Dragoness





Massage wrote...



The underlined represents what would logically constitute reason to believe that an absolute right and wrong has been established. If there is but one exception when killing is not wrong, then it cannot be held as an absolute. It also would not be immoral in that exception. I see no appreciable or significant difference in calling an action right or moral...

Bingo!!!

That’s exactly where I ended up.

Basically he seems to be saying that the simple act of defining ‘right’ makes it absolute.

NOw if that’s what makes for absolutes, then I’ll freely admit that there is such a thing moral absolutes.

And I’ll also happily go on redefining ‘right’ according to whatever circumstances present themselves, secure in the knowledge that no matter how I define it, it will always be absolutely right.

(Sorry for the delayed responses but I’m just now catching up.)

I am finding that my greatest area of confusion (i.e. lack of confidence in my understanding) is in the definition of “absolute right/wrong”.

On the one hand, it seems as if it’s being used in the sens of “it is absolute because everyone agrees on it”

On the other hand it also seems to be being used in the sense of “it is absolute, regardless whether anyone agrees or not.”

Now personally, I have always thought of it as being the latter.

But I think Creative did a good job of pointing out a very critical factor when he mentioned “universal” being confused with “absolute” a while back

So I personally would like to know if everyone agrees on the definition of “absolute”.

Is it absolute because everyone agrees on it (which I think of as “universal”), or is it absolute regardless of who agrees on it (which I think of as being truly absolute”)?

Or something else?

i understand this position. morality and right and wrong are not the same i agree. but i didn't bring up morality, you did. the thread is about right and wrong. i've been addressing your posts regarding absolute morals. you think they exist, i don't. that simple. ok we understand each other's position now and disagree. as far as reading everything here, i simply don't have the time. when you ask a question and then make statements not related to the question all i can do is answer the question. i cannot do that and expand on every comment you make.

earlier you made the comment that you see no evidence that absolute morals do NOT exist. i asked you if you've seen evidence that absolute morals do exist. that is a very simple reply to your very simple comment. i asked the question so as to understand your point and allow you to validate your point. and yet you've not answered the question. you moved on to the issue of right and wrong. if you're having difficulty making your point you might want to look at the idea that you move from one point to the next without being understood on the first point. if you say the sky is green and i disagree, seems blue to me and then you go on to say because the sky is green the reflecion off the lake makes the lake appear green then don't expect me to understand your point. when i disagree with one point of yours such as absolute morals exist, we'd best settle that point before proceding. we haven't but now you're back on right and wrong vs. absolute morals and we still don't agree on absolute morals. i didn't skip a thing, you just moved on without solidifying one point that needs to be accepted to make your next point.

that said and in an effort to move on and allow me to understand your point, the first comment i made was your claim that absolute morals exist therefore god must exist. i said that i disagree with you that absolute morals exist. we then traded several examples none of which has affected my disagreeing with your statement that absolute morals exist. you then said that you see no evidence that absolute morals do NOT exist. and finally to allow you to make point one, absolute morals exist, i asked you if you've seen evidence that absolute morals DO exist. we've not resolved point one and you moved on to the entirely differnent subject of right and wrong. and we're not even close to agreeing on your second point which was "god must exist".

there are no less than TEN definitions of murder in the one dictionary i have. this is but one. posting a dictionary definition of a word does nothing to support your point. how about i use this as the definition of mureder:

5. to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

that is precisely what i call murder. you posted the definition of a crime, not an absolute moral. now you've gone from morals, to right and wrong and are now discussing law. and you wonder why you have a difficult time making your point?

Massagetrade,



I've thought about it and came to the same conclusion. While I wrote my post yesterday, it troubled me that a person who kills in self defense experiences guilt. I think that it's possible that all killing is wrong and most systems of morality make exceptions for self defense, war, etc.

Edit: The more I think about this, the more comfortable I become. I think that skinning down an actions to it's basest, guilt causing root, reveals the moral absolute. It seems automatic with most sins, like stealing, but not so simple with murder.

Of course, this means that killing in self defense is actually a juggling of two wrongs. It's wrong to kill someone and it's wrong to allow another person to kill someone (in this example, you). Ignoring the instinct of self preservation, killing in self defense would be more moral than allowing yourself to be murdered. Reason dictates that someone who is willing to kill once in cold blood is probably willing to do it again. So self defense boils down to a moral, rather than a moral absolute. Cool, thanks. Discussing this with you helped to clarify my own beliefs.

In reading this, I can see where the confusion can be at on this level. Morality defines right and wrong, without a moral code right and wrong are obsolete. This cannot be disputed.


I think what people are confusing here is their personal definitions of right and wrong. They do not realize that their personal definitions of right and wrong were given to them for the most part by others, parents, the laws, books, etc... So they are believing that they have innate or instinctual right and wrong triggers inside of themselves. They are deep and strong for us, granted, but they are not inherit or genetic, they are taught. Some of them we learned through watching people when we were young, others were punishments we recieved for doing things, some we are told, as we got older we made deductions on our own still based on what we are taught, etc.....


I will use spider's example here, if rape was a norm in a society, that society would see it as a part of daily life with no considerations for it being "wrong". Now if one person felt differently about the rape and started talking to others, then and only then would the subject and act of rape start to be considered a not so great thing. We have been taught that is a horrid crime from childhood. As babies we did not know it was wrong or a crime.

Sorry spider, we only feel guilt because we are taught that it is wrong through the moral codes of the society.

Guilt cannot be felt unless we are taught it is wrong.

We are taught that hurting others is wrong through all our life. That is why the child molestor feels guilt, he was taught it was wrong but cannot help himself because of a mental illness, that is why a women beater feels guilt but cannot help himself for a mental illness, that is why a soldier feels guilt even though it is his job to kill, etc....

It is still something we are taught.

What would it mean to be a "true" right and wrong outside of a supreme being?

In a universe that is nothing but a freak accident, the very existence of the universe could not be said to be 'right' or 'wrong' and therfore anything that occurs within it could also not be assigned any absolute truth values.

But then if we turn to the idea of a supreme being it becomes extremely complex. If the supreme being feels that killing is absolutely wrong then why design carnivorous animals?

Such a creator would be creating the very essence of what it feels is wrong. So that wouldn't make any sense either.

Also if we turn to the Bibical doctrine we can clearly see that the Biblical God has given countless examples of when it feels that killing is justified. The whole way though the Bible this God is either killing 'sinners' and 'heathens' on it's own, or it's instructing men to kill them.

So if there is a "true" right and wrong associated with just killing anything at all, then any and all ideas of a supreme creator would go against their own values. Especially the Biblical God who was always focused on killing, or threating death and/or eternal damnation.

So what would we base this idea of on?

We certainly can't base it on this universe!

This universe is filled with carnivorous animals, but that very design would fly in the face of any supreme being that was against killing in general.

And sometimes we have to kill plants to eat them too so there is another form of killing...lol

agreed but morality is not the same within every individual. my moral standard defines right and wrong differently than the "sportsman" hunter who kills for the fun of it.




not so in the least. at least as regards my morals. i was raised by presbyterian parents who were racist bigots. being born in texas i likewise was consumed by the illness for sixteen years being fed the bible, books and even the laws permitting segregation in the south during that time. then i became interested in science. from my studies in science i began to appreciate that scientific understanding, common sense and human empathy would be the basis of my moral compass. i now rely on nothing i'm told to determine what is morally and ethically right, nor do i read books for such information and i damn sure no longer have a bible. as law goes, that's a matter of legal and illegal having nothing to do with right or wrong. it may be that many carry what they were spoon fed as a child into adulthood, but i sure didn't.



nope. instinctual right and wrong triggers are indeed genetic in all species. because a species disapears if it fails to perpetuate itself, the instinct to protect our offspring is carried genetically in all species. it is right to protect our children and wrong not to. the same is true of intentionally harming yourself. it takes mental focus to get past the natural instinct to survive in order to commit suicide.




by that example, as babies we do not know that driving drunk is a crime. rape is a legal issue. you say so yourself when you say "We have been taught that is a horrid crime from childhood." it is a horrible crime until you travel to someplace such as somalia. i don't get my morals from the bible but is rape covered anywhere in the scriptures?

there is no question that we kill in order to eat. that is not morally wrong as i or anybody would see it. purposely killing for any other reason is wrong in my view although i have a can of raid under my sink for those pesky ants. why? so that it makes it easier to commit the wrong of ridding my home of the pests by killing the suckers. nobody's perfect are we?

Okay, I do not get any of my moral standards from the bible either but was raised to do so also. I also changed what I was taught for the moral compass I use today. You reasoned that the moral code given you was not acceptable to you. That is a deductive power we have. Had noone ever shown you ( shown by providing a book or watching people even, not necessarily instruction as we would think of)the "wrongness" of the moral code of your past, how would you have changed it? You read, watched, etc... and discerned on your own from information provided or that you pursued that the morals of your parents was not going to work for you.

But still we are taught first and foremost that there is right and wrong. We are taught as children that there is a moral code so that we either use the one given us or change it to what we believe as we grow. It is still taught.

Survival instincts are not a gauge of right and wrong. Sure we need them to survive and for our species to survive but it has nothing to do with right and wrong. Moral codes create right and wrong. We are taught them so young that we feel as though they are there all along.

i would not have had to make the additional effort required of change. i would have eventually derived my own moral compass as i have done through change. it's no simple task reasoning out what you've been taught for sixteen years with what you think at that given time. indeed it's so difficult a task that many if not most adults today would tell you that their moral standard that they use today to guide themselves was handed to them through their parents and scripture. i've often said that the world would be a far less dangerouse place if religions did not exist. no i'm not advocating abolishing the first amendment. i'm saying that if we all were to develope our own morals values based on human empathy and common sense we'd be better off. the golden rule was golden long before christianity existed. it simply makes sense to treat people well if you expect to be treated well in return.




yes it is. and as i say the teaching is quite often the problem. had i not been taught that separate drinking fountains for "colored people" and whites are right because we should not mix with "those people" i never would have had a predjudice to overcome before i could figure out what was right. and i'd likely have figured it out long before i did. i began my transformation at sixteen but it wasn't until returning home from vietnam and realizing we all bleed red that the world began making real sense to me.



on this we simply disagree but i won't repeat myself.

It appears then that the determining factor of an “absolute wrong” is that it causes guilt.

But if so, wouldn’t a “wrong” only be “absolute” if everyone who ever did it felt guilty about it?

If so, then what about someone who is completely insane and feels no guilt from raping and killing a baby?

The only way out of this is to claim that the insane person actually does feel guilt, regardless of what anyone or anything else indicates to the contrary.

But the only way that can be done is to also claim that the arbiter itself is “absolute” – i.e. God.

Now on the other hand, the existence of absolute right and wrong has been claimed to be the proof of this absolute arbiter.

So you’re right back at the circular argument – God determines absolute right and wrong, which prove the existence of God, who determines absolute right and wrong, which prove...

In other words, the determination of absolute right and wrong is what determines the existence of that which determines the existence of absolute right and wrong.

And yes that sounds convoluted. But that is the essentially what defines circular reasoning.

More thought...I think that the moral absolute would be causing harm to another.

Now that is something to work with...

It would be helpful to focus upon that, and not deviate into long and drawn out stories...

I think that one can accidentally harm another without the action being wrong or immoral though, so simply harming another is insufficient. Intentionally and/or deliberately would be necessary, would it not?

Harm is a description given to an object by a subject which denotes perceived damage.

While most would agree, I think, that this is a good beginning, it is still prone to personal perception, and therefore fallible and subjective.

Only in the minds of moral relativists, which are a minority and their beliefs are almost universally rejected by Philosophers, including atheist philosophers like Nietzsche.

But yeah, on this forum, most people accept that flawed and fallacious moral ethic as the truth, so you are talking to the right crowd.

But on what I was saying, harming another, even when accidental, causes guilt. I would suspect that the fact that in harming another person, you are damaging a being created in God's image carries it's on wrongness. Perhaps not as much guilt as intentional, but guilt exists in that case nonetheless.

Do you have a logical refutation for anything in that post, or is this just a hand-waving exercise?



Harm necessarily equates to guilt?

Explain that.

The fact that every society, religion and sane person agrees that murder, rape and stealing are wrong. (Now you probably want to quibble on definitions, sounds tedious.)

Someone who denies the existence of moral absolutes will cry foul when treated unfairly.

Those who claim to believe in moral relativism prove through their actions and beliefs that they actually believe their morality to be absolutely true.

Within every society, there are dissenters to their moral beliefs. In a society where adultery is the norm, there will always be dissenters who insist that it is wrong. In a culture where killing non-believers is accepted, there are dissenters. The society or culture may create their own morality, but they don't determine right and wrong.

When people around the world point to a moral person, they point to Jesus or Ghandi or the like. Why would everyone agree that those figures were more moral than the average person, unless there is an innate awareness of right and wrong that transcends morality, culture, religion?

Every sane person agrees that the Golden Rule is the moral minimum for behavior.



Are you saying that when you harm someone unintentionally, you never feel a moment of guilt?