"There are no moral absolutes." True or False?

Question

To those who think there are no moral absolutes in that morals are relative to a culture or person or particular epoch, I wonder what you think about the act of violent rape or abusing children just for fun. Is there ever a time when either one of these acts is moral? Is it ever ethical to rape someone or torture a child just for kicks? And, before I hear complaints from this community, I will let you know there I am aware of the subtle difference between ethics and morals.

Answer 1

That is very False. Good clean morals, is what makes us humans. The difference between the animals and the call of the wild. A lion has no morals because it is not human and will kill any baby animals including their own cubs. This is immoral for humans and that is absolute.

Answer 2

Let us take apart the word moral and the word absolute. Using these definitions I will say True: If Moral is the question of what is good as thought, word or deeds in human life and Absolute means that good remains constant in human life. This is true in the overall order of good and in general conditions, there is Truth that is absolute found in the natural order. We find this pattern in all faithful Traditions of the past, which have been heralded as expressly moral and good for society, and carry the same characteristics of dignity in the value of the human life.
However, I would say False if an individual is claiming to have a moral absolute that they are applying to a particular situation or individual, because while we know the general condition of morality and what is expected of us, we simply do not know all of the circumstances at times that are causing a certain response in an individual. They may not be culpable and may indeed have acted on a deeper principle than is apparent on a superficial basis. So when applying moral principles in individual cases, we must be careful to try to discern the truth and respect the dignity of the individual, always guiding with fairness and mercy. If a person does not abide by community guidelines and can not withstand a certain censure to remain within those principles, that person probably must leave or be placed under guidance.

Answer 3

We know this to be false. Indeed, there are "moral absolutes".

Webster's defines morals as ethics, Ethics: the principles of conduct GOVERNING an individual or a group.

Just as we know that fire is hot, we know that certain actions yield specific results. For example; in what is defined as a healthy mind we find guilt when murder is committed. But it goes further than this metaphysical aspect.

Today there is no lack of evidence that certain eating habits, sexual practices (i.e. promiscuity), mental dispositions and so on will produce negative and harmful results in an individual's life and body. This I believe is an example of a moral absolute.
Just like this, touch a flame = burn your hand; Do something "wrong" = suffer a consequence created in the motion begun by your decision to do that "wrong" thing.

Certainly this works both in the negative or harmful as well as the with the positive or beneficial.

Try as we may, we can not change the results of or prevent the outcome of ignoring and abandoning the morally correct choice in our lives. We find one disease and seek a cure. All the while continuing in the ways that brought that disease in the first place, and creating in ourselves a new disease to battle when, if ever, we finally cure the first.

Don't misunderstand. Moral Absolutism as a philosophy is not without flaws, nor is moral relativism and moral consequentialism (is that really a word?).
But YES there are moral absolutes.

But enough of that.
Problems are all to easy to see.
What are the Answers that we seek?
Ask and we shall see.

Answer 4

Morality is about choice. How can you decide if something is good or bad just by seeing it, where is the action in seeing? By doing, you have made a decision to act out your wishes. All relative truths fall short of an absolute truth, since relative is dependent on one another. The only absolute truth is Unity, and the only relative moral truth is that which follows the law of nature, which is cause and effect. What you do unto others is what is done to you. That is the absolute law of morality.

Answer 5

There are no moral absolutes, even killing babies. If a baby carried a world-ending plague, and there were no cure, it would be destroyed. The loss of one life always has a balance, though the balance may be unrealistically strong.

There are no moral absolutes in right or wrong because there are no absolutes in certainty of other humans' behavior. Their right and wrong affects how ours evolves.

It would be immoral to kill another man for ANY reason, if there were no evil men commiting murders and starting wars in the first place. If there were no reason to respond to violent men with violence, however, it would not be considered at all. We wouldn't think about if it were right and wrong, because it would never happen.

Alas, that is not the case. Anything that is possible can and will have two sides, because no two humans are uniform, much less all alike to each other. Right and wrong will always be checked and balanced, and always ALWAYS based on perspective.

Answer 6

We're not under Mosaic Law. They had 619 laws. What do you have against lobsters, and crabs, and oysters? The New Testament makes clear that all foods can be eaten except make sure blood is drained from them. I Corinthians 8:; 10:23-33;Acts 15:19; These are other sources . The food prohibitions or freedoms changed through time, before the flood, after the flood, after Mosaic Law, etc. I hope this helps!

Answer 7

ITs true. Now I don't agree with raping children or killing people, but the fact is that in some cultures it is ok and if you had been brought up in those cultures, you too would feel the same way. I understandwhat your saying but no matter what you can always find someone who thinks something is moral that you find immoral.

Answer 8

True and false. I think that, if you think about it in a detached and rational manner, it's apparent that all moral systems are more or less abstract constructions that have the limits of human understanding as their boundaries. That, however, doesn't necessarily invalidate them; rather the point is to recognize that there are certain bonds that each individual shares with the rest of humanity (susceptibility to suffering being the major and most important of these) and realizing that with this comes certain obligations. Thus despite the fact that nothing can be "Absolute" (meaning that nothing can be verified against a transcendent and external "Truth" or "Reality"), one's commitment to one's convictions can be seen as a commitment to the fact of human solidarity.

Answer 9

There are no moral absolutes, but that does not mean moral relativism, either. Think of morals as being under a normal curve, with the mean being; any rational being that does not want bad to happen to him, must know that it is wrong to do bad to another. No one, not even psychopaths, excepted. Then think of variance from the mean. 70% of us are 1 standard variation from the mean. Then there are those that are three, or more standard variations from that mean and trouble for the rest of us.

Answer 10

False. The one and only moral absolute is to not do damage on purpose.