For those of you, who are deep thinkers... is morality relative, or is there such a thing as absolute morality

Question

very interesting answers, yet when further examined it appears that such a veiw employs circular reasoning... "on the one hand it is relevent in context... but on the other hand it is absolute since the idea of context in itself exists... I doubt there is a definitive answer to this question, it is one agrued by many for thousands of years.

Answer 1

Morality is subjective to all of the following (and more):

1. the entity determining the moral code
2. the chronological scope of interest
3. the environment where the entity resides
4. desire

If you are looking for an absolute, "consequence" is the word you need to bed first, then invite "morality" to dinner once you learn your table manners from "consequence".

Answer 2

Yes, there is absolute morality -- it is relative in the way the concept is understood, dealt with and explained! Relative morality is absolutely relative, while absolute morality is relatively absolute!

that swan guy said it right with this quote, but he put it too concisely so people ignored it.

the way people practice moral behavior changes, but the basic principle that those actions are based on stay the same.

For example if a soldier committed Treason for fleeing from a battle or joined the other army out of fear, there may be different punishments over time, some would kill him, some would imprison, some flogg, maybe a fine, but the underlying moral that - its wrong to be a coward or to be dishonest, stays absolute.

ps. Christopher F is wack for disregarding the question so he could say whatever he wanted

if you look beyond the actions and into the reasoning you'll see a constant.

A post before said the statement - the end justifies the means. then the next question should be, well what's the end?

The means are not the morals, the end is likely where you find a moral constant.

Some will say its immoral to kill 5 people to save 1
and some will say its moral to kill 5 for 1, If the one is a child

but even in this so called difference in morality - both have agreed on the principle that at least something is better than the real immoral which is killing everyone for no reason and for no end.

Answer 3

I think the terms relative/absolute are too confusing and freighted. I propose instead that we use the terms "intrinsic" and "instrumental" for what you probably have in mind.

Although these adjectives are certainly relevant to morality, both of them play a role, simply because morals involves different sorts of good, or value.

An intrumental good is something that helps you achieve something else. Obviously that is relative to the circumstances, and the hoped-for goal. A philosopher must ask, is that "something else" good or not? If there are only instrumental goods, then x is good because it helps produce Y, which is good because it helps produce Z, and so on forever, and our notion of goodness has no anchor.

If that seems irrational to you, and you think goodness must have an anchor, then you'll probably look to posit an "intrinsic" good somewhere. An absolute, if you will.

One problem with using the term "absolute" is that it implies there is only one. If we speak of an "intrinsic good" as the anchor, though, we can ask ourselves: why can't there be a plurality of intrinsic goods? Our language won't prejudice us agaist pluralism.

Answer 4

The word "relative" in this context has been the source of trouble for millenia. Actually, "contextual" is what morality IS. What you do in life is always in context of what you need, want, or can make happen, but overall, THAT must be in the context of what it is to be human. That boils down to rights, because humans have them, and the first right is the right to life. That is why so many place such an extreme emphasis on "do no harm," or the "non-initiation of force." Initiate no force, do no harm, and ANYTHING you want to do OUGHT to be lawful---but we all know that politicians prevent us from doing what they don't like us to do.

Answer 5

It's relative according to culture. And it graduates according to the conscience or lack therein of individuals as well. To a sociopath, for example, there is no conception. It's like, "What are you talking about?" For them, the end justifies the means.
If there is no God then morality is entirely subjective-even artificial. It would then serve only to get in ones way of what one desired. Without a common agreement that a group is bound to obey the direction of a unifying creator in charge, then morality becomes completely arbitrary, subject to whim. If a dominant leader dictated morality than followers would only be subject to this morey as long as he held sway. Another idea, another leader and this standard would vanish, creating a clash between new and old standards.

Answer 6

Morality , these days , is like the ballot , the voting right that you have . What do you do , in a situation like that ? You ask your conscience. 'Is this thing good? will this support the value system?" etc. You get the answers yourself based on your value system and then you exercise your choice. There it ends. If the majority of others choose a different thing you cannot do a thing.

Morality is just that. It is the decision of the majority , imposed on the rest.But , you are the absolute owner or judge of your morality. Your value system. You are free to have that within the frame work of the society. I am a vegetarian and i am against killing animals for food. I keep that for myself and i donot preach it to the others.

Answer 7

Ideally there are eternal moral laws, there is a capacity in human beings to determine what is moral and this is valid in all circumstances (reason and emotions are the judges on moral behavior). On the other hand applied morality can be relative to the situation you find yourself in: you judge a situation and you decide what to do depending on the means you have to solve the problem and what is best in that moment. Society has an influence on applied morality too, but society's laws are not exactly always moral, that is why there is this idea of a relative morality, but this idea is just an illusion.

Answer 8

Absolute morality is action in accordance with the supreme.

Answer 9

Morality, I believe, is relative. Look at the world around you, everyone has a different concept of what right and wrong are. Homosexuality is a perfect example. Some people think being homosexual is perfectly ok, while others think it's an abomination.

another example is killing, although you may find it hard to see. Everyone should think killing is bad, right? That's why people go to jail for it, but it's not always so clear cut.

Say a man shoots another man in an argument over money. chances are that man will go to jail. But say a soldier shoots another soldier in a war over money. the soldier who did the killing is just seen as doing his job and may even be rewarded if he does it enough. so you have an instance of an action, which is the act of killing, being "bad" in one instance to some people, but "good" in a different instance to other people.

those are just two examples, but i think they show that morality means different things to different people in different places and different times.

Answer 10

I firmly believe in the objectivity of morality.

Ethics are subjective, however, and firmly based in the individuals personal biases, as influenced by the social environment by which they can be played out or enforced.

Answer 11

of course it is relative, there is no such thing as "universal morals" or some lawbook up in the sky.