Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

Hoof Hearted

In my 39 years on this Earth, I have come to the conclusion that right and wrong are absolute and not relative. First let me say I am a practicing Catholic that believes in the Magisterium and treasure the preciousness of all human life. Now I will be the first to argue that there are times when we don't know the answer of what is right and wrong, because either we are not well versed in our Christian teaching; or a behavior is so unique or new that a Papal encyclical, for example, has not yet addressed the issue.

So how do people that subscribe to the philosophy of right and wrong being subjective and relative, address the topic of stealing, killing another human, pre-marital or homosexual sex, adultery. If right and wrong are not absolute, will people who think morals are relative, eventually accept pedophilia, bestiality as acceptable, and if not why not. If the relativism argument holds weight, does a relativist who has had his bank account wiped out through fraud have the right to call the thief wrong. Why so often then, does a relativist's arguments on what should and should not be permitted, revolve around their own desires (if it feels good then it's not wrong), or the growing number of secular relativist couples that decide not to have children so that they can have a more comfortable life economically speaking and "save the world" by having less people on it, even though this thinking is starting to backfire especially in Western countries where the inverted pyramid demographics is likely going to be the cause of economic catastrophe if it has not already.

Let's call a spade a spade.
To Relativists: Tell me why intentional killing in some situations is OK? In areas of the world where secularism and relativism is strongly embraced by the society, the Netherlands and Oregon in the US - Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage have become codified into law. Taking Abortion and Euthanasia to their logical extension (and Relativists you can't call my extreme example wrong here remember it's all relative), the very young and the very old are a burden on society and unwanted. So a Relativist cannot call Hitler wrong either as he was getting rid of the unwanted and burdensome in his society, who to him happened to be the Jewish people.

So Catholics, fallen away Catholics, Christians, non-Christians, proponents of Secularism, Atheists, Agnostics give me a solid counter argument why we should be Relativist and why it is "right" and why Absolutism is "wrong".

As English used to be my weak subject in school, please forgive my inarticulateness as I am an engineer but I do subscribe to logical reason as opposed to emotional reasoning.

I welcome any feed back.
Brian

antiskeptic

This is a forum where you can expect the participants to agree with you that right and wrong are absolutes (whatever about the problems of agreeing how it is we come to know God's mind on matters of right and wrong).

Wouldn't you be better off taking this to the Atheist forum? You'd get plenty of incoming there?

Zombrex

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

In my 39 years on this Earth, I have come to the conclusion that right and wrong are absolute and not relative. First let me say I am a practicing Catholic that believes in the Magisterium and treasure the preciousness of all human life. Now I will be the first to argue that there are times when we don't know the answer of what is right and wrong, because either we are not well versed in our Christian teaching; or a behavior is so unique or new that a Papal encyclical, for example, has not yet addressed the issue.

So how do people that subscribe to the philosophy of right and wrong being subjective and relative, address the topic of stealing, killing another human, pre-marital or homosexual sex, adultery. If right and wrong are not absolute, will people who think morals are relative, eventually accept pedophilia, bestiality as acceptable, and if not why not. If the relativism argument holds weight, does a relativist who has had his bank account wiped out through fraud have the right to call the thief wrong. Why so often then, does a relativist's arguments on what should and should not be permitted, revolve around their own desires (if it feels good then it's not wrong), or the growing number of secular relativist couples that decide not to have children so that they can have a more comfortable life economically speaking and "save the world" by having less people on it, even though this thinking is starting to backfire especially in Western countries where the inverted pyramid demographics is likely going to be the cause of economic catastrophe if it has not already.

Let's call a spade a spade.
To Relativists: Tell me why intentional killing in some situations is OK? In areas of the world where secularism and relativism is strongly embraced by the society, the Netherlands and Oregon in the US - Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage have become codified into law. Taking Abortion and Euthanasia to their logical extension (and Relativists you can't call my extreme example wrong here remember it's all relative), the very young and the very old are a burden on society and unwanted. So a Relativist cannot call Hitler wrong either as he was getting rid of the unwanted and burdensome in his society, who to him happened to be the Jewish people.

So Catholics, fallen away Catholics, Christians, non-Christians, proponents of Secularism, Atheists, Agnostics give me a solid counter argument why we should be Relativist and why it is "right" and why Absolutism is "wrong".

As English used to be my weak subject in school, please forgive my inarticulateness as I am an engineer but I do subscribe to logical reason as opposed to emotional reasoning.

I welcome any feed back.
Brian

This is just going the same route all these discussions go, you are working under the assumption that if morality is relative I have to respect someone else's opinion.

Can I ask why?

If morality is relative and I have my idea whether something is moral, and you have your idea why something is moral, why do I have to respect your idea?

So say you think killing old people is right, and I think it is wrong. Why do I have to respect that?

This is why these discussions are largely irrelevant. We already live in a world where morality is completely relatively, we just don't respect other people's opinions because we all think we are right.

A world with relative morality where you don't have to respect the moral opinions of others if you don't agree with them, and a world of absolute morality where you don't respect the moral opinions of others because you think they are objectively wrong, looks exactly the same.

Fanny Cradock

I guess the relativist would say that it might be a bitter pill to swallow, especially if you are on the wrong end of an injustice, but such is life. We all muddle trough it and wishing life was all sunshine and lollipops wont change reality. There are handy ideas like "the golden rule" but there is no imperative to adhere to it. History is evidence of this. Indeed, if we are but products of evolutionary processes then I wonder by what immaterial other can we come to rise above our most basic (and base) instincts.

The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference

Now while I heartily disagree with Dawkin's observations, I can't fault him on his logic if we assume for a moment that there is no God or transcendent source of morality. Notions of "right" and "wrong" are based not on absolutes but on cultural and historical contexts. In other words, Dachau is wrong is not a fact, it's an opinion.

Of course, I happen to believe that there is a transcendent source of morality - namely God - and that our damnable history as a species is a testament to our faltering and flailing attempts to reach an understanding of this morality.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

History is evidence of this. Indeed, if we are but products of evolutionary processes then I wonder by what immaterial other can we come to rise above our most basic (and base) instincts.

That is the thing about evolution though, it has already figured out how to make it work

As an aside Steven Pinker has just released a book based on the central thesis presented a few years back at the TED conference about the consistent decrease of violence in human history.

It is a common myth that the 20th century with both world wars was the most bloody in history but that is actually incorrect. In fact it is the decrease in general violence that causes us to notice these things more and more.

A farmer in 2nd century Ireland who is worried about his neighbour killing him wouldn't care at all about a war happening thousands of miles way in Germany.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Fanny Cradock

That was a deeply unimpressive talk. But I don't suppose you will agree. Still, you miss my point.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That was a deeply unimpressive talk. But I don't suppose you will agree. Still, you miss my point.

Well I appreciate it doesn't fit into the fallen world notion of Christianity, so I didn't really expect you to accept it off the bat. The 800 page book he just published might be more convincing and is well worth a read.

But the video was just an aside, it wasn't to address your post directly.

My point was that our basic instincts as you put it are actually by and large to form social units based around what we would traditionally consider moral behaviour, that is in fact where, from an evolutionary standpoint, our notions of morality come from in the first place.

Rather than fighting against this to produce moral society it is actually the natural outcome of our instincts.

Roger Hassenforder

What about killing in self defence, or in defence of your family or property? What an absolutist say this is wrong? A relativist might say it was justifiable. Would you kill someone threatening serious injury to your children? Or put their fate in your god’s hands? If you would be a relativist on one thing, it is hypocritical to be absolutist on others. Everything is relative IMO.

From your post it appears you (& apologies if I’m wrong) that premarital sex, gay marriage, adultery are wrong? If its consentual, and no innocent party suffers a loss, why are they wrong? .

As regards euthanasia, its about ending suffering. We all die, why suffer needlessly? Is it wrong to hasten an inevitable process?

There are biological reasons why pedophilia & bestiality are unacceptable, and there are other reasons why secular couples decide not to have children, I’d hazard a guess that population control would be a reason for a very small minority.

While agreeing with Fanny somewhat about makes right and wrong, our faltering and flailing attempts to reach an understanding of morality may be more attributable to attempts to impose belief systems on others, rather than an attempt to abide by the golden rule.

Manach

Zombrex wrote: »

It is a common myth that the 20th century with both world wars was the most bloody in history but that is actually incorrect. In fact it is the decrease in general violence that causes us to notice these things more and more.

I would suggest the veracity of this is a tad questionable (based on my own history qualifications). Could you give me a source for this?
In that both world wars, revolutions, purges and colonial wars - based on world population densities would have made it the most bloody in absolute bodycount.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

I would suggest the veracity of this is a tad questionable (based on my own history qualifications). Could you give me a source for this?
In that both world wars, revolutions, purges and colonial wars - based on world population densities would have made it the most bloody in absolute bodycount.

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature

Manach

Zombrex wrote: »

http://stevenpinker.com/publications/better-angels-our-nature

Thanks, it looks interesting and pity it does not seem to be available on kindle.
However, based on his FAQ he is using data that is "a proportion of the population". So the absolute numbers of the 20th century stand.
He is also using the criteria data that is sourced "with no ideological axe to grind". He then himself goes on to make clear his own ideological viewpoints when discussing Communist crimes (a good book on this BTW is "The Rise and Fall of Communism" by Archie Brown )
Finally, he quotes from a secondary source to bolster his position "Great Big Book of Horrible Things" - hardly a name to inspire confidence, and re: Amazon has not yet been published.
So factually, the 20thC was the most bloody century.

PDN

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What about killing in self defence, or in defence of your family or property? What an absolutist say this is wrong? A relativist might say it was justifiable. Would you kill someone threatening serious injury to your children? Or put their fate in your god’s hands? If you would be a relativist on one thing, it is hypocritical to be absolutist on others. Everything is relative IMO.

No, you are confusing two different concepts.

What you refer to is not relative morality, but rather the principle that there are greater evils and lesser evils. None of us would say it is good to kill someone who is breaking into your house, but we would say that it may be necessary to do so to prevent a greater evil (the death of a loved one).

But that is not what is meant by 'relative morality'. Relative morality (a position IMHO which is inevitable if an atheist is honest) is that right and wrong are simply human conventions or evolutionary conditioning. In other words, sexually torturing a baby is not intrinisically wrong, but we only see it as so because it is usefully to the survival of the species not to subject babies to sexual torture.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

Thanks, it looks interesting and pity it does not seem to be available on kindle.
However, based on his FAQ he is using data that is "a proportion of the population". So the absolute numbers of the 20th century stand.

Yes, but as he explains in the same FAQ taking absolutely numbers in that manner doesn't make any sense.

If in a world of 4 million people I've a one in five chance of dying at the hands of another man but in a world of 5 billion I've a one in 100,000 then that is a decrease in violence, since the violence around me has decrease.

As he points out if violence was not decreasing then the rates should stay the same since we should have the same number of murderers and rapists, just more of them.

Fanny Cradock

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What about killing in self defence, or in defence of your family or property? What an absolutist say this is wrong? A relativist might say it was justifiable. Would you kill someone threatening serious injury to your children? Or put their fate in your god’s hands? If you would be a relativist on one thing, it is hypocritical to be absolutist on others. Everything is relative IMO.

I think you misunderstand what objective morality means in practice. Moral absolutists aren't - at least for the large part - saying that we know with absolute certainty the correct moral decision all situations. We are saying that absolute morality exists outside of us and that we grasp for understanding of it. That means sometimes (apparently quite often if you read a history book) we get it wrong - objectively wrong.

Manach

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes, but as he explains in the same FAQ taking absolutely numbers in that manner doesn't make any sense.

If in a world of 4 million people I've a one in five chance of dying at the hands of another man but in a world of 5 billion I've a one in 100,000 then that is a decrease in violence, since the violence around me has decrease.

As he points out if violence was not decreasing then the rates should stay the same since we should have the same number of murderers and rapists, just more of them.

The use of relative numbers is not that common in the field of history, and is usually confined to economic matters (eg saying how much say Henry VIII's flagship would cost in modern terms etc.).
As well, societies go through quiet as well as tumulteous times, where the violent death rate varies significantly so choosing an average rate would accurately reflect the norm would test most historians.
Wars as well have become more total - in that all sections of society are supposed to contribute to the state's push to conquer. This dates from relatively recent times and the premise is laid out more fully in "The Conduct Of War, 1789-1961" by J. F. C. Fuller (I've only skimmed this work but was recommend reading in a good few military history courses)
He would also seem to have neglected to include catastrophic "Black Swan" events which would have increase the chances of violent death - such as the thankfully never realised but possible at the time nuclear exchange during the cold war (Another book I'd recommend - "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War" by Jim Mann ) which would have pushed the violence rate to 100%.
In summary, whilst Mr. Pinker might be an excellent scientist, he might need to brush up on his historical interpretation skills.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

The use of relative numbers is not that common in the field of history, and is usually confined to economic matters (eg saying how much say Henry VIII's flagship would cost in modern terms etc.).

Sorry I don't really know how you can say that, relative numbers are used all the time in historical studies, population growth, murder rate, child mortality rate, crime rates etc are all relative numbers because absolute numbers are pretty useless in plotting trends or tracking significant changes.

For example, if you look at the child mortality rate in Ireland over the last 50 years it is a death rate per 1,000 children born.

http://www.google.ie/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sh_dyn_mort&idim=country:IRL&dl=en&hl=en&q=child+mortality+ireland

Murder rates are traditionally tracked at murders per 100,000.

The absolute number is largely irrelevant. Knowing the murder rate in South Africa is 32 per 100,000 and in Ireland is 5 per 100,000 is a far better estimation of the risk of murder between the two countries than knowing the absolute figures for both countries as I've no context to put that in.

Same with historical data points. I would be surprised to find any comparison of historical data points that didn't use relative numbers.

Manach wrote: »

As well, societies go through quiet as well as tumulteous times, where the violent death rate varies significantly so choosing an average rate would accurately reflect the norm would test most historians.

Actually that is the other way around, blips in data can muddle trends if the data points are not over a significant amount of time. Only looking at 2 years won't give you an accurate picture of the trend of child mortality rates, looking at 50 years will.

Pinker is looking at violence over the course of human history. Looking at the rate of violent death for the years 1939 to 1945 to represent the 20th century would give an inaccurate picture since he isn't doing that with any of the other centuries.

Manach wrote: »

Wars as well have become more total - in that all sections of society are supposed to contribute to the state's push to conquer. This dates from relatively recent times and the premise is laid out more fully in "The Conduct Of War, 1789-1961" by J. F. C. Fuller (I've only skimmed this work but was recommend reading in a good few military history courses)

I haven't read the book you mention, but the likelihood I will die in a war is significantly less than it was 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 1000 years ago etc.

If you go far back enough the liklihood I would die at the hands of another human is something like between 1/5 to 1/2. The murder rate for Ireland at the moment is something like 1/20,000

Manach wrote: »

He would also seem to have neglected to include catastrophic "Black Swan" events which would have increase the chances of violent death - such as the thankfully never realised but possible at the time nuclear exchange during the cold war (Another book I'd recommend - "The Rebellion of Ronald Reagan: A History of the End of the Cold War" by Jim Mann ) which would have pushed the violence rate to 100%.

Well he is obviously going to ignore events that never happened

Manach

In rebuttal.
An example of absolute numbers that are used that spring to mind is slave transport numbers across the Atlantic during the 16th to 19th Centuries. In collated primary sources (AFAIR various shipping manifests from ports) the numbers given were always in absolute terms. The graphs of this trade were presented as a timeline vs count of transportees, This is because the basis for calculating the total for all of the population of sub-Sahran Africa varied too much depending on which historical factors were applied.

However, I'd concede that the murder rate one does show a use for relative numbers.

Offhand, whilst the years of 1939 to 1945 where amongst the worst of the century, political driven famines (Bengal, Urkraine, China) & purges (say Stalin's in the '36/'38 were the about 1m alone and concentrated on specific classes ) happened outside those years which nearly matched those WWII totals.

My maths is rather poor, but a 1/2 kill rate imply extinction?

Finally, as counter-factual history is a legitimate exercise (well I keep telling myself that and so does Niall Ferguson ). So factoring in the possiblity (I think there was a nuclear scientist "minutes to midnight" clock based on how close a nuclear war was) of a nuclear event is not unreasonable given its catastrophic nature to life on this planet. Our very own extinction event.

gimmebroadband

20th was indeed the bloodiest when you count all the innocent babies being killed in the womb in their millions every year, they are not insignificant in the eyes of God.

Victor

Zombrex wrote: »

If you go far back enough the liklihood I would die at the hands of another human is something like between 1/5 to 1/2. The murder rate for Ireland at the moment is something like 1/20,000

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c1.asp&TableName=Homicide+Offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/bthsdthsmarriages.htm

In 2009, there was 28,898 deaths, of which 88 were homicide offences. Surely a rate of about 1/328. Or 1/50,000 per year.

Manach wrote: »

My maths is rather poor, but a 1/2 kill rate imply extinction?

If I kill all men aged 30, after they have had 3 children, the population can still expand, but 50% of people are still murdered. Of course, that level of violence would also tend towards supressing birth rates also.

lempsipmax

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

In my 39 years on this Earth, I have come to the conclusion that right and wrong are absolute and not relative. First let me say I am a practicing Catholic that believes in the Magisterium and treasure the preciousness of all human life. Now I will be the first to argue that there are times when we don't know the answer of what is right and wrong, because either we are not well versed in our Christian teaching; or a behavior is so unique or new that a Papal encyclical, for example, has not yet addressed the issue.

So how do people that subscribe to the philosophy of right and wrong being subjective and relative, address the topic of stealing, killing another human, pre-marital or homosexual sex, adultery. If right and wrong are not absolute, will people who think morals are relative, eventually accept pedophilia, bestiality as acceptable, and if not why not. If the relativism argument holds weight, does a relativist who has had his bank account wiped out through fraud have the right to call the thief wrong. Why so often then, does a relativist's arguments on what should and should not be permitted, revolve around their own desires (if it feels good then it's not wrong), or the growing number of secular relativist couples that decide not to have children so that they can have a more comfortable life economically speaking and "save the world" by having less people on it, even though this thinking is starting to backfire especially in Western countries where the inverted pyramid demographics is likely going to be the cause of economic catastrophe if it has not already.

Let's call a spade a spade.
To Relativists: Tell me why intentional killing in some situations is OK? In areas of the world where secularism and relativism is strongly embraced by the society, the Netherlands and Oregon in the US - Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage have become codified into law. Taking Abortion and Euthanasia to their logical extension (and Relativists you can't call my extreme example wrong here remember it's all relative), the very young and the very old are a burden on society and unwanted. So a Relativist cannot call Hitler wrong either as he was getting rid of the unwanted and burdensome in his society, who to him happened to be the Jewish people.

So Catholics, fallen away Catholics, Christians, non-Christians, proponents of Secularism, Atheists, Agnostics give me a solid counter argument why we should be Relativist and why it is "right" and why Absolutism is "wrong".

As English used to be my weak subject in school, please forgive my inarticulateness as I am an engineer but I do subscribe to logical reason as opposed to emotional reasoning.

I welcome any feed back.
Brian

You seem to hold very strong beliefs and you are looking for a counter argument as to why Absolutism is "wrong". I can tell you why. "Right" and "Wrong" are ideas that exist on a spectrum. From obviously extreme wrong on one side (such as murder) to obviously extreme right on the other (such as saving the life of another). It is a continuum. Forgive me while I resort to quoting a definition of continuum, but it is the only way of looking at right and wrong which accounts for the black and white of right/wrong and all the grey areas in between.

A continuum is a continuous sequence in which adjacent elements are not perceptibly different from each other, although the extremes are quite distinct.


In your argument you examine the extremes of the continuum and use this as evidence for absolutism. You account for the times when 'we don't know the answer of what is right and wrong, because we are not well versed in our Christian teaching;'. You believe in the Magisterium which I am not going to argue with you about. I will ask you to do the following however.

Take your Absolutism and put it in a box. It will not be questioned or challenged. Now with that out of the way take a moment to examine an alternative view of the world (the idea of a continuum of right & wrong or relativism). Can you see how the idea of a continuum accounts for everything from the extremes to the very grey areas in the middle? The areas which it is impossible to say whether they are right or wrong. Some scenarios off the top of my head:

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family?
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)?
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists?
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive?

These questions and more like them exist in the middle of the right/wrong continuum. It is very difficult to say if they are right or wrong.

I would respectfully suggest to you that the conclusion you have reached has more to do with a desire for clarity, than seeking out an understanding of the bamboozingly complexity of life and morals. Relativists are not to blame for the complexity of life they are just looking for a way of understanding which accounts for grey moral areas. You have ceded your opinion of this to the Magisterium. You account again for the lack of teaching on 'new unique and behavior' by saying that a Papal encyclical, may not yet addressed the issue.

Ask yourself which of the following images best represents the moral world as it is (not as we would wish it to be. Black is bad, white is good):


Relativism.


Absolutism.

Lady Chuckles

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Let's call a spade a spade.
To Relativists: Tell me why intentional killing in some situations is OK? In areas of the world where secularism and relativism is strongly embraced by the society, the Netherlands and Oregon in the US - Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage have become codified into law. Taking Abortion and Euthanasia to their logical extension (and Relativists you can't call my extreme example wrong here remember it's all relative), the very young and the very old are a burden on society and unwanted. So a Relativist cannot call Hitler wrong either as he was getting rid of the unwanted and burdensome in his society, who to him happened to be the Jewish people.

I don't fully understand how you justify your examples. You're stating that a Relativist has no business saying Hitler was a bad guy and totally wrong, because they'd be pro abortions. I mean, seriously??

I think you have to look at the smaller things to fully understand Relativists, if that is what you're trying to do.
Relativists are not pro abortion and euthanasia because "the very young and the very old are a burden on society and unwanted". It's a matter of being in charge of - and decide over - your own life.

Say for euthanasia, if someone's in pain and really wants to die, why should they be forced to live? Isn't it their life and don't they have the right to choose what to do with it? ... And as far as abortion goes, what if you're raped and very young. What if you can't provide for the child? What if you had to give up all of your own hopes and dreams because someone, by force, got you pregnant?

It's not the same as being a criminal, at least no as far as I'm concerned. I'm of the opinion that everyone should be able to make their own choices, but that doesn't mean I like Hitler (sorry, I'm still disturbed by that analogy )

You'd still have to have morals and a sense of what is wrong and what is right. You don't hurt others. Massmurder isn't ok - and just because you felt like killing a lot of people doesn't mean you have the right to do so.

... But abortion is killing, you'd say then. Be that as it may, but you have the right to decide over your own life and over your own body. Sometimes it may be necessary to have an abortion and I think that's ok, only you know what is best for you.
This is another debate, though, belonging in some other thread

leonil7

the 'absoluteness' of what is right and wrong is proportional to your belief on the reality of God that is not a figment of anyone's imagination. the importance of scripture comes into place, as the bible is the only written revelation of God (God -> reaching out men, revealing himself to men), and therefore the basis of absolute truth.

right and wrong is not absolute when it is a product of human thinking (whether it be from other religions, or creed).

georgieporgy

Absolutism is absolutely wrong? Or perhaps just maybe wrong sometimes, meaning it is sometimes right?

I think that's absolutely the correct view (but I could be wrong!)

(forgive this stupid post, i'm trying to think like a relativist)

lempsipmax

I will genuinely ask the OP to elaborate on the sentence in the post title.
'Right and wrong has to be Absolute..... or .....'.

Zombrex

Manach wrote: »

My maths is rather poor, but a 1/2 kill rate imply extinction?

Only if you are killed before you reproduce.

Anyway, its an interesting discussion, I also concede that not everything about Pinker's assessments are spot on (the Economist has a good review of his book where they point out a few minor but still interesting issues with his hypothesis), but I've sort of dragged the thread off topic so probably leave Pinker here

Zombrex

Victor wrote: »

http://www.cso.ie/Quicktables/GetQuickTables.aspx?FileName=cja01c1.asp&TableName=Homicide+Offences&StatisticalProduct=DB_CJ

http://www.cso.ie/statistics/bthsdthsmarriages.htm

In 2009, there was 28,898 deaths, of which 88 were homicide offences. Surely a rate of about 1/328. Or 1/50,000 per year.

Ooohhh look who went to statitics school. :P

Leaving aside my terrible example, my point was violence rate is a relative quantity, I'm safer where the murder rate is low rather than where the less number of people are killed. If I live in a society of 10 people where 5 of them are killed I'm in more danger than a society of 1 million people where 500 of them are killed.

Anyway, some what off topic for this tread

Victor

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

stealing,

Theft is wrong. Property is theft. The oft quoted case is "is it right for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread?". Well it would be wrong if they are stealing it from starving children - one is creating a greater wrong than one is solving. It would not be wrong if they were a kidnap victim / otherwise improperly imprisoned.

killing another human,

In most cases it would be wrong. More below.

pre-marital [sex]

In itself, no it is not wrong, even the Catholic church accepts that, although they would prefer that such sex would be within a loving relationship. However, wanton disregard for the emotions of others is wrong.

homosexual sex,

I think the fascination that society has with other people having sex is disproportionate and itself wrong. Other arguments aside, I don't see homosexual sex in a loving, caring relationship as wrong. Not for me, but not wrong.

adultery.

I think cheating on your spouse is a bad thing. Depending on whether one accepts divorce or not:
(a) If one considers divorce acceptable, then anything that happens after the divorce is not adultery and other factors aside, it isn't wrong.
(b) If one considers divorce unacceptable, and if one has a relationship after a divorce (I think divorce is a sad thing, but is not adultery in itself), then that relationship is wrong. However, if someone exited a abusive, violent relationship, is that person not entitled to human warnth and comfort?

pedophilia,

It is one thing to have paedophile tendancies. It is another to act on them. Active paedophilia is by definition child abuse. Imposing ones will on someone who can't consent is wrong. And remember what Jesus said about child abusers.

bestiality

Completely over rated.

does a relativist who has had his bank account wiped out through fraud have the right to call the thief wrong.

Other factors aside, yes. There is a difference between seeing a greyscale of right and wrong and being a mug.

Why so often then, does a relativist's arguments on what should and should not be permitted, revolve around their own desires (if it feels good then it's not wrong),

Some people delight in violence. That doesn't make it right.

the growing number of secular relativist couples that decide not to have children so that they can have a more comfortable life economically speaking

When God said "Go forth and multiply", it wasn't recorded what people should multiply by. Not having children isn't wrong. Being selfish probably is.

and "save the world" by having less people on it,

Its not just "save the world", it is "save the world and the people". Exponential population growth is putting severe pressure on lots of resources. At what point would you suggest we stop? When there is no standing room left on the planet - when the vast majority of children die as infants? Again, remember what Jesus said about the children.

even though this thinking is starting to backfire especially in Western countries where the inverted pyramid demographics is likely going to be the cause of economic catastrophe if it has not already.

I'm not so certain of these arguments. While income may need to distributed from fewer workers, likewise assets (all assets, not just personal/family ones) will be distributed to fewer children.

Tell me why intentional killing in some situations is OK?

Killing people is wrong. Ideally, we would save even the worst criminals. However, that isn't always practical. The passengers (not hi-jackers) of United Airlines Flight 93 likely killed people through their actions, but likely saved many more. They did the right thing. Imagine if someone on Utøya Island had a gun or other weapon, they would have been fully justified in shooting Breivik, simply becuase it would have saved lives.

Abortion, Euthanasia, Gay Marriage

Why doe you put the three of these in the same sentence? How many people die from gay marriage?

Taking Abortion and Euthanasia to their logical extension (and Relativists you can't call my extreme example wrong here remember it's all relative), the very young and the very old are a burden on society and unwanted.

I don't agree with either, but I can see what drives some people to them.

I have a general policy that life should be balanced (not equal), one should pull their weight in society, but that nobody should be completely screwed over. A guilty person is entitled to leniency for an early guilty plea, remorse, restitution, etc. A convicted person is entitled to remission for good behaviour. A released prisoner should be entitled to some form of rehabilitation in society. A persistent recidivist should be punished more harshly than the others. Tralee deserves to retain its railway. However, it would be completely unjustifiable to restore the rail all the way to Dingle. So lets strike a balance of having a bus service to Dingle.

A person who is pregnant may be in that position not of their own fault. It is difficult for me for society impose a certain hardship on them. However, it is harder for me to impose greater hardship on the unborn child. Society could do a lot more to help people with pregnancies and children.

I can understand a doctor directly relieving extreme pain, even if that means shortening someone's life. It is certainly not something I am happy about. However, someone killing themselves because they are 'bored' with life doesn't seem right.

So a Relativist cannot call Hitler wrong either as he was getting rid of the unwanted and burdensome in his society, who to him happened to be the Jewish people.

You see, there is a difference there Hitler killed other people. Perhaps un-Christian, but I have no particular problem with Hitler killing himself.

Zombrex

georgieporgy wrote: »

Absolutism is absolutely wrong? Or perhaps just maybe wrong sometimes, meaning it is sometimes right?

I think that's absolutely the correct view (but I could be wrong!)

(forgive this stupid post, i'm trying to think like a relativist)

It isn't that Absolutism is either right or wrong, it is that it is unknowable.

There may be absolute moral rules that exist in the universe independently to human opinion on moral questions, but so far the only way anyone has been able to assert there is is through highly subjective and relative assessment (eg things like religion, asserting that holy book X is a reflection of these absolute morals but holy book Y isn't).

So it becomes some what of a moot point.

Asserting the relativist opinion that religion X knows the absolute moral standard results simply in requiring that you either agree with this or don't agree with it. So you find yourself back a square one.

People say that if morality is relative then it is "just" your opinion, which people seem to think means it loses authority (ie you have to respect everyone else's opinion as well). But the assessment of what is or isn't the absolute standard is "just" your opinion as well. Christianity is the true religion and God's standard is the correct representation of the absolute standard of morality is "just" your opinion. So again you are back at square one.

If someone could measure this absolute standard in some sort of objectively empirical fashion that would be a different sorry, but that has never happened.

leonil7

it is knowable. just haveto go back to the origin. and god said, 'let us make man in our image' - so there you have it, everything that is absolute about everything, is knowing the creator and accepting our origins. well of course, those who believe we evolved with animals thinks otherwise.

Hoof Hearted

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What about killing in self defence, or in defence of your family or property? What an absolutist say this is wrong? A relativist might say it was justifiable. Would you kill someone threatening serious injury to your children? Or put their fate in your god’s hands? If you would be a relativist on one thing, it is hypocritical to be absolutist on others. Everything is relative IMO.

In response, remember my source of Absolute right and wrong is from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Please read the following:

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) says that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity," that is, only when it would be otherwise impossible to defend society. And the pope teaches that such cases of absolute necessity where society cannot be defended in any other way are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#56) That view is echoed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which applies the principle of self-defense to the protection of society, and states:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

Roger Hassenforder

PDN wrote: »

No, you are confusing two different concepts.

What you refer to is not relative morality, but rather the principle that there are greater evils and lesser evils. .

is there a difference?
is that not what relative morality is; that how we subjectively judge what is right or wrong by our own standards & norms?

Roger Hassenforder

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

In response, remember my source of Absolute right and wrong is from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. Please read the following:

Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life) says that punishment "ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity," that is, only when it would be otherwise impossible to defend society. And the pope teaches that such cases of absolute necessity where society cannot be defended in any other way are "very rare, if not practically nonexistent." (#56) That view is echoed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which applies the principle of self-defense to the protection of society, and states:

"Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

"If however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.

is the jist of it nonlethal means are to be preferred over the taking of a life, if these means achieve the goal of self/property preservation?
Couldnt agree more, but such a view intoduces a lot of room for a subjective call?

PDN

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

is there a difference?
is that not what relative morality is; that how we subjectively judge what is right or wrong by our own standards & norms?

Sorry, I'm not sure if you're taking the mick here?

Are you genuinely unable to distinguish between the following two concepts?

a) Right and wrong are absolute, objective realities. It may be preferable at times to commit a smaller wrong to prevent a larger wrong - but it remains wrong nevertheless.

b) Right and wrong are subjective, having no intrinsic value whatsoever. Whether we view an action as right or wrong is just an evolutionary quirk.

Roger Hassenforder

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I'm not sure if you're taking the mick here?

Are you genuinely unable to distinguish between the following two concepts?

a) Right and wrong are absolute, objective realities. It may be preferable at times to commit a smaller wrong to prevent a larger wrong - but it remains wrong nevertheless.

b) Right and wrong are subjective, having no intrinsic value whatsoever. Whether we view an action as right or wrong is just an evolutionary quirk.

I can see the distinction between the concepts. However, to decide whether something is right or wrong requires a subjective judgement, based on ones norms. So it is not for a person to decide whether rights/wrongs are absolute or subjective, because the person has prejudiced their decision.

what is 'wrong' to one person might be 'right' to another.
(eg. cannibalism).
were going around in circles with this.

Hoof Hearted

lempsipmax wrote: »

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family?
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)?
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists?
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive?

These questions and more like them exist in the middle of the right/wrong continuum. It is very difficult to say if they are right or wrong.

I would respectfully suggest to you that the conclusion you have reached has more to do with a desire for clarity, than seeking out an understanding of the bamboozingly complexity of life and morals. Relativists are not to blame for the complexity of life they are just looking for a way of understanding which accounts for grey moral areas. You have ceded your opinion of this to the Magisterium. You account again for the lack of teaching on 'new unique and behavior' by saying that a Papal encyclical, may not yet addressed the issue.

Ask yourself which of the following images best represents the moral world as it is (not as we would wish it to be. Black is bad, white is good):


Relativism.


Absolutism.

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family? Yes it is wrong.
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)? TMK, there is no specific teaching saying having possessions being wrong in and of it self. Putting possession above God would be wrong.
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists? I do try to judge only when the facts are clear on a wrongdoing. One must remove the logs from their own eyes in order to judge truthfully. Apparently it's a Relativist that more likely will utter the mantra "Don't be judgmental" even if the facts are clear on the wrongdoing.
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive? I don't know if there is a specific teaching on this, with the exception of Gluttony.

In exceptional situations we may not know what is right and what is wrong, but it is our duty to make a best effort to find out when a moral question arises and I know no other place other than the Magistrate that traces its moral authority all the way back to Jesus time on Earth in human form.

PDN

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I can see the distinction between the concepts. However, to decide whether something is right or wrong requires a subjective judgement, based on ones norms. So it is not for a person to decide whether rights/wrongs are absolute or subjective, because the person has prejudiced their decision.

what is 'wrong' to one person might be 'right' to another.
(eg. cannibalism).
were going around in circles with this.

You are making a very basic logical error.

Just because we don't know which of several options are true, it does not follow that none of them are true. People may have different opinions of what is right or wrong, but that has no implications as to whether an objective standard of morality exists or not.

lempsipmax

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

lempsipmax wrote: »

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family?
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)?
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists?
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive?

These questions and more like them exist in the middle of the right/wrong continuum. It is very difficult to say if they are right or wrong.

I would respectfully suggest to you that the conclusion you have reached has more to do with a desire for clarity, than seeking out an understanding of the bamboozingly complexity of life and morals. Relativists are not to blame for the complexity of life they are just looking for a way of understanding which accounts for grey moral areas. You have ceded your opinion of this to the Magisterium. You account again for the lack of teaching on 'new unique and behavior' by saying that a Papal encyclical, may not yet addressed the issue.

Ask yourself which of the following images best represents the moral world as it is (not as we would wish it to be. Black is bad, white is good):


Relativism.


Absolutism.

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family? Yes it is wrong.
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)? TMK, there is no specific teaching saying having possessions being wrong in and of it self. Putting possession above God would be wrong.
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists? I do try to judge only when the facts are clear on a wrongdoing. One must remove the logs from their own eyes in order to judge truthfully. Apparently it's a Relativist that more likely will utter the mantra "Don't be judgmental" even if the facts are clear on the wrongdoing.
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive? I don't know if there is a specific teaching on this, with the exception of Gluttony.

In exceptional situations we may not know what is right and what is wrong, but it is our duty to make a best effort to find out when a moral question arises and I know no other place other than the Magistrate that traces its moral authority all the way back to Jesus time on Earth in human form.

Thanks for the reply. There is no point in discussing it further though. You are so slavishly tied to the infallibility it the Magistrate that discussion is impossible.

lempsipmax

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

lempsipmax wrote: »

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family?
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)?
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists?
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive?

These questions and more like them exist in the middle of the right/wrong continuum. It is very difficult to say if they are right or wrong.

I would respectfully suggest to you that the conclusion you have reached has more to do with a desire for clarity, than seeking out an understanding of the bamboozingly complexity of life and morals. Relativists are not to blame for the complexity of life they are just looking for a way of understanding which accounts for grey moral areas. You have ceded your opinion of this to the Magisterium. You account again for the lack of teaching on 'new unique and behavior' by saying that a Papal encyclical, may not yet addressed the issue.

Ask yourself which of the following images best represents the moral world as it is (not as we would wish it to be. Black is bad, white is good):


Relativism.


Absolutism.

Is it wrong to steal a loaf to feed your family? Yes it is wrong.
Are possessions wrong (why not share everything you have with those less fortunate)? TMK, there is no specific teaching saying having possessions being wrong in and of it self. Putting possession above God would be wrong.
Is it wrong to judge others like you are judging Relativists? I do try to judge only when the facts are clear on a wrongdoing. One must remove the logs from their own eyes in order to judge truthfully. Apparently it's a Relativist that more likely will utter the mantra "Don't be judgmental" even if the facts are clear on the wrongdoing.
Is it wrong to eat more that you need to survive? I don't know if there is a specific teaching on this, with the exception of Gluttony.

In exceptional situations we may not know what is right and what is wrong, but it is our duty to make a best effort to find out when a moral question arises and I know no other place other than the Magistrate that traces its moral authority all the way back to Jesus time on Earth in human form.

Thanks for the reply. There is no point in discussing it further though. You are so slavishly tied to the infallibility it the Magistrate that discussion is impossible.

Roger Hassenforder

PDN wrote: »

You are making a very basic logical error.

Just because we don't know which of several options are true, it does not follow that none of them are true. People may have different opinions of what is right or wrong, but that has no implications as to whether an objective standard of morality exists or not.

my view is there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality as morality is subjective.

Hoof Hearted

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

my view is there is no such thing as an objective standard of morality as morality is subjective.

Yes there is such thing as true standard of morality, it's Jesus (God), and the Church he founded. If we don't have a morality standard (absolute right and wrong) then the day society accepts abortion, out of wedlock sexual relations, euthanasia, pornography, will be the day society goes down the slippery slope of anything eventually becoming acceptable..... Oh wait, sadly I think that time is already here..... So with relativist moral framework, it boils down to any practice considered unacceptable by the Magistrate, could become acceptable.

If you don't have a fixed standard of right and wrong, you have no standard.

antiskeptic

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

I know no other place other than the Magistrate that traces its moral authority all the way back to Jesus time on Earth in human form.

Whether the 'Magistrate' does what you say it does on the tin is a subjective thing. You can't objectivise something by founding it on something subjective (eg: your opinion regarding the 'Magistrate')

antiskeptic

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

If you don't have a fixed standard of right and wrong, you have no standard.

You do. It can be fixed like a tracker mortgage is fixed: fixed in that it tracks the Euro rate by eurorate plus x%, variable in that the Euro rate can change.

In practice, you can follow the consensus of society around you (stealing is wrong, abortion is a matter of conscience, working for you keep is right) whilst accepting that the consensus might change in time.

That there is no absolute standard doesn't mean there is no standard at all.

Roger Hassenforder

Hoof Hearted wrote: »

Yes there is such thing as true standard of morality, it's Jesus (God), and the Church he founded. If we don't have a morality standard (absolute right and wrong) then the day society accepts abortion, out of wedlock sexual relations, euthanasia, pornography, will be the day society goes down the slippery slope of anything eventually becoming acceptable..... Oh wait, sadly I think that time is already here..... So with relativist moral framework, it boils down to any practice considered unacceptable by the Magistrate, could become acceptable.

If you don't have a fixed standard of right and wrong, you have no standard.

I presume by "fixed" you mean not changing....?

I dont know what your magesterium has to say on slavery since society deemed it unacceptable, but various church stalwarths, such as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, St. Paul, sundry popes and bulls all condoned slavery. as your church ha shifted position on this one example of a moral right/wrong, is it not rational to think that its vaunted framework has an element of subjectivity in it?

The Quadratic Equation

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

various church stalwarths, such as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, St. Paul, sundry popes and bulls all condoned slavery

Can you provide us with reputable proof of each assertion there please.

Roger Hassenforder

if i provide the proof how will it affect your position?

goose2005

gimmebroadband wrote: »

20th was indeed the bloodiest when you count all the innocent babies being killed in the womb in their millions every year, they are not insignificant in the eyes of God.

Abortion has always happened; moreover, God has killed more foetuses and embryos than the femocommuatheist conspiracy could dream of.

The Quadratic Equation

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

if i provide the proof how will it affect your position?

I don't know yet, it will better inform me of the individuals you listed and/or your credibility.

Now, presuming of course you're not stalling (perish the thought) ;

Can you provide us with reputable proof of each assertion there please.

gimmebroadband

goose2005 wrote: »

Abortion has always happened; moreover, God has killed more foetuses and embryos than the femocommuatheist conspiracy could dream of.

God has the right to create life and to take it away, not man!

PDN

goose2005 wrote: »

Abortion has always happened; moreover, God has killed more foetuses and embryos than the femocommuatheist conspiracy could dream of.

And, by that cock-eyed logic, since hundreds of millions of people die of natural causes each year, then it's OK for me to kill a few more people here or there?

strobe

Why do I have such a hard time getting my head around all this subjective/objective/relative morality stuff?

Ok, I'm going to try and get this all cleared up in my head once and for all this time. (Maybe I should start a thread over in the philosophy forum... I'll stay here for the time being. Lot of you seem to have a good handle on this stuff).

So, first question(s):

If someone believes that no objective morality exists does that make them by default a moral relativist? Can you believe that subjective morality is the only morality that exists and not be a moral relativist? Or is moral relativism more about saying "you can not make moral judgments about the actions of others"? Is that what it is? 'Cause I mean you could believe that you can make moral judgments on the behaviour of others and simultaneously believe that no objective moral exists right? You are just judging them based on your own subjective morality and there doesn't seem to be any logical barrier to that.

Robert ninja

gimmebroadband wrote: »

God has the right to create life and to take it away, not man!

Says who?