Does morality "depend on the situation" or is it “absolute”?

Question

why?

Answer 1

It is wrong at all times, in all places, and in all circumstances to rape someone.
Regardless of what one thinks of it.

Answer 2

Pretty much the only real absolutes in this dispensation are the Ten Commandments. Beyond those, and some finer tuning by Jesus, Himself, we have no way of knowing that some of the things written by apostles weren't done so from the standpoint of theit having personal agendas and opinions.

Many of the Ten Commandments are broken almost (or in actuality) ALL the time. For example, **everyone** lies. There's probably no exception to that.

God gave us intelligence and free will, rather than making automatons of us. Very likely so that we CAN apply reasonable morality as situations demand it, case-by-case.

The ultimate morality is the Golden Rule. It appears three times. in varying wording, in the Bible -- and is the underlying THEME of the Bible. Most who live by that can't really go wrong.

Answer 3

I would say it usually depends on the situation, though some things may be absolute. For example, torturing babies would be an absolute immorality no matter what the situation is.

There could be so many ways to show that morality is not an absolute in other situations though.

Answer 4

Atheists' morals are not absolute. They do not have a set of moral laws from an absolute God by which right and wrong are judged. But, they do live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes the morals in a society can still change and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong. In another, it is right. So, if we ask if it is or isn't it right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion.

If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. This can be likened to something I call, "experimental ethics." In other words, whatever works best is right. Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior. But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise.

There are potential dangers in this kind of self-established/experimental ethical system. If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes.

But, to be fair, just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent. But the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in his own eyes. A boat adrift without an anchor will eventual crash into the rocks.

The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian. In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing, and subjective and does not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self serving.

Basically, the atheist cannot claim any moral absolutes at all. To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad. But, given human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals that atheism offers.

Answer 5

There is no absolute morality, because no 2 people think absolutely the same way in any given situaiton...unless they've been conditioned to do so.

Morality depends on the situation....

Answer 6

I'd like to think it's an absolute but I admit I'm human and might fall short of the goal of absolute.

I can say that I stood strong to my honor when threatened with dishonorable discharge from the military, jail time, loss of rank and pay because I wouldn't give false testimony. That was an absolute in the face of a situation.

Answer 7

It should be absolute like the function of a compass.

Unfortunately, the very survival of some cultures depend on a single person's morals.

Think of a lifeboat, full of people, in the middle of the ocean, with only food enough for ten people.

Who makes the decision who will survive?

Answer 8

It depends. The meaning of anything depends on the context in which it is said or done. Therefore in my opinion, morality would have to depend on the situation.

Answer 9

absolute. relative morality leads to chaos and breakdown of society, because no 2 people can think alike.

Answer 10

Both.

Given any situation, there is only one logically defensible moral conclusion, and it is absolute.

However, that conclusion applies solely to exactly that situation.

Answer 11

Nothing is absolute, and morality is strongly determined by who's judging your actions.