Ok. Then there are at least two different moral standards. And per your answer, the standard to which one is bound is relative to whether one is a god or a human. Which necessarily means that morality cannot be absolute.

Sky,

Spider is a fundamentalist Christian with good intentions and poor consistency.

I have no disagreement with anything you said there. But none of it addressees the topic of my post that you quoted.

So let me put it as clearly as I can.

All else being equal…
1) Is it or is it not moral for one individual to imprison another individual against their will?
2) Is it or is it not moral for a government to imprison an individual against their will?

If forced imprisonment is immoral for an individual but moral for a government, there are two different moral standards and thus, no absolute morality.

sky, i would say it depends on the reason he is imprisoned.
if his actions were wrong (detrimental to the survival and prosperity of the human race) than it is right.

if he murdered, he should be imprisoned or executed

I do how ever understand your point of view. your last statment is what got me thinking about the whole thing.

But the question wasn't really about whether or not one should be imprisoned. It was about whether their is such a thing as "absolute" morality. If it is OK for a government to imprison someone, but not for an individual to do so, then moral cannot be "absolute".

Bringing "the law" into the discussion doesn't solve the problem. If it is never moral to break a law, then all laws must be considered moral. But there are different laws in different places. So morals cannot be "absolute".

On the other hand, if it is somtimes moral to break the law, then the morality of the action of breaking the law must depend on the circumstances, and again, no "absolute" morality.

And even if we consider "God's law" to be the only valid moral standard, God himself has broken those laws, which means that they do not apply to him, but only to humans, And again we end up with two differing moral standards and no "absolute".

Skyhook,

Honestly, you don't see a difference between taking away an innocent mans freedom and taking away a murderer's? It's always wrong to imprison an innocent man. A guilty man can be imprisoned in a just manner. It doesn't change the absolute nature of God's law. God's law is described as a "two edged sword". Those who break the law are then punished by the law. The moral code includes punishments that would break the moral code, IF they were applied to an innocent person. Your argument isn't even reasonable. No moral code treats the guilty and the innocent the same and there is no contradiction.

Morality is absolute in that it applies to man. God is not limited by laws, but by his character. God's actions are guided by his wisdom and knowledge, thus He is always able to do the *good* thing. Mankind is more limited, so we were given laws to live under. These laws are absolute and apply to all mankind. No exceptions. But that doesn't mean that God has to obey them. How can God honor his mother and father when He has none? How can God covet his neighbor's wife when he has no neighbors? This isn't license for God to sin, because God doesn't commit evil actions. God's punishment is always righteous. If you look at any situation in the Bible, you see that no matter how offended you are, that God's actions were for the greater good. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, because they were exporting their evil across the desert. They were destroyed for the sake of the rest of humanity. And they weren't destroyed capriciously by men, but by God, the one who had given them life. By the God who could guarantee the innocent were treated fairly, while the guilty were punished.

Said without even a blush. You have stated that there are cases when raping a child would be the right thing to do. My position is logically and morally consistent, yours is not. The fact that God's laws cannot be applied to God's actions isn't an inconsistency. God can give life, you cannot. God knows all of the ramifications of his actions, you do not. God said "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways". God will fully forgive someone and wipe their slate clean, if they turn towards him. That's not human justice! We would still punish a murderer, even if he promised to be really really good. Our minds cannot comprehend the reasons or justifications of God's actions, we simply have to trust in God's nature. If you don't want to, that is fine. But my position is the only logical way in which the subject can be viewed. To think that an eternal, omnipotent, omniscient being would be confined by the same laws as his creations is truly specious.

As I've pointed out, the moral law is a two edged sword. A moral law that cannot punish the guilty is pointless. What good would it do to say "Murder is wrong...but if you murder someone, we won't hold it against you. <hug>".

But lets continue with your example. Someone breaks God's moral law by committing a murder. The police lock the guy up. What does that have to do with God's moral law? If there were no punishments inherit to God's moral laws (which there clearly are, but for sake of argument...), you have simply proven that governments don't obey God's laws. You cannot prove that God's laws aren't absolute by showing that some people break them. You simply show that some people are sinners.



Your logic is incredibly convoluted.

The human laws aren't always moral. Slavery was the law, but it wasn't moral. Abortion is the law, but it's not moral. Christians and Jews were instructed by God to obey all laws of their nation, except laws that would require they commit murder, sexual immorality or worshiping a false god. This is a tacit admission by God that some laws are immoral, but acknowledges a man's need to obey his countries laws.

Spider you have said in this thread that there is no absolute moral code, and that there is an absolute moral code.

If the choice were to rape one child or watch as that one and ten others get raped and then skinned alive, raping the one would be the right choice.

You disagreed and held the mental ramifications of the one child as reason, which makes no sense at all, when considering that it is one child's mental condition or eleven. Neither choice is one which is wanted. If forced between, neither are desirable but one causes less harm - that is how morality is judged. The only choice would be to harm one in a way 'A', or harm eleven in 'A' and 'B'. You chose to harm eleven worse than harming one, and by doing so harmed the one to a greater degree as well. Is that the right choice?

My position is that conscience and morality are products of the personal sense of ought, and therefore cannot be absolute. You have avoided that perspective in all of your arguments.

Why is *anything* wrong?

No, I didn't.



No, I didn't hold the "mental ramifications of the one child as reason". I said it is a violation of dignity. Dignity is an "Inherent nobility and worth". In your situation, the rape of the child would be a violation of the dignity of all involved. In your hypothetical situation, I would rather die than allow that to be done to another, child or not. My life is not worth my soul.



The fact that I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean I have "avoided that perspective". I could equally claim that you have "avoided" my perspective. I'm am still amazed that you demand that I accept your beliefs while you reject mine out of hand. I believe that there are moral absolutes. I believe that the moral law is self-evident.

Why is anything wrong? A violation of another's dignity is wrong. We sense it. A bully will complain if he is bullied. This is proof that he knows instinctively that bullying is wrong, but hypocritically exempts himself. In the same way, humanity recoils from some punishments which on their face would be just. We execute murderers, we lock up kidnappers, we take money and possessions from thieves...why don't we rape rapists? Because the very idea is an affront to our dignity as humans. We see that execution, imprisoning and restitution can be done morally, but rape is always immoral. Rape is only used by the most barbaric of societies and people and it is always "justified" in some manner. "She was asking for it", "They are our enemies", etc.

You are definitely right..lol that the right and wrong of things are subjective. Bin laden, of course, felt right for his cause to do what he did or didn't do depending on the information given.

According to religious folks homosexuality is wrong, not the truth but to hear them tell it. Now, wrong for them in their personal life, maybe, they can follow the churches doctrine and not be gay themselves but they have no right over others to dictate to them if they be gay or not. So when they feel they are right they are wrong...lol

If killing is wrong, why is it only right when a government does it? Something to think about huh?

The list can go on and on.

Those folks who see the world in right and wrong or black and white are our non visionaries in this world. They have to live by a set of rules or they are lost. Ridigity breeds stagnation.

If propagating the species was painful for either partner the death of the species would be the right thing to happen. Any other thought is sick.

Spider wrote...



Therefore, 'God' and absolute morality do not exist. Debate is over!

No, taking of a life is taking of a life. One can always find justification and hiding behind the bible is one of the greatest justifications of all time. My neighbor is a jerk, rude to me and my children, even mean to my cat. He doesn't deserve to be on the planet..H should be killed. See how easy that is to do.

While I'll admit that I wasn't as articulate as I want to be, I think I got my point across. Let me re-word it and maybe you will be able to understand my point better.

But you are confusing absolute right and wrong and absolute morality and I'm sure that I have added to the confusion. So many people posting and expecting responses from me and I got sloppy. Morality is the set of rules that we apply to ourselves, which guides us to what is right and wrong. Right and wrong are absolutes and they are God's laws. Morality on the other hand has to be flexible. I heard a terrible story of a nun who was asked by German soldiers "Are there any Jews in here" and the nun was torn between lying and allowing the Jews to be taken...so she told the truth. That is the failing of absolute morality in a world where sin exists, sometimes you have to make a decision between two sins.

For this reason, morality is objective and absolute, not purely absolute.

If you are forced to choose between lying and allowing someone to be murdered, then you have to choose the lesser of the two sins. You cannot simply say "Both are sins, so I won't do either". So absolute morality as a theory that you are guiltless if you don't actively sin is not valid. Objective Absolute morality assumes that an individual will be in a situation in which all possible actions are a sin and allows the individual to choose the lesser of the two.

EDIT: Okay, I found a better term to use.

Right and Wrong are absolutes. Example: Stealing is wrong
Morality is objective and non-relative. Example: Stealing to feed your family, when you have no other option, is less wrong than allowing your family to starve.

Sorry about the confusion, I will use absolute for right and wrong and non-relative for morality going forward.

Exactly my point, I'm glad that we agree that right and wrong are absolutes and not dictated by social or natural forces.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/us/18deter.html


Violent criminals continue killing and victimizing people when they are incarcerated. Guards and other inmates are in constant danger when they are around sociopaths. I used to oppose the death penalty, but it seems immoral given that the execution would save lives.

As to your example...punishment must be proportionate to the crime in order for the punishment to be just. Execution is usually reserved for the worst offenders. Those who are a constant danger to guards, inmates and society as a whole.

You are arguing for the existence of 'God' through a moral argument, specifically by claiming absolute morality exists, and therefore 'God' does as well.

Morality and right and wrong...

What is the distinction?

Morality is right and wrong. One cannot logically dismiss the relative nature of morality by mis-defining it. What is the difference?



That is what you chose to do in the earlier example I gave.

BTW...

Absolute is absolute, there is no partial or pure absolute.

Right and wrong are not absolutes at any level. I just shared my opinion. Which doesn't dictate any right or wrong except in my eyes.