There's this show on PBS that focuses exactly on this. It's a replay of class lectures at Harvard called 'Justice'. While it's thought provoking, promotes intellectual thought, etc, it's just straight up entertaining. I can see why this was a popular class to take there. Although I never went out of my way to watch it, I ended up catching it every week. I think it's stopped running now because I haven't seen it in awhile. They're all online though. NYT Article Justice on PBS
There's been too much history of bloodshed and cultural wackiness to convince me that there aren't any universal absolute values. The laws from the accounts of the Bible have changed dramatically compared to the laws today. Perhaps there are some absolute and universal requirements, but those requirements might not be enough for an all encompassing value or morality system. I guess these thoughts come from the hard acceptance of the possibility that a loving God would damn an entire era while giving humanity the gift of free will. Does free will mean a total lack of Interference? So I wouldn't say there are absolute values, more like values of best fit. The slavery debacle illustrates that some right things aren't instinctively known. We do the best we can. As a practice of being reasonable, we should not convince ourselves that all of our good actions are absolutely right because its a general assumption that our era is the best, most civilized or most blessed. It'd be like declaring an end to philosophy or science again and again. This doesn't mean that all possible customs have equal sway. We have the luxury of written knowledge and experience, and the more info there is, the more we're able to place bets on a "roulette table" of morality.
i also don't think that a concrete, universal set of "morals" exist... i am of the belief that everyone should be free to do anything and everything that makes them happy or gives them fulfillment - except if it involves harming another living being physically or psychologically. ahimsa - the avoidance of violence i picked more relativist than absolutist, because i don't see a firm set of universal morals, but some things are just WRONG PERIOD - like murder or stealing something that's not yours.
This is like a giant freaking red button waiting to be pushed by a philosophy major armed with "kill to save" or "steal to heal" questions.
Why only physically and psychologically? or are you assuming things like financially are included in those two? Because if I steal something from you and you don't notice, then that doesn't harm you physically or psychologically. So for example, you steal 100$ from Bill Gates' bank account.
I'm willing to say that I'm not sure about my answer. I think there is a moral absolutism which we are striving for, but until we kow for a fact that we have reached it and we have the ability to meet it, we are in a state of moral relativism.
Tired of that response. Tell me animal sacrifices or physical genital mutilation any world is ok. I had way too many fights in school on this topic. No rational person can justify any of that. The only justification is God which is a moral quandary in and of itself.
I think you misunderstood. There are two factors: 1) Knowledge of absolute morality in something 2) Ability to meet that moral standard Inherent in the second factor is that we have the intelligence to have the knowledge in the first factor. So if people could not explain why genital mutilation was bad, then really how can you blmae them? But today, we can show that it's not a good practice (factor #1) and have the ability to enforce it (via the knowledge) so we hold people to that standard. I think it's also insane to assume that it (or anything else) is a moral absolute. For all we know, they may discover that we must fan the genitals 20 hours a day to meet a moral standard and then, looking back, the absolute moral suddenly becomes relative again. Keep in mind that at any point in time, things that became common knowledge were considered absurd by everyone on earth. Looking back at some period in history, you'll probably find that believing the earth is round was absurd. Then a few people showed up with some knowledge (factor 1). Then they spread that knowledge. Now we can act on it (factor 2). If anyone thinks that we are ever going to reach an ABSOLUTE morality without flaws, I think that's ridiculous. We should always be developing in that area and never be so full of ourselves to think that there is nothing better. At this current time, there is a basic morality that the world can live by.
We don't have to hunt animals for survival yet we still do and the majority of people have no problems with that. Isn't hunting animals for sport basically animal sacrifice for the pleasure of the hunt? Just to add that indigenous tribes still continue to have religious based hunts, such as the Makah who have in recent years undertaken Gray Whale hunts, even though they have no survival need to do so.
A big voice in the sky instantly telling everyone that doing something is wrong, such as patting your head and rubbing your tummy at the same time, would qualify as a moral absolute.
Edit: Sorry, I thought this was the religion thread. I agree with this sentiment. I also think if one arrives at their beliefs based not on evidence or reason but rather a collectivist mindset or unquestioning acceptance of traditional beliefs (which is what most religions encourage), then that can be a hindrance to free thought and moral development. I think religion can be beneficial in establishing discipline and instilling some core moral principles. But does it encourage people to question their own beliefs in a critical way, or try to understand where someone else with a different set of beliefs is coming from?
I agree that we shouldn't rely exclusively on tradition or collectivist mindsets to make our decisions. Evidence or reason are best. Organised religion (broadly speaking) does not, IMO, allow that.
