Is the magnet right and wrong for having two opposing sides? Is the coin wrong for having two faces? Dark is only the absence of light, but if there was no light, there would be no dark, so who is to say what is right or wrong. May as well call gravity evil cause it pulls things down. "To name a thing beautiful, is to name another thing ugly." ~Lao Tzu

( = smile spidie, smile! its good for the soul. im glad to see you finaly relaxe and i take pleasure in making you smile
(evidence? if you take my advice about introspection, youl see what i and everyone else sees. read your stuff, your attitude and the way you express yourself in that arogant tone is my evidence.)
did i make ya smile!?

I spoke carelessly - especially with the use of the word 'right'; and this is highly tangential, but I believe I understood - what I mean is: (IMO) an objective voice would require explicit (& agreed upon) guidelines for 'what makes for a good argument' and 'what makes for good supporting material', and even there I predict you two would disagree in an way which would make said debate impossible. You could try using a copy of the standards published by some debating organization, but that would only providing the stepping-off point for the debate-before-the-debate.

To show my objectivity, I've already printed some very objective looking scorecards and I've given Spider a point for suggesting I'm sufficiently objective to judge, and Abra a point for not being Christian.

After taking a break to clear my head and think about the whole subject of absolute right and wrong for a while, this finally hit me…

Premise: If A is not absolute, and B is dependent upon A, then B cannot be absolute.

So let’s look at a practical example – the “murder is absolutely wrong” hypothesis.

Now all definitions of “murder” are dependent on (among other things) the definition of “life”.

But the definition of “life” is by no means absolute. There has been a legal battle raging for half a century over the abortion issue, which centers around the definition of “the start of life”. And medical definition of “the end of life” has changed at least twice in the last few centuries. And the scientific debates over exactly what constitutes “life” have been going on for decades at least. And the philosophical debates over what constitutes “life” have been going on for millennia.

So “life” is in no way absolute, which means that “murder” cannot be absolute and thus murder cannot be “absolutely wrong”.

And one can take any of the examples of things that are alleged to be “absolutely wrong”, and apply the same reasoning. They are all dependent on relative factors, which means they cannot be absolute, and thus cannot be “absolutely” anything.

And that is the underlying fallacy of absolute morality. It is fundamentally a paradox. It tries to assert that B is absolute, even though B is dependent upon A, which is relative.

<Watching the cards fall>

Yes, you did. I'm probably a bit arrogant, but aren't we all? You have revealed arrogance by assuming to know how I think and giving advice on how I could live a better life.

But you know, I think it's the fact that my tone is both formal and matter of fact that really gets under people's skin. I try to be clinical in my posts. I make my points and give what supporting material I can as I would in writing a text book. I state my beliefs matter-of-factly, because I believe them. Just as everyone else makes statements of their beliefs as facts. The fact that you judge me for it is actually cause for celebration. You see, my Lord promised that I would be hated for loving him. Your judging me while giving a pass to all non-Christians for the same behavior would seem very strange, if I weren't aware of the promise.

It is absolutely wrong because my 'God' says so.

nice.

Spider...

Can moral behaviour be wrong?

Can immoral behaviour be right?

Those are very unusual questions. You must not be using standard definitions for moral, immoral, right and wrong.

It's really sad to see a grown family man trolling an internet forum. I can understand having a difference of opinions and disagreeing strongly, but simply trolling a forum? It seems like such behavior should be beneath you.

Are going to answer or not? In your view, answer the question and we will have determined the grounds upon which this conversation must continue.

It is absolutely wrong because my 'God' says so is my argument.

Tell me why it is wrong.

CreativeSoul,

I've never made such an argument. I wouldn't because it's obviously fallacious. I said I would SAY that, but I was joking. Sorry if my sense of humor didn't come across. But in my reply, I clearly said that I can't say WHY something is immoral, it just is.

I can deal with sarcasm. I can deal with harsh rebuttals. But I need you to be intellectually honest if we are to have a conversation. You are well aware that I never made that argument. If I see it again, I will have to stop discussing topics with you. I don't want to, but I honestly see no reason to waste time and energy conversing with someone who is mischaracterizing my posts and trolling the forums.

it has everything to do with the discussion. you claim that if moral absolutes exist, god must exist. but there are no moral absolutes so by your reasoning god must not exist. as an agnostic i don't care whether or not god exist, to me god is unknowable so i don't give it a thought. a waste of brain power you see. but morals values are unique within each of us.



murder is not a moral absolute nor is it always wrong depending on who you ask. you don't get to decide what is right and what is wrong for me and everybody else on the planet. a muslim living under sharia law does not think murder in all cases is wrong. he does not consider it wrong to kill a family member who dishonors him. many christians hunt and kill animals for sport. i call that murder but they disagree. those same christians call a doctor who performs an abortion a murderer. the woman on whom he performed the procedure disagrees. we have the death penalty in thirty two states and many consider that the moral and just deserts and just as many consider it murder and morally wrong.

your morals may derive from your belief in your god but mine derive from comon sense, human empathy and scientific understanding and my very good friend from iran thinks his moral compass has been laid by allah. there are no moral absolutes and of course that doesn't prove that god does not exist as you use the premise that the existence of one proves the existence of the other. proving god based on what YOU think is true about moral absolutes is no proof at all. it's what YOU opine. believe what you will but don't expect everybody to consider your belief rational.

In your example, the Muslim will kill a family member who dishonors the family. Why wouldn't the same Muslim kill a family member who hasn't dishonored the family? Because it's murder. But your hypothetical Muslim DOESN'T believe he is committing murder by killing someone who dishonored the family, he believes he is killing the person.

I have seen an Imam say "Of course killing innocents (murder) is wrong, but Kuffir (non-Muslims) are not innocent". People instinctively understand that murder is wrong, but they will make loopholes or exceptions in their own morality to excuse the act. Your hypothetical Muslim would think something like "I'm not murdering Abdul, I'm just punishing him for holding hands with a Christian girl."

I see no evidence to suggest that Murder isn't a moral absolute.

Look at any other moral absolute: Stealing, Adultery, Rape...nobody says "I raped her because I wanted to", they always have some reason that made it okay. "She was asking for it", "She was a lesbian and needed to know what she was missing"...whatever. The fact that someone has to make excuses for their actions is proof that they know it is wrong to begin with.

And there are others who see no evidence to suggest that murder is a moral absolute.

ha i dont hate you spider. come on lighten up.
and no ones judging you because your a christian.Hell, i belive in God, how and why would i hate you for believing in God even if i didnt.
like i said, its all a matter of presentation. if your matter of fact and formal tone offend people, than doesnt make sense to mabey turn it down a notch? why do you want to offend anybody? it doesnt matter if you think you had good intentions, what matters is how you came across. they judge you by your actions in this discussion which so far are a little on the closeminded im right and your going to hell side. (no you didnt say that, but thats how i took it, and when your trying to convince someone something or win an argument, isnt how they took it kind of.....important?)

You're using words here that imply these things are wrong.

The very word "murder" implies the wrongful death of some one.

Is capital punishment "murder"? Societies have condoned the death penalty for eons.

Is killing in war "murder"? Societies have condoned war for eons and still do it to this very day.

The very term "murder" implies a "wrongful" killing. So the terms you are using are already biased.

Same things goes with "stealing", the very terms implies the "wrongful" taking of something. The real question is whether or not everyone agrees when taking something is 'wrongful'. Once it's been labeled "stealing" is already been condemned as being 'wrongful'.

The same thing goes for the terms "adultery" and "lying". Those very terms imply something has been done that is 'dishonest' or misrepresentative of truth.

Better questions would be to ask whether it's always wrong to 'kill' or terminate a life. It should be clear that many societies accept that there are contextual situations when the termination of a life is the right thing to do.

So once you're biased vocabulary has been exposed for the cheap trick that it is, then it's clearly that most societies do not agree on when it's right or wrong to kill, or when the taking of something is considered to be 'stealing'.

What constitutes 'stealing' would be vastly different from a socialistic commune than it would be in a very individualistic capitalistic society.

So once again, I feel that you're proclamation that all societies agree on absolutes is clearly false in the very face of the historical evidence.

Also, to even suggest that all religions would agree on absolute values of right and wrong is a bogus ideal as well. First off, religions are typically created by people who are concerned about moral behavior. The people who aren't concerned about these things aren't likely to create religious dogma. Therefore religions are already biased in favor of morally conscientious people.

Besides if you look at the very primal core issues that you keep bringing up, those issues are basic survival issues that follow from the very simple concept of not wanting other people to do to you those things.

Do you want to be killed by someone randomly for no good reason?

No. Ok, then clearly killing people for no good reason is a bad thing.

Do you want people to take your stuff without asking?

No. Ok, then clearly taking stuff without asking is a bad thing.

Do you want people to cheat on their commitments to you?

No. Ok, then clearly cheating on commitments is a bad thing.

And so on.

There's no need to call upon any divine consciousness for these things, it's just the basics of what any sane living person would want.

Those people who have no morals are probably willing to just take their risks and fend for themselves. They just figure that they would always come out on top evidently. They are also probably not very intelligent, or at least they aren't very wise to think that society could even exist if it were 'every man for himself'.

Even in the animal kingdom animals don't typically kill the members of their own packs, flocks, herds, or whatever. At least no more than humans murder each other. In fact, animals typically don't typically conduct large scale wars against other members of their own species. Chimpanzees might be an exception to this, but they are also our first cousins in the animal kingdom so they are very much like us, or we are very much like them, depending on how you want to look at it.

But no, I don't see where your hypothesis that all humans agree on absolute values of right or wrong holds a drop of water. If that were the case all societies would probably get along just fine. And like Sky points out there also wouldn't be debates over whether or not abortion should be legal, etc.

You're hypothesis has been shown to be totally unsupportable based on nothing more than the simple observation that humans don't exhibit this trait now, and never had at anytime throughout history.

It's an utterly absurd hypothesis in the face of the clear evidence against it.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I will respectfully disagree.
I can't control how you take my posts. What I can control is how I present my arguments. I try to be formal and dispassionate in the presentation of my arguments. I don't always succeed, but I try. Looking through your posts, I see that you hold yourself to a lower standard than you wish for me to apply to myself. Why then should I take your advice?

You are welcome to take my posts how you will. You can be offended or you can read them as statements of belief, as you made when you said "well we already know that R vs W is a matter of interpretation." No open mindedness in that statement, you believe you are right and don't question that belief for a second. Good for you. Now extend me the same right. If you cannot rise to the minimal moral level of applying to yourself the same moral standards you apply to me, then I see no reason to take you seriously.

Now, if we could stop discussing me and perhaps discuss some other topic, it would be appreciated.

Truly. I have absolutely nothing against Spider whatsoever.

I'm just denouncing the hypothesis that he's attempting to establish.

Nothing personal intended whatsoever.

The only reason the religion thing even came up was two-fold:

1. Spider himself offered that absolute morals can only exist if a God exists.

2. Spider himself referenced the 10 Commandments as a source of absolute right and wrong.

That opened the door (actually it demanded) that the religous question be addressed. So that's the only reason I even went there.

I have nothing against any Christians.

However, I will voice my reasons why I don't believe in the foundational doctrines of that religion. Especially if it's being held up as a source of absolute morality. It becomes a political agenda then and is no longer a mere faith-based religion at that point.