Is there any strong argument for absolute morality?

Question

FYI: "The Bible says so." is not an argument.

"Do unto others..." is relative and specifically NOT absolute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_morality

Almost all of you need to read the text profferred at the link above.

Answer 1

My my, it seems that your question has plucked a dissonant note on a few of our Y! Answers' colleagues' instruments, unfortunately it appears that the previous answerer's intuitions were so grievously tweaked that they found themselves incapable of mustering a cogent reply. Questions of morality have such a powerful effect on so many people, I have always found it curious that they do not notice this as a powerful argument for the evolutionary adaptation of moral intuitions from which their emotive responses spring.

Of course there are no good arguments for an absolute morality. The closest anyone has come, that I know of, is Kant, with whom you are probably familiar. However, his "categorical imperatives" are both grounded in suppositions (such as the "good will") which themselves have no sound arguments and therefore are thrown out as possessing of genuine strength.

Absolute morality is actually a senseless, paradoxical, and impossible pseudo-concept. One necessary paradox of any supposed system of "absolute morality" is that any list of the rules must contain more than one item or else it would not be a moral system but rather simply a value. However, if there are multiple "absolutes" there will inevitably be situations in which they contradict one another, at which point there is no possible non-arbitrary decision procedure to determine which rule to follow.

Even for those who do claim any sort of divine morality (Bible or other), the problem is, did the deity capriciously "invent" the morality, or did they themselves just discover it? Either way, the imposition of a system by a god is by no means a guarantee of its being "absolute". Instead this sort of thing is just the whims of some egotistical and powerful entity, but not absolute.

Absolute morality is nonsense, it not only does not exist, it CANNOT exist. The arguments so far are accordingly very weak.

Answer 2

For application in the material plane, no. The material plane is a world of moral ambiguity. That's why we have moral dilemmas, and theories that attempt to resolve them

But then, is it all relative? NO!~. All arguments for absolute relativity are self contradictory. Note the word absolute before the word relativity.

One of the best formulas for determining right action is one proposed by Kant. "If you would will an act to be performed by everybody in the world, under the same circumstances, it is a right act."

We could argue strongly though, that at the spirit plane, there is no moral ambiguity. But I do not think you had that in mind here.

Confucianism involves a sense of moral absolutism, because rules for behavior all well laid out in huge numbers.

Answer 3

If you mean, certain rules that apply to everyone, I'd say yes. Like murder, assuming you mean by murder killing someone other than in self-defense. However, I think history has shown that many things that people claim should be absolute for everyone are just plain stupid because of individual differences among humans and because times are different. Just one example is homosexuality. It's mentioned as a 'sin' in the Bible but consider that the Bible was written at at time when there was underpopulation. There was a need for more people to cultivate the land, so banning homosexuality could be considered a rule of survival since people don't want to starve. Nowadays, there's too many people, and we're worrying about overpopulation, so to say homosexuality is a 'sin' seems pretty stupid to me. For those who say the Bible is the word of God, I wouldn't even bother addressing. Like a teacher of mine said, the best way to discuss an issue with a 'true believer' is from as far away as possible.

Answer 4

Given the predication of any transcendental reality and the refusal to acknowledge something akin to natural law of the in terms of the secular reason of modernity, the strongest argument for an absolute claim in morality is reduced to self-interest. Unfortunately, this argument is neither strong nor all that convincing.

Answer 5

It would be helpful if you spelled out a little more what you mean. If you are asking about absolute rules, which cannot be broken, such as "do not kill" or "do not steal," I don't think there is any good reason to believe in them - there will always be circumstances in which any rule you can think of could justifiably be broken.

But if you are talking about absolute principles (such as do not cause unnecessary suffering) I think there are very strong arguments that this is true. Unlike the absolute rules, which turn out in odd situations to not be absolute, absolute principles are your very guides to morality. For example, imagine a situation in which you lived out in the country. You only have one neighbor, and you yourself have neither a phone nor car. One day you see in the road a child who is seriously injured. You ask the neighbor for the use of her car, and she refuses, saying flatly that she doesn't care about the child. Knowing that she always keeps her keys in the car, since given the remoteness of the area, you can quite easily steal the car, drive to the nearest town, and save the child's life. Or you can not steal the car, and try to take care of the child yourself, but not being a medical professional this is as good as leaving her alongside the road. It would be obvious that any absolute rule against stealing would rightly be rejected here. But the principle you use to guide your action, maybe something along the lines of "prevent as much suffering as possible," is absolute.

The idea of absolute rules is obviously nonsense because they cannot adapt to real-life circumstances. The idea of absolute principles, however, are necessary to any idea of morality, since they enable you to determine what you should do in various situations. Without them there is no morality. You cannot say that Hitler did something bad, you cannot say that Gandhi did something good. You cannot say that torturing kids is morally any worse than raising them lovingly. I think that this is a very good reason to have some sense of morality.

I think you need to specify what you mean by "absolute morality."

ADD: ok, going by the definition you link to in wikipedia, moral absolutism is clearly nonsense. The wikipedia article defines it as a belief "that certain actions are right or wrong, devoid of the context of the act." Morality, independent of the context of an act, is no morality whatsoever. The mistake of people who believe in that kind of absolutism is that they take the act that is right in certain contexts (such as "do not steal"), abstract the idea by ignoring the concrete basis of that wrongness ("stealing is wrong because it harms people"), then turn around and apply it to all circumstances, not realizing that their justification for making the act wrong (that it harmed people) does not apply in situations where stealing does not harm, or harms much less than it helps.

It is mistaking the map for the land. They are mistaking the sometimes useful abstraction for the concrete reality.

Answer 6

well, if we all are evolutionary accidents, no. there is no punishment, no judge, so we cant be in trouble for being "bad". there is nothing to live for. no hope. just life, then nothing. murder would be fine. stealing, adultery, cheating, you name it. no one cares because there's no one TO care.

OR if you believe that God created us, then He is master of all things, He loves you, and has every right to make the rules. And if you break his rules, He has every right to punish you when you die. If you keep the rules, then you will be rewarded. The bible says that He has made a new covenant with us. After Jesus died and rose again, the old law of the old testament was obsolete. The rules weren't written on paper any more- God wrote them on our hearts. The bible says that we all know God from birth, but whether we acknowledge what we know in our hearts to be true is OUR CHOICE. not only does morality make you a "good person", its reflecting a little of God's image to everyone around you. You'll be happier, and people will enjoy your company. And God will be pleased :]

which would you rather believe? one is a depressing lie. the other gives hope and truth. But its your choice. Thats what makes God so great.

Answer 7

how would you feel if you were crippled and no one would help you or would put obstacles in your way? Do unto other as you would have them do unto you. That is the first commandment. The Bible is ABOUT morality so of course it would be in the Bible. That's like having an anatomy book that leaves out the circulatory system.

Don't listen to illiterate dumb asses that say the Bible support slavery.

Answer 8

As of May 24, AD1977 and eternally, I am taken in Spirit by our Creator Father-Son Jesus Christ Michael into the Paradise Universal Father-Infinite I AM ...

His eternal loving Invitation-Command is:

"Be you perfect; even as I AM perfect."

This includes His Seven Absolutes of Infinity and also Absolute (unchanging) morality:

Do onto all others as you know in the Spirit of God within you that God and Jesus here in Spirit and in Truth would do.

Take away all holy scriptures from all religions on earth and these same Burning Theo-ontological Truths will remain and continue to repletely grow within each and every Human person ! Because the pure spirit will of God is now within each normal (over age six years) Human son of God here. Thus we all know God's pure unchanging (Absolute) will !


There are TWO Persons you can never run away from:

GOD and yourSelf !!

"Tiger Tiger,
Burning Brightly ..."


Peace and progress,
Brother Dave, a Jesusonian Christian Truthist
http://www.PureChristians.org/ Gospel enlarging website,
proclaiming worldwide the True Religion
OF JESUS and ABOUT JESUS and IN JESUS
Come and share !

Answer 9

The Bible is our guide to live a God pleasing, serving life, we are to try to attain this while God perfects us along the way, giving us strength if we ask and faith to become more Christ like and perservere through the temptations and troubles that plague us on our journey, we are pilgrims with choices and the map is Christ to get to our eternal Father and home.

Answer 10

Yes. Read the Objectivist Ethics - Ayn Rand

'I neither grant, nor do I accept, the undeserved (unearned) in matter or spirit.'