obtained, only gotten closer and closer to without ever fully reaching it. The best we can probably do it "greatest good for the greatest number." Then we are considering what's best for self, family, friends, work, community, country, mankind, all walks of life that is not mankind and even the environment with every decision we make.
2006-06-29 05:58:43 · answer #8 · answered by Jeff 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some would say that there is because the Bible places exact limits on some things. For example, murder is prohibited in the Bible, therefore all murder is wrong.
Personally, I think that there are no absolutes. If I kill someone because I don't agree with their views, I'm wrong. However, if you kill someone pointing a gun at you, that seems fine to me (assuming its not a water gun). Also, I'd say that drinking 5 beers is acceptable for someone if it doesn't get them drunk, but I also think that if it gets the same person drunk, I'd say that that person had too much to drink. It all depends on the situation.
2006-06-29 05:40:46 · answer #9 · answered by x 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is an absolute moral truth.
Some things are right (or wrong) no matter who you are, or where you live ...even when you lived.
If Ford makes a car, who has the right to put the manual together?
Ford does, they made the car.
So, whoever made life and all we see has the right to provide some guidance as to how to live.
However, it is comforting to note His guidelines are not overly restrictive.
He allows us space to make many personal decisions.
Abortion is not one of them ....that's murdering the unborn and murder is a no-no.
2006-06-29 05:44:03 · answer #10 · answered by Uncle Thesis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋