The Philosophy Thread - Where Serious Questions "May" Be Discussed — Page 6

TV's Frink said:

Post Praetorian said:

Danfun128 said:

Time for more serious questions! [flat]Yay![/flat]

This is specifically about morality. First of all, am I right in assuming that moral absolutes means that morals never change, ever; and that moral relativism means that morals change over time? Is Moral Relativism and Moral Absolutes a dichotomy, or is there middle ground? Also, where do morals come from, if not from God? While I feel that some morals change over the years, shouldn't there be a foundation for others?

Morality might be considered a construct in that it appears to spring forth from the notion that there are certain behaviors that seemingly advance society relative to others that might pose a hindrance. Morality affixes a concept of positivity to the actions deemed right, while the label of immorality is reserved for those acts that might otherwise lead to wrong or a weakening of social fabric. 

This may better help explain why it may appear that morality has often shifted over time...rather than needs appealing to the concept of a god as acting as chief arbiter of mankind's moral compass... 

 Hey, you're back.

Hi!

 Thank you for the welcome...I have returned...to ellipse you all...to death... ;-)

I have certainly missed this place. I wish I had more time though, as I am very behind on these threads...!

DuracellEnergizer said:

You could say the prodigal praetorian has returned.

 ;-) Practically...positively...poetic...my good DE...!

thejediknighthusezni said:

       Being the creator of a compass doesn't automatically confer the status of sole compass orientater. The North Magnetic Pole has something to do with it.

       A potter determines the form of the jar. Once formed, the jar has an intrinsic, objective nature of it's own. It has a certain capacity, resilience, portability.... The jar's nature and utility is dependent upon the Logic that informs the physical constants of the multiverse and this is independent of the opinions of potter.

      The potter might, if sufficiently reasonable and informed, be able to judge whether the jar is adequate to it's task and worthy of respect or casting into a rubbish heap.

      Things become more complicated with sentient creatures. There is a necessity to impose justice for immorality and reward for morality. Needless cruelty must be deterred, unjust suffering must be given meaning, and transcendent principle must be upheld. To do otherwise is unjust and immoral, if these terms have any meaning. 

It is possible...while perhaps an unaided humanity might simply devolve without a concept of what might benefit society relative to its opposite...?