I'd like to think that the Golden Rule "Do unto others as they would do unto you" was one, but there people in the world whose highest ambition is to be made a martyr for Allah (or some other god).
I don't want them to treat me as they wish to be treated.
Moral relativism has obvious weaknesses, but what is the alternative?
I'd especially like answers from atheists, agnostics and humanists of all religious designations or none.
2007-02-20 12:41:40 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Quite correct, Dave P:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
There's another version: "Don't do to others what you wouldn't have them do to you."
2007-02-20 12:50:40 · update #1
I think there is a form of moral absolute (sort of) in the form of practical tenets that pretty much every society has to follow in order to remain stable. For example, uncontrolled murder tends to destabilize social structure. So does theft. So, arguably, does adultery. And these are things that come up again and again in various religions and philosophies as being "bad" things to do, for reasons that I think have very little to do with religion or philosophy.
Other than that, I think that moral relativism is simply the condition of the human species. As a Wiccan I live by the Wiccan Rede: "If you harm none, do what you will." But there are plenty of people on the planet who clearly choose to live by entirely different sets of rules.
2007-02-20 12:50:03 · answer #1 · answered by prairiecrow 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Let me explain.
Morals are the result of the particular culture & society that created them. The Aztecs held ritual sacrifices where the sacrifice had his heart torn out of his chest. This sounds cruel & gruesome to us, but to them it was a high honor to be sacrificed to the gods. Likewise, European Medieval times shunned anything but Catholicism as an explanation to the universe. Hence the house arrest of Galileo. Yet today there is nothing considered morally wrong with not believing (to some). No one should believe an atheist is ignoring any absolute moral regarding religion. Obviously, the atheist don't feel torn between the good of religion & the evil of atheism. They look at it almost oppositely. Therefore, morals are all based upon perspective. They arise from a psychological need to justify ourselves.
2007-02-20 12:51:43 · answer #2 · answered by Jedi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, as that should mean they are area of a few inherent morality of the universe that should nevertheless exist whether mankind grew to become extinct. it would additionally stick to to different creatures, mutually with in social species, as any absolutes would not be limited to easily one species on one planet. it rather is diverse from 'normally agreed' morality, and you'd be perplexing pressed to discover many that agree that killing a u . s . a .'s firstborn is morally ideal, or any style of homicide for that rely. even nonetheless, it should not be 0 human beings - after all people who carry out genocides and different planned killing of innocents justify to themselves that it rather is a superbly ethical subject that they do. it rather is why that is substantial for people who disagree with that to make advantageous that is stomped on if and while it happens.
2016-11-24 21:06:29 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no morals are abosolute. there is always one exception to the rule.
murder is wrong, yet a lot of people in the world seem to agree that executing murderers is ok.
would you kill a person if you knew that that action was going to save 3 million lives? another one of those situations where doing the right thing seems harder than the rule 'dont kill'
everyone who does believe in the fact that there is only always one 'right' is a hypocrit or a fundamentalist.
2007-02-20 12:49:27 · answer #4 · answered by mrzwink 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Moral absolutes are individual. As every person is truly their own religion. I might be Catholic but I will not find one who believes exactly as I do. I might be Aethiest but I won't find one who beleives exactly as I do either Do your best with what you've been taught and what you will learn. It's all you can do to figure out your absolutes. I don't beleive in organized religion or prescribe to any denomination including Aethism.
2007-02-20 12:48:09 · answer #5 · answered by me 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You need to get the Golden Rule right. It's
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In other words, it works for your terrorist. Don't blow him up because you don't want him to blow you up.
It is as close to a moral absolute as I've found.
2007-02-20 12:47:16 · answer #6 · answered by Dave P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe we really have control of our descisions. They are the result of our environment and our makeup. The idea we are in control is an illusion. What we call morality is simply programming we have inherited or learned. To call it relative or absolute simply misses the entire point.
2007-02-20 12:48:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, and His name is Yeshua Ha Meschiach.
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6).
The sad fact is that without God as dictator of morals and ethics, ANYONE can claim to be the decider of right and wrong. And this is what we've seen in the last few centuries of slavery, communism, nazism, terrorism: people do what they want and invent their own excuses to keep doing it.
2007-02-20 12:46:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Love
2007-02-20 12:47:56 · answer #9 · answered by Greenwood 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As far as I am concerned there are 2 rules,love the Lord thy God..... and thy neighbor as thyself.
Them treating me like they want to be treated no I don't want that either and I probably wouldn't have thought about that if you hadn't brought it up,thanks. That is something to think about.
2007-02-20 12:53:49 · answer #10 · answered by jackiedj8952 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋