Absloute morality vs relative morality

[OldGreyEagle 5]

You play the game to win

Herm Edwards

 

 

I think Jean-Jacques Rousseau in "The Social Contract" explains it best. A collection of individuals comes together to form a community for the purpose of a goal. The individuals see the need to at times sublimate their personal desires for the good of the community and eventually themselves. Values and behavior are formed by the community, usually to ensure survival and order within the community. Thus, while theft of property of a member of the same community would be considered wrong, theft of property of a competing community would not. In the first Star Wars movie, episode 4 I beleive, the rebels have stolen the plans for the Death Star, This is private property, clearly stolen, and yet the rebels are the good guys and use the stolen plans to destroy the Death Star and strike a blow against the Empire (Loud Applause here)

 

We are members of multiple communities. We may be members of a Church, A political party, hobby group, Citizen of the USA and Citizen of the world. Some communities we elect to join while others are thrust upon us. Most of the times being a member of multiple communties is not a problem, but at times, the goals may conflict. A Church's view may oppose a political parties view, that which is in a country's best self-interest may not be viwed the same by other citizens of the world. We as individuals need to determine what it is we want and then work within a community to accomplish it. If the heart of the matter is if there such a thing as absolute morality the answer is there is not. Murder is wrong, I think most, if not all here would say killing another is wrong, then again, self defense is ok. Soldiers in a war zone kill. Therefore the taking of a life is ok, depending on the circumstance. Theft is wrong, theft of a terrorist plan to kill others is good intel. But somehow I dont think thats what we were talking about back in June 2002 when this thread started and it's not now either.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Beavah 205]

If that's what you want to believe, go ahead and believe that but it doesn't make it so.

 

Of course not. What makes it so is readin' the rest of the Bible so as to understand.

 

Civil law is concerned with what makes society run best.

 

Morality is concerned with how it is best to live as a person.

 

When yeh try to reduce morality to the scope of civil law ("I can do what I want as long as I don't hurt or annoy anybody else too much"), yeh diminish and weaken it, and miss the point entirely. Just another form of adolescent relativism.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[LongHaul 10]

That is what I am trying to talk about OGE. Murder is wrong, killing someone in self defense is still murder and is wrong but we do it willingly to preserve our own life. The difference is in "justification" we can't seem to be able to stand up and say yes I murdered this person, it was wrong and I did it anyway. We need to justify it so we can feel that it was not wrong. Why is it so hard to accept that stealing the enemy plans is wrong but justifiable why must it be right before we can sleep? War is wrong, killing other human beings because somebody tells you to is wrong. There are times when the option of solving a situation without war is taken away from us that justifies our waging war but right and wrong can't hinge on how we feel today , who's in power, or what someone has done to us. We must keep the divisions between right and wrong clear if only to know how far we need to go before we can live in peace.

 LH

[evmori 11]

Is it wrong to steal battle plans?

 

Stealing is wrong regardless of the reason.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

SO Luke, Han, Leia and the Rebel Alliance were the bad guys! Who knew?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

During my life I have met many people, very few of whom would describe themselves as "amoral" however, quite a few others may do so. Very few people will tell you they are not moral, "nice" people though a mountain of evidence may be to the contrary. Even "The Fonz", who disregarded middle American values lived by the "Fonzarelli Code", which in its heart was quite decent.

 

LH, if life is sacred and taking it is wrong, then if confronted with a choice of taking the life of an other who wants me dead or allowing myself to be killed do I not honor my life by ending the others'? Why must I deprive myself of my life because another chooses to take it? What is the best result? That we both die? It wasn't my idea in the first place(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[FScouter 24]

It would help if we stopped putting ourselves into positions where others see no alternative but to take our lives. Situations where killing is the result are not usually wholly the making of one side.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, OGE, I lean your way, eh? But LongHaul's on the side of an equally robust and inspired moral tradition. Gandhi's and Jesus' non-violence. A willingness to lay down one's own life in charity rather than harm another, even if da other is a sinner.

 

B

 

[LongHaul 10]

OGE, I am not saying we must all become pacifists and allow others to do us harm. If someone is trying to kill you I say kill them first even though killing is wrong. The fact that people as a whole spend so much time trying to justify themselves for their actions makes me wonder if they don't see their actions as questionable. When was the last time you had to defend your self for not stealing or not killing or not harming another. The distinction I'm trying to make is between right and justifiable when it comes to killing. Justifiable homicide is homicide none the less, I feel homicide is wrong even when it can be justified. LH

[John-in-KC 311]

LH,

 

Much of what you say has merit. Remember, for those of us who use the Judeo-Christian ethic, death in general and the taking of life in particular is a consequence of the Fall in the Garden. WE, humanity, disobeyed God on the one thing He told us "don't do." The rest are consequences.

 

To Merlyn: To modify a quote by Frederick the Great on my own professional branch of the Artillery: War is the final argument of kings. War in general isn't right either. It's also a consequence. As long as we are on this earth, though, when our leaders send us to war, we rely on them to decide the justice of the war jus ad bello and the justice within the war jus im bellum. To quote a line from the movie Luther, spoken by the Elector, "and if you decide to fight, you must also decide to WIN!"

 

To B: I agree that the Decalogue is a model of man's relationship to his God. Will you agree that a fair bit of the Law is about the relationship of society, and of individuals within the society, to the Godhead?

 

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Will you agree that a fair bit of the Law is about the relationship of society, and of individuals within the society, to the Godhead?

 

I think our notion of "society" is a post-biblical one, eh? So to read our understandin' of "society" into the text can cause some confusion.

 

I'd say that the Law is about each individual's choices, but that da individual's choices clearly affect their tribe/society. The more individuals follow the law, the more the blessings of God accrue to the group, through the individual. The more individuals ignore the law, the more destruction they cause not just to themselves, but to their family/tribe/nation/environment.

 

Sin and virtue are always personal. But da effects of each are communal, in part because of direct benefit or damage, and in part because giving a good (or bad) example affects others' personal choices.

 

Beavah

 

[Gold Winger 9]

" killing someone in self defense is still murder"

 

No, it isn't. Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. Self-defense is legal in most locales so cannot be murder.

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

" What makes it so is readin' the rest of the Bible so as to understand."

 

I've read the bible. I've read the Koran (in the original Klingon). I've read the book of Mormon.

 

All interesting books but they were all written by men. Moses needed to find a way to control a bunch of rowdy people. So he went up on the hill and wrote some rules.

 

Ohhhhh. You cry. God wrote the bible!! It is comical that most bible thumpers reject the notion that Joseph Smith was visited by an angel but gladly accept the idea that a tent maker had a vision which prompted him to "accept" Christ and write a bunch of letters. Those letters form most of the basis of "Christianity" to the point that it should really be "Paulism."

[GernBlansten 10]

Hey GW, read any L. Ron Hubbard?

[Gold Winger 9]

About a thousand years ago, give or take a few decades. Why?