Technology15 mins ago
Moral Absolutes
52 Answers
Are there any moral values that can be or should be considered 'absolute' or are they all up for argument and subjective opinion?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by jomifl. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
paedophilia in legal terms seems to include anyone under 16 - but the word itself, its definition, refers to being sexually attracted to sexually undeveloped children, prepubescents
it is considered abnormal because a prepubescent body is not 'supposed' to be desirable.
it is not 'unnatural' to be somewhat 'attracted' to a 12 year old, if that 12 year old is developed and has the physique of an adult - it is only illegal.
it is considered abnormal because a prepubescent body is not 'supposed' to be desirable.
it is not 'unnatural' to be somewhat 'attracted' to a 12 year old, if that 12 year old is developed and has the physique of an adult - it is only illegal.
-- answer removed --
Much like I do not really believe in the Truth with a capital T, I am not a great believer in moral absolutes either.
About the only one I can think of is oft-called golden rule, which is I think a moral absolute based around enlightened self- interest. Treat others as you yourself would wish to be Treated. This can and should be applied to pretty much any situation.
About the only one I can think of is oft-called golden rule, which is I think a moral absolute based around enlightened self- interest. Treat others as you yourself would wish to be Treated. This can and should be applied to pretty much any situation.
@ Jim Your Dad must have had cynicism running in his blood then - one shared in various books and media I have read. The notion of the pre-emptive strike :)
It is, of course, a kind of cynical twist on the well known ethics of reciprocity, and its form a twist on the words of Matthew from the Bible. The Golden Rule itself together with its lesser known companion the Silver Rule can be found in pretty much all of the worlds major religions and philosophical movements, I think. Universal in concept ( although often flouted/ignored/forgotten), and the nearest thing to a moral absolute I can think of.
It is, of course, a kind of cynical twist on the well known ethics of reciprocity, and its form a twist on the words of Matthew from the Bible. The Golden Rule itself together with its lesser known companion the Silver Rule can be found in pretty much all of the worlds major religions and philosophical movements, I think. Universal in concept ( although often flouted/ignored/forgotten), and the nearest thing to a moral absolute I can think of.
No one decides what is moral. Morality is determined by that which sustains and promotes the well being of those for whom life remains a choice and an option, the most fundamental and the one upon which all others depend and follow from being the choice to think.
Where there are no options, there is no choice, no means for determining right from wrong and therefore no morality. Morality stems from that which presents one with options and the means for determining which options are preferred, those which sustain and promote the existence of rational moral beings, through the process of reason. Reason is the only moral absolute and reality the final arbiter of what ultimately proves to be right or wrong by the outcome of our choices.
Quality of life is the gold standard and reason the means and process by which that standard is raised and maintained. Without life no alternatives remain and without reason no options can be realised and without both, morality is neither necessary or possible and without morality there can be no reason for living at all.
Where there are no options, there is no choice, no means for determining right from wrong and therefore no morality. Morality stems from that which presents one with options and the means for determining which options are preferred, those which sustain and promote the existence of rational moral beings, through the process of reason. Reason is the only moral absolute and reality the final arbiter of what ultimately proves to be right or wrong by the outcome of our choices.
Quality of life is the gold standard and reason the means and process by which that standard is raised and maintained. Without life no alternatives remain and without reason no options can be realised and without both, morality is neither necessary or possible and without morality there can be no reason for living at all.
jomifl
Question Author
So mibs are you saying that without life their is no reason for living? That sounds a bit errr, fundamental :o)
11:30 Sat 22nd Mar 2014
No, I didn't say that explicitly . . . but why stop there? Without reason there is no reason . . . for anything.
Life is merely a precondition for the onset of reason, the next step in its evolution where choice becomes an option and making the right choice becomes essential to maintaining, promoting and appreciating the value of the existence of a rational moral being.
Having stated the obvious, one question remains . . . "Are we there yet?"
Question Author
So mibs are you saying that without life their is no reason for living? That sounds a bit errr, fundamental :o)
11:30 Sat 22nd Mar 2014
No, I didn't say that explicitly . . . but why stop there? Without reason there is no reason . . . for anything.
Life is merely a precondition for the onset of reason, the next step in its evolution where choice becomes an option and making the right choice becomes essential to maintaining, promoting and appreciating the value of the existence of a rational moral being.
Having stated the obvious, one question remains . . . "Are we there yet?"
It seems that moral values are determined by what is acceptable at a certain place and time. Moral values that are unacceptable at one place and time may well be acceptable at another place and time. Many actions by religious authorities and/or zealots may well have been regarded as examples of the highest moral rectitude but now would be regarded with horror as despicable cruelty. As these values change some people may be a bit slow to accept the latest moral values. It doesn't make them bigots though.
//A person shipwrecked on a deserted island with absolutely no chance of rescue would presumably have to start all over again, & would live without any moral values whatsoever.//
That's debatable - http://
On a desert island you have no less need to be aware of your options to make the right choices, among them to value the continuation of your existence enough to put forth the thought and effort required to sustain and promote it. The one thing you could dispense with would be the need to establish and agree to honour a mutually beneficial bill of rights.
Valuing ones own life and understanding the means and process by which one sustains and promotes it are the foundation upon which morality is established and built, apart from which no rational moral code is either necessary or possible.
That's debatable - http://
On a desert island you have no less need to be aware of your options to make the right choices, among them to value the continuation of your existence enough to put forth the thought and effort required to sustain and promote it. The one thing you could dispense with would be the need to establish and agree to honour a mutually beneficial bill of rights.
Valuing ones own life and understanding the means and process by which one sustains and promotes it are the foundation upon which morality is established and built, apart from which no rational moral code is either necessary or possible.
Latest Posts
Home & Garden15 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
ChatterBank20 mins ago
Body & Soul27 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.