Do you think it is true that there are no universal ethical absolutes?

Question

Was Plato or Kant wrong about absolute ideals such as justice or binding moral laws? Is ethicity relative to one's cultural or historical epoch?

Answer 1

That statement in and of itself disproves itself. If it is true that there are no absolutes, then that rule is an absolute, which violates itself.

Simple logic, actually.

Answer 2

I believe that we all like to think there are universal ethical absolutes in the broad sense that such and such applies to everyone. But when it really comes down to it, you have your own moral code that you live by (or at least live by when the moment counts). What you may feel is right to you may not be right to the next person. Even if most of the populace agrees with you on your ethics, not everyone will. Therefore, "absolute" has no basis with personal ethics.
There are universal themes of justice, etc., but how they are applied differ. Society has laws that govern us and a "justice" system that protects/punishes us. Those laws and moral code are there because they have been agreed upon by most people to be correct/incorrect. For example, it is wrong to kill. Yet, under the right circumstances, it is lawful to kill when someone has been found guilty by a jury and sentenced to death. Then it is applauded. How is that absolute?

Answer 3

It depends on what you mean by absolute. You will get many responses proposing a religious foundation for an ethical system; these are without exception erroneous and should be ignored. The proper basis for an ethical system is the theory of evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species. It is obvious that any society which has a more sound ethical system will flourish with respect to one that does not; principles such as do not steal, do not commit murder, and similar ones have (for obvious reasons) showed themselves to be ethically sound over a long period of time. The issue devolves to this: will the proposed action enhance society, degrade society, or be of no significant effect either way? Once you have answered this, you know what is the ethical thing to do.

Answer 4

no, its absolutely false to think that relative ethical boundaries are the only ones that exist...Its only those of flawed perceptions that cannot reconcile one side of a perception with another, and do not realize that they are part of the same absolute, that come to such conclusions.

To improove yourself, you should improove your thought process. Just because something doesn't work, does not mean it is entirely flawed and you should go to another...and then find that that one has flaws in other cases....they are simply, different sides of the same absolute...once you see the absolute..it will be easier to have stability and not see things entirely one-sided, which leads to the big jungle of nothing and chaos.

Answer 5

There is ample evidence of one universal ethical absolute that rules todays world!

It sounds like this.....

They are the bad guys.

We are the good guys.

Nationalism is the enemy of a universal ethical code. Ethical idealism is alive and well among the oppressed and by necessity forgotten and supressed among the power mongers.

Hitler believed he was acting for the good of his people. Too bad he didn't know he was just another member of the human race living on planet earth.

Answer 6

Ten commandments in stone
and two golden rules by Jesus are all universal
if we did them then life wold be much easier don't you think/
or boring due to the fact we would have no drama?

There are no absolutes today, even the constitution is changed, but you still have the Law of Moses and two golden rules which most people try to do.

Answer 7

Depending on your morals and faith, moral standards are set by God for us to try to live up to. ideals exist. justice exists. the idea of whether or not ideals exist deal more with what the person observing wants to believe than their place in history. philosophers that would like to see the human race achieve its potential tend to like the idea that there are ideals that we should try to live up to. philosophers that only see the evil in the world or who would like to live without a concience state that ideals and morals do not exist and everything is relative.

Answer 8

well, i think the point of life is to continue living, and create more life.

so i feel that ending, ruining, or forcefully controlling the life of another or others is objectively wrong, in that it goes against nature.

Answer 9

Absolutely not!

Answer 10

yap, yap, yap