phil

MORAL ABSOLUTE: A truth about morals whose ramifications hold consistant for all people for all time.

That is my definition of a moralo absolute truth (until a better one crosses my path). Now, are there any moral absolutes? I believe so, and for Zora's sake, I actually found some stated in the bible.

"There will be trouble and distress for everyone who does evil...but glory honor and peace for everyone who does good..." Romans 2:9-10
-Basically this says what goes around comes around, do evil and you'll reap the consequences, do good, and you'll reap the consequences.

"For where you have envy and sefish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice." James 3:16
-Again this verse is self-explanatory. Evil is done by those who have envy and selfish ambition.

I encourage you to test these statements. Do they hold up for all people for all time? Of course, in order to make a proper test one must first define what is good and what is evil. I do not have time now, but I will post these definitions later.

-phil

soulofdarwin

Au contrer, mon frer. There are no moral absolutes within this relativistic universe simply because Reality doesn't admit them. By the way, "what goes around, comes around carries no connotation of "good" or "evil". It speaks only of actions and consequences. And while you might like to bannish "selfish ambition", human motivation is entirely driven by it. Altruism does not exist in the transactional reality of human endeavor. And, Phil, please don't bother to define "good" and "evil" for my sake, a point which I am sure you will understand after reading my take on the matter of moral absolutes:

Actually, there are quite persuasive reasons for self-imposed limits on human behavior, in recognition of the fact that such imposition, when universally adopted, leads to order, a society in which its participants can exist free from fear of the hostile acts of others. Such a commitment of individuals to playing “life’s game� by universally accepted (societal) standards is at least as durable as any arbitrary subscription to “moral codes�, as succinctly demonstrated by director Stanley Kubrik in the movie classic “A Clockwork Orange�, in which the viewer is directly confronted with the tenuousness of his or her notions of “right� and “wrong�, “good� and “evil�. I have always felt that the personal involvement of an individual in constructing his or her own system of behavioral standards is vastly more sustaining than a mere parroting of “sin according to god�, and my “morality� has nothing to do with arbitrary rules of behavior.

A rationally based (secular) society is marked by the presence of law and the absence of references to commandments purportedly prescribed by deities. The members of such a society devise and subscribe to a set of behavioral rules (law) for their mutual benefit and protection. These rules provide a basis for the social contract that binds society, establishing “right� and “wrong� within that context. Some progress toward world order has been made through negotiation of a “social contract� among the various societies of this planet.

In short, individuals form societies and subscribe to societal rules of behavior out of pragmatic self-interest. The choice is clear. You can have the protection of law, or you can wear your own at your hip (California, circa 1849). It seems certain that most people are inclined to the former, not the latter.

The second factor that shapes human behavior arises from an instinctual trait and/or behavioral conditioning within the psyches of most humans, the ability and propensity to put oneself in the place of another. This human inclination is the natural and physical embodiment of the “golden rule�. For most of us, it is an immediate and powerful regulator of behavior. The sociopathic personality (the predator), however, is marked by the absence of this characteristic. It should be noted that one of the glaring failures of the “rehabilitative� penal system of the United States is the failure to recognize that the sociopath is no more capable of rehabilitation than a tiger in the wild and must be removed permanently from society, just as we do with any wild animal.

These two are the only factors in reality that circumscribe human behavior. It is for this reason that I have a profound distrust of individuals professing adherence to the dictates of an arbitrary “morality according to god�. Reality is that, when the chips are down, no one is sustained by admonitions carved in stone or written in the firmament.

Throughout the posts on “morality� in this discussion board, a pattern emerges in that discussion to the effect that morality is predicated on notions of "good" and "bad" behavior. Non-destructive behavior has nothing to do with such notions in any intrinsic sense. I have survived rather well for quite some while (since birth, actually) giving no consideration or thought whatsoever to ideas of "good", "evil", "right", or "wrong". For the sake of cutting short discussion that leads nowhere, what has deterred me from theft, mayhem and murder is the fact that I am a pragmatic sentient being not bent on self-destruction. I make a conscious effort, therefore, to conduct my affairs in a social rather than anti-social manner. I followed my parents’ lead in that, after seeing that it works.

In brief, I am not concerned with good, as "good" is an idea that has no relevance in the relativistic universe in which we dwell. What is "good" for you might be very "bad" for me. The only relevant matter is whether your need for that "good" is sufficient to cause you to be willing to do "bad" to me. This is the transactional essence of all interpersonal relationships among beings of this planet, including humans. It is consistent with the legacy of Darwin, and certainly with that of Einstein. Rather than “good�, what I try to keep in mind is that WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND!

Hence, “secular morality�' is NOT a contradiction in terms, and “morality� is NOT the province of non-secular society, despite the fact that organized religion has spared no effort to convince the world that it is. The simple FACT is that ethical systems of human behavior are in no way exclusive to theology. They define JUSTICE within the context of society, and they exist independently of socio-political contexts. Organized religion has traditionally denounced “secular� societies in rationalizing their appropriation of “moral� standards of human behavior. But, we see through that, because our mothers didn’t raise any STUPID CHILDREN!

And so, dear Reader, which would you like? JUSTICE, or “sin according to god�? Yes, ladies, you can be told exactly what to do with YOUR BODIES under the capable leadership of theistic fascists.

soulofdarwin

If, by "no one was around" you mean no human form, the mega millions of years of revolution and rotation within our planetary system that preceded the appearance of human forms on this planet makes the answer to that question rather obvious, don't you think?

Detached9

Morals and aesthetics are not objective matters. Something that is objectively true is true independently of others' minds. Morals and aesthetics only have existence in peoples' minds. Even universal morals are subjective since they are dependant on peoples' minds.

Now epistemology... I believe in objective truths. I can't absolutely prove them, but going by the paucity of evidence and Occam's Razor, it seems more plausible that there are not multiple realities and there isn't a mad-scientist who manipulates a brain in the jar.

One reality. Different people may have different perceptions of it, but the differing perceptions are of the same reality. That's what I believe.