Absolute good does exist. In my opinion, God is the source of this. If you would prefer a more secular example, look at the world's laws. Virtually every nation outlaws rape, murder, and theft. Why? If absolute good does not exist, how did all of these nations happen to form similar laws? Maybe the creators of those laws realized that there is something greater than themselves.

That is all I have for the moment, but I am interested to hear other responses.

Later on that day, after touching the elephant, they sat down together and began to discuss their experiences. One blind man, who had touched the trunk of the elephant, said that the elephant was like a thick tree branch. The second, who touched the tail, said the elephant looked like a snake or rope. The third blind man, who touched the leg, said the shape of the elephant was like a pillar. The fourth, who touched the ear, said that the elephant was like a huge fan. Finally, the fifth blind man, who touched the side, said the elephant was like a wall.

They sat for hours and argued, each one being sure that his view was correct. No one was willing to listen to the others, as they were all positive that they were right. Finally, they decided to go to the wise man of the village and ask him who was correct. The wise man told them, "You are all right and, yet, you are all wrong. You each only touched a part of the elephant�s body, so how could you expect to understand the whole thing? If you put your partial views together, you will then get an accurate idea of what an elephant looks like."

You can't have a clear cut right and wrong because there is something called "perception". In the case of the elephant, there was someone who saw "the truth" and was able to solve and explain the perceptions, but in life- we dont have that someone.

Why do people have laws regulating rape, murder, and theft? Because- the people who are affected most strongly by those laws also make the laws. If there was a universal goodness, then those laws would be defined similarly. They're not. My dad lived in India, and he remembers that when someone of a lower caste walked by him, and the man's shadow fell on his icecream- they would have to throw away the cone and then beat the man in front of him. Would that be allowed in America? I think not.

We've opened our minds (some of us) to new ideas, I think its only for the better. You may miss those lynch mobs, but as for me- I like being who I am without any regard to people who want to turn me into a cookie (someone mass-made).

Have a fantastical day!

I have experienced few, if any, absolutes. I will admit that I haven't yet identified any good or redeeming value in Charlie Manson or any of his genre.

Since you are so conservative in your views, let me pose a few questions. Would you ever steal? Would you ever harm or kill another human being? My best is that your answer will be a resounding, "NO!" I used to believe that about myself as well. Then I became a parent. A lot of my perpsectives changed almost immediately. Through recognizing the awesome total responsibility I had for another human being, I realized I would be capable of behaviors I would have denied three days before.

If my child were starving and I had exhausted all other options, I would steal to prevent him from starvation. If there were a threat to his life, I would be capable of harming or even killing another human being to protect him. Theft and murder are wrong but any of us in certain circumstances are probably capable of committing both. I am grateful that our society allows the opportunity to present a defense and takes into consideration extenuating circumstances.

1) A statement such as "there are no absolutes" or "there is only perception" seems pretty absolute to me.

2) One can classify two types of crimes: those that offend morality, that are "wrong" or "sinful"; those that also offend a law, that are "illegal". There are some crimes that are illegal without necessarily being morally wrong (talking on your cell phone while driving, although such behavior may be negligent). There are some crimes that are morally wrong without being illegal (lying, for instance, except in cases of perjury). What kind of punishment "fits the crime" is treated as a question of law in today's society. However, the fact that morally culpable actions recieve greater or lesser punishments legally according to the circumstances does not make the action itself less reprehensible in the eyes of morality. The culpability under the law is lessened because the weight of some necessity had come to bear on some person. (A necessity would be something such as hunger, or the need to preserve life from one who would take it, or the weight laid upon a soldier to kill in order to protect). Necessities do not make the action less reprehensible in the eyes of morality, only more excuseable: the debt owed to the offended party is lessened or eliminated. In sum, the percieved "relativism" in law comes to bear only on the punishment demanded, not on the wrongness of an action itself; the punishment is less severe, not the action less wrong.

3) Morality is very nearly universal. There is no culture that I know of (save perhaps the modern Western culture) that practices relativism as its philosophy, much less as its basis for a system of laws. Everyone, whether consciously or not, practices at least one universal moral law. What this law is you will get an idea of by reading the following passage excerpted from CS Lewis' "Mere Christianity" (in a chapter which Lewis calls "The Law of Human Nature"):
"Every one has heard people quarrelling. Sometimes it sounds funny and sometimes it sounds merely unpleasant; but however it sounds, I believe we can learn something very important from listening to the kind of things they say. They say things like this: 'How'd you like it if anyone did the same as you?'--'That's my seat, I was there first'--'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'--'Why should you shove in first?'--'Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine'--'Come on, you promised.' People say things like that every day, educated people as well as uneducated, and children as well as grown-ups.
"Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. he is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: 'To hell with your standard.' Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against teh standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. ... It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you or he had some sort of agreement as tp what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football." (pp.17-18)

4) As to objections that differnt countries have different standards, Lewis replies:
"But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called 'The Abolition of Man'; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might try to imagine a country where two and two equal five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked." (p. 19)
The moral law of all peoples is: "Do unto others as yu would have them do unto you" (Mat. 7:12, Lk. 6:31). If one doesn't think so, consider the following examples gleaned from the appendix to Lewis' "The Abolition of Man":

"Never do to others what you would not like them to do to you. (Ancient Chinese. Analects of Confucius, trans. A. Waley, xv.23; cf. xii. 2.)"

"By the fundamental Law of Nature Man [is] to be preserved as much as possible. (Locke, Treatises of Civil Govt. ii.3.)"

"Speak kindness ... show good will. (Babylonian. Hymn to Samas. ERE v.445.)"

"Men were brought into existence for the sake of men that they might do one another good. (Roman. Cicero, De Off. I.vii.)"

"Love thy neighbor as thyself. (Ancient Jewish. Leviticus xix. 18.)"

"Love the stranger as thyself. (Ancient Jewish. Ibid. 33, 34.)"

"I have not brought misery upon my fellows. I have not made the beginning of every day laborious in the sight of him who worked for me. (Ancient Egyptian. Confession of Righteous Soul. ERE v.478.)"

"Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded. (Hindu. Janet, p. 7.)"

5) Some may point out that some people do not obey the Law of Human Nature: criminals, liars, bad men. However, simply because people disobey a law or morality does not mean that it doesn't exist. The speeding laws in most countries, for example, are widely disobeyed; but if you get caught, you get a tickit, the punishment meted out by the law. It is the same, no, even more so, with the universal moral law. People know about it, they do not neccisarily obey it, and it is not always (or even often) enforced. But it is still there. As Lewis put it: "Each man is at any moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these which he is free to disobey. ... he cannot disobey those laws which he shares with other things [gravitation, etc.]; but the law which is peculiar to his human nature, the law he does not share with animals or vegetables or inorganic things, is the one he can disobey if he chooses." (p. 18)

6) In conclusion, I'm with Lewis when he says, "these, then, are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in." (p. 21)

Pretend for a moment that the U.S. government adopts true relativism. That means, every behavior, every action is tolerated because there is no such thing as right or wrong. Our country would deteriorate into mobs, murdering, stealing, raping, etc at will.

That may sound extreme, but so is relativism. Relatively, nothing, and I do mean nothing, is wrong. Can anyone envision living in a society where nothing is wrong?

Review the history of the world for a moment. Very few people, currently, agree with the genocide that Hitler committed against the Jews and other minorities; yet, at the time, some people believed it was right. Should the nations of the world allow a genocide if some people believe it is right. Remember, relative to Hitler, it was right.

If you truly think about the subject, justice/right is determined by the majority, or the victors. (Admittedly this point is a little vauge in totalitarian socities, but if enough people dislike it, you will usually have a revolution. The Amercian revolution is a perfect example.) And, as Jwpublius pointed out, there is a standard that all people appeal to. Had Hitler conquered the world, the genocide would be seen as glorious. Since we won, the genocide is seen as an epitomy of evil.

Now, since justice/right is determined by the majority, how does this prove absolute right? Well, go back to what Jwpublius quoted from Lewis, that laws across the world have similarities. That is very true. Our laws are based off a conglamerate of older laws from England, Rome, Greece, etc. Virtually every nation on the planet, or that has ever existed on the planet, has not allowed murder. They have some variations on this law, but typically, you cannot kill anyone you wish. Standards such as these keep occurring in societies. Yet, these nations may not have any contact with each other. (China is a perfect example, since ancient China had virtually no contact with the outside world.) This leads us to conclude that there has to be an absoulte good that everyone knows.

As for the elephant example - it's wonderful when helping to explain human preception. However, in the story there was an ultimate truth to it all. And there is also ultimate (absolute) truth for us here and now, although it does often get muddled among our varied preceptions, but it is there. (Refer to the posts above me for logical thought processes explaining this.)

And to firmly believe there is no absolute truth, you must not say that, you can only answer maybe. 'No' and 'Yes' are absolutes, are they not? Therefore, would it not be a contractions in and of itself to say 'there are no absolutes'?

~cj

ontario, canada
http://www.mlcj.org
http://www.geocities.com/habsfan31/katindex.html

"Hope is hearing the music of tomorrow. Faith is dancing to it today."

1) Isn't that a bit like saying that the atheist has a religion of sorts because he has faith in the concept that there is no God? It's twisting around facts, and, although it works for many cases, it's just word play. If you want to get into that, though, then... How can you say that there is an absolute right and then make allowances for other countries and necessity? If there is but one exception, then it is not absolute.

2) Thats not really what I meant. I mean... nobody can say what the "absolute right" or "absolute wrong" is because of perception. Everyone sees things differently. I know people in my extended family who would die for the concept that it is wrong to eat or kill animals. I know people in the farming community that would die for the exact opposite concept. They both saw it as an "absolute right"... but obviously, both cannot be right.

Morality is very nearly universal.

Morality, I always thought, was an abstract noun. I've known lots of good people who had different morals, that reflected their different stations in life, different religions, and different locations. Again, with the meat example- who is someone to tell my grandmother that the religion she has believed in for years upon years is wrong? And who is she to tell someone who has eaten meat for years and years the opposite? Yes, there is a similar concept of right and wrong. I agree, but that is ONLY because people are born with conceptions of being "fair". Which, in itself, is a word that suggests perception. Perhaps CS Lewis (being a well-reknowned Christian writer) had a bit of a bias.

Again with other non-christian countries (like India), there are so such complaints as listed in your quote (which I have to say is kick-butt as far as representing america, lol, I'm gonna have to use that "to hell with your standards" thing. ). If my father, who was raised in India wants to sit down and someone grabs the chair before him, he has no doubt that the chair is his- not because he was first, but because he is higher caste. And, if the person was of equal or higher station, then my father would say nothing, and perhaps sit on the floor- using a petty argument would never come to mind. In fact, even the younger generations Indians I've met are similar. Lewis may have seen other countries and envisioned their way of life, but I guarentee- until you live somewhere, you cannot possibly understand or grasp what makes them tick. Just because they come up with the same conclusion, does not make the conclusion right. I mulitiple 2 times 2 and get 4. You ADD 2 and 2 and get 4. We got the same answer! Wahoo! Now... does that make the adding right or the multiplying right???

There is a world-wide agreement on right and wrong, I think. But its very limited. I agree you could sum it up in 'If you hurt someone for your own selfish reasons, you are wrong.' Is that really "absolute" though? Of course not- otherwise we'd be killing off kids who make fun of each other, and teenagers who break windows, and adults who break promises. They're considered "not nice people", but really- if it was Absolute Wrong to do these things, would we be so slack?

A common agreement of what is right does not mean there is an absolute right. My sister and I used to share a piggy bank of sorts and agreed that we would only use it if it was important- that way, we'd both have use of it. We ended up splitting it up because really- a bottle of water after a soccer game, to me, was important... but my sister would say 'You couldnt wait till you got home?' and such. We agreed on a right, but we did not have an Absolute Right because our perceptions were not aligned.

Pretend for a moment that the U.S. government adopts true relativism. That means, every behavior, every action is tolerated because there is no such thing as right or wrong. Our country would deteriorate into mobs, murdering, stealing, raping, etc at will.

Isn't that a bit melodramtic? Relativism would not mean tolerance to everything. It means, the starving boy stealing of loaf of bread should get one day in jail. The millionaire's son who does so just for laughs should get two. Also, someone would argue that our country (and every other country in the world) has already deteriorated into the crimes you named.

I am not saying nothing is wrong.
Simply that there is no ABSOLUTE WRONG.

There is nothing in this world that you can do that is not forgivable in some sense. How do you know this? Because people weep for those being electricuted. People hold parades for those that are killed for a crime. Rodney King was a CRIMINAL. Jesus Christ was REVOLUTIONARY. Shiva is the hindu god of DESTRUCTION. (I'm in no way putting King up there with Christ and Shiva, I'm just giving an example more people might be familiar with. ) Aren't these "bad" words? So why aren't these people "bad"?

Perception- and the fact that there is no absolute wrong.

As for the elephant example - it's wonderful when helping to explain human preception. However, in the story there was an ultimate truth to it all.

Was there really and ultimate truth? If I asked a handful of people off the street- "Are you sure you exist??" Would I get an absolute answer? Of course not... "I think therefore, I am"- Descartes theory was soley based on the fact that he could smell, hear, taste, feel, and think about his suuroundings. But hasn't anyone had a bad dream where they were SURE they were there? Have you ever woken up with the feeling of falling? Of course, so, in a sense, your senses tricked you. Does that make then a reliable source for saying whether or not you ABSOLUTELY exist? Of course not.

There are too many unknowns in this world to have an absolute.

Have a fantastical day!

Euphorion, I think you have missed my point. Let me explain by example...

Suppose you and one other person were writing the laws for a country you were to jointly rule. You both agreed with relativism, and agreed to be bound by that. You then began setting down laws based on that. The rule is this, once a law has been set down, the other cannot make a law that contradicts that law. If you doubt the relativism of a law, you may call that into question with the other for a debate.

Now, you both begin setting down laws. You go first, by setting a law that makes murder (I mean that in the criminal sense, not in cases that deal with self defense. The particulars are not important.) illegal. Your partner challenges this law.

"Why?" you ask. "Without that law, we will have our population controlled by mobs!"

"Because that law is based on Biblical principle that killing is wrong, and that has no place in a truly relative society. I believe killing to be a moral action, therefore I challenge your law that it is relative only to you as being wrong," he/she replies.

You could carry this out to hundreds of issues, but the fact remains, without some absolute standard, civilization would have been eradicated long ago. If humans were not born with an innate sense of this absolute right, society would not survive. In fact, the existence of societies proves my point. We form these societies to enforce this absolute right.

Tribe A used to have lots of people, with only basic laws and a monarchy, until one day, long ago, a guy raped the princess. This caused quite an upstir and caused a split between the tribes. The other part of the tribe went off somewhere else and since that day, Tribe A has had strict laws against rape. Tribe B lives nearby and has no such ideals- they believe in something akin to Greek mythology (I mean, Zeus raped people all the time) and they also have a monarchy. But because of selfishness, logic, and diffusion of ideas- Tribe B soon recognizes, "Don't be raping any Tribe A members." and pretty soon this philosophy spreads to their own tribe. A few generations later, rape is completely and totally outlawed.

Most laws are made for historical reasons. Yes, some are made for religious reasons, but religions base their "rules" on historical reasons.

The standard that youre looking at is not based on Absolute Right or Absolute Wrong- its based on selfishness, logic, and history.

Why did people way back when outlaw stealing if there was no religion yet that said "thou shalt not kill"? Because, if you murder someone and someone gets revenge- you die. If your tribe/civilization only has 40 people, you can't afford to have people dying left and right. Yes, there is a standard- but does it really have to do with morals at all? No.

As far as the Descartes goes, is that another example of Absolute Wrong? Personally, I feel that I do exist, but that does that give me any place to tell someone else "You need to see someone about that" if they think there might be something else? Of course not. Descartes, Plato... millions of other geniuses have proposed theories of other dimensions and such. Maybe they have a point. And maybe they don't... but the fact remains that we would have NEVER had the "civilized world" that we have today if no one had ever doubted.

It's the doubt that creates civilizations, inventions, successes, geniuses, and new ideas. It's that very same doubt that makes absolute right and wrong impossible.

Have a fantastical day!

1) As to your elephant story: I think it proves my point, rather than yours. The small town is our world, the five blind men (for me are all in some degree blind) are ordinary men, the elephant represents Truth (or a Truth, such as animals, which are true insofar as they exist, and in that way conform to reality), and the wise man is the guru/judge/great moral teacher who can see the Truth better than ordinary men. Each of us ordinary men know instinctively or hear that there is Truth, and we try to reach out and grasp what it is. We all arrive at some idea of what the Truth is in our own way, because we all have different strengths, and all approach Truth differently. We consult the wise man, or some source of wisdom, because we all really need to find out Truth, and in the hope that we are right. Upon consultation, we find that our ideas of the Truth are untrue, not because they are wholly or completely false, but because they do not represent the Whole Truth: they are only bits of the Truth. When we put our heads together, we do come up with what the wise man called an "accurate idea": not necessarily what the Truth really is, but a kind of fuzzy picture. Certain parts we see better than other parts, as we always have: but we nevertheless acknowledge that there is a larger Truth than our own perception of it, but we cannot quite grasp the whole. Morality (Right and Wrong, absolutely) is like the elephant: we all have different ideas of it, but not a clear perception of it, only a feeling that there is more to it than our own perception. When we consult great moralists, we get a clearer idea of what Right is.
Simply because we have different perceptions of Truth, doesn't mean that Truth doesn't exist in a very real sense. That is the lesson of your wise man.

2) The point that there are harsher and more lenient degrees of punishment for the same crime has been brought up many times in this thread. I believe I answered it sufficiently in #2 of my previous post. Nevertheless, the point is worth repeating.
Both morality and law recognize crimes: some are simply morally reprehensible, some are illegal, some are both. Morality and law both recognize a difference between Right and Wrong in recognizing crimes. Morality and law both prescribe a punishment as a form of retribution for the sake of the offended party; a punishment which "fits the crime."
Laws (which have the most jurisdiction over crimes) also recognize different degrees of culpability in the criminal. The severity of the punishment prescribed for the crime often takes into account the degree to which a criminal is culpable for the crime. In prescribing a different punishment for the same crime due to the culpability of the criminal, the law still recognizes that the crime itself is morally reprehensible (i.e. WRONG), illegal, or both.
Only in this way can a court prescribe a punishment that properly "fits the crime." Law deals with punishment: it does not determine what Right and Wrong is, but merely recognizes Right and Wrong actions in order to properly address them. To prescribe a greater or lesser severity of punishment is not a recognition that Right and Wrong is relative. It is not an exception from absolute Right and Wrong. The crime is still Wrong; the criminal has still performed an unjust act.
In recognizing culpability in a criminal, the court of law acknowledges the existence of a Will in the criminal. That is why "premeditated" is such a key term in legal vocabularies. The Will of the criminal behind a crime makes the criminal more or less culpable, not the crime itself more or less Wrong.
The presence of "mitigating factors" or "weights of necessity" in determining culpability in an individual is not a recognition of relativism. The unjust deed (crime) in itself is still Wrong. The degree of culpability determines how involved the will of the criminal was in the crime, and in that way how easily the crime can be forgiven.

3) The point that individuals who recognize absolutes are sometimes more judgmental is easily addressed. There is still a distinction between Right and Wrong acts, and the individuals who perform Right or Wrong actions. Individuals who are more judgmental may perform acts in the name of Right which are in fact morally reprehensible. This says nothing of Right and Wrong in itself, but it speaks volumes of the person's (flawed) perception of Right and Wrong.

4) As to my point that the cardinal statements of relativism, "the truth is that there is no truth" and "there is only perception", are absolute statements, it is objected that I am "misrepresenting what was said". That is not so: I am only pointing out the logical conclusions of that position. Not only is relativism fallacious, it is self-contradictory. The cardinal statements of relativism only prove that there are absolutes.
It is also interesting to note that my objector, Fair_Gwen, seems to be appealing to an absolute standard when she says I "misrepresented" her.

4) It is objected that my main supporter, CS Lewis, was a Christian, and was therefore biased. This may be so, but I don't think Lewis approached the questions of morality merely from assumption or a blind acceptance. For one thing, this would contradict his usual approach to questions. If you read one of his nonfiction works, such as "Miracles", you will see that Lewis methodically examines opposing points of view and indicates where they are weak; in his asssertions, Lewis more often than not brings a number of reasons to bear, as well as a number of supporters.
I will also point out that Lewis was not a Christian his entire life. He was raised in a Christian family in a suburb of Belfast; however, Lewis lost his innocent faith when he was sent to boarding school. Gradually Lewis became an atheist, even completing his secondary education under the eyes of a staunch, lifelong athiest, one W.T. Kirkpatrick. As Lewis progressed through his life, he gradually returned to Christianity: first, he accepted a kind of Theism; then, he came back step by step, kicking and screaming, as he says, to Christianity. It is all recorded in his own autobiography, "Surprised by Joy," and in the numerous biographies of him that no doubt dot the shelves of your local Barnes and Noble, such as A.N. Wilson's, or Green and Hooper's.

5) It wouldn't, in fact, be far from the truth to say that Atheism is itself a kind of religion. As one can see from the "existence of God" debates, one cannot prove from reason definitively and without a doubt that God exists, let alone that God is benevolent, personal, and concerned with salvation. Several types of proofs exist: the Ontological (particularly St. Anselm of Canterbury's), the Cosmological (such as Aquinas'), the Teleological (I can't remember any big names here), and the proof from Mystical Experience. All of these are not foolproof arguments; they can be, and are, attacked and found wanting. On the same token, atheists (such as Bertrand Russell, at times in his life) cannot definitively and without a doubt prove from reason that God does NOT exist.
With this in mind, theists (of all kinds) have faith that there is a God; atheists have a kind of faith that God doesn't exist. Neither can prove the other wrong. The only position that can really have some sort of scientific merit to it is Agnosticism: "I don't know about any God; it can't be proved."

6) In saying what I have in #4 and #5 above, it is not mere wordplay. Wordplay is of two types: when deliberately confusing the similar sounds of unrelated words, such as "sun" and "son" in Act I Scene iii in the dialogue between Hamlet and Claudius in "Hamlet"; when deliberately confusing the different meanings of the same word, such as "tender" in the dialogue between Polonius and Ophelia in "Hamlet" (I forget where in the "to thine own self..." scene).
I am not playing on words, only saying it like it is.

7) Yes, "morality" is in fact an abstract noun. This doesn't mean that it is less true. May I point out that nouns such as "instinct", "intellect", "intelligence", "reason", "emotion", "thought" and others, are also abstract.

8) I admit that people have differing morals. My point, along with Lewis, is that morals are not really all that different. Societies differ as to who and in what way and in what degree persons must be respectful of others. There is, nevertheless, a common core to morality, a core which distinguishes it as "morality", and in every culture. This is in fact the Golden Rule. It is often formulated differently in each culture in which it is found: Confucius, for example, formulated it negatively ("Do NOT do, etc."). Examine every culture, and you will most likely find that: a man has duties toward his family, friends, and country that it is morally reprehensible to ignore; murder is prohibited, as well as theft, cowardice, and above all, selfishness. As Lewis says, nowhere is selfishness admired. People and cultures have different ways of approaching Right according to their particular strengths, but they approach Right nevertheless, recognize it for being Right, and that it is probably larger than their perception of it.
Everyone has some sort of idea that there is a universal standard of conduct, and he expects everyone else to know about it too (cf, Lewis' quote in my previous post). Fair_Gwen often points out that her father in India treated persons of different castes in different ways. I would ask her what her father's initial reaction was when meeting with an affront by another person of an equal or of a greater caste. I don't mean the reaction that his Hinduism has trained into him, the biting of his tongue and a show of respect. What first runs through his mind before he determines who it is that has affronted him? Perhaps: "this is an insult" or "this is embarrassing". When a person recognizes an affront for what it is, they usually have a first impression of it as being somehow "Wrong", because it is an insult. It is only when the affronted party considers who is speaking to him that he modifies or eliminates his inner need for some sort of "redress" to the insult. In other words, it seems to me that it is the "who" that mitigates the punishment demanded for a crime in this case. The person offended still initially recognizes it as an insult, and therefore, wrong, but is artificially limited in his demand for a redress: perhaps even somehow to consider it "right".
However, as he is your father, I will not presume to put words in his mouth or thoughts in his mind. Correct me especially in this case, Fair_Gwen, if I err in any way. I would still like to know what first runs through his head when he is affronted.

9) I do not consider the regulations surrounding one's membership in one religion or another as absolute truths. It is silly to consider the eating of Ham by Christians in some moral sense "Right" and abstinence from ham by Jews and Muslims in some moral sense "Wrong." I believe that one is bound by those regulations if one is a member: inasmuch as they are members, the regulations gain a moral dimension. Someone outside the religion need not regard them as morally binding.
If I am a Christian, I have no right to tell Fair_Gwen's grandmother that her abstinence from meat is wrong because St. Peter said in the Acts of the Apostles that God gave all mankind every creature to eat. In fact, I have no right even if she did it on her own principles and not according to her religion. However, I do not think that one's grandmother is immune from being questioned as to why she believes what she does just because she has happened to have believed it for many years. It is very possible that she believes a myth; on the same token, it is very possible that Christians too believe a myth.
Why, for example, do most modern people think that all the ancients up through the Renaissance believed the world was flat? This is a very common myth, and one that people often believe for years on end. The evidence does not support it. As early as Archimedes (d. 285 BC), Greek mathematicians had tried to measure the circumference of the Earth. Ptolemy's "Amalgest", the astronomy book universal throughout the Middle Ages, although teaching that it was the center of the universe, taught also that the world was a globe. Consider this passage from the Book of Job, dated to 100-200 BC, and about a sage in the first or second millenium BC: "He [God] spreads out the northern skies over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing. he wraps up the waters in his clouds, yet the clouds do not burst under their weight" (26:7-8, NIV).

10) It is correct, then, to say that a common agreement as to Right is not evidence for its existence. However, the examples I provided were not like the example of Fair_Gwen and her sister for the following reason. The great moralists of each culture did not meet in conference one day and decide Right. What is peculiar is that every moralist arrived at a partiular conclusion of Right independently; yet their conclusions do not merely agree, but are the same. This suggests that this particular agreement may be something more than an agreement to share a piggy bank.
In fact, one could say it was a fact proven "scientifically". For isn't independent research which happens to arrive at the same conclusion considerable evidence in favor of the existence of something, rather than against it?

11) Fair_Gwen seems to refute herself here:
"Isn't that a bit melodramtic? Relativism would not mean tolerance to everything. It means, the starving boy stealing of loaf of bread should get one day in jail. The millionaire's son who does so just for laughs should get two."
If relativism doesn't mean tolerance for everything, then it must have some notion as to Right and Wrong.
As for a starving boy vs. millionaire brat, that system is already in place. As I explained above, the Wrongness is not diminished by the criminals lesser culpability, only the severity of his punishment (even to the point of full forgiveness).

12) Simply because crimes are forgivable doesn't mean that they are not Wrong. It is still wrong and still a crime; the criminal's punishment is simply lessened or eliminated. It is the debt owed to the offended party by the offender that is forgiven; the crime is still wrong.
I would point out that people weep for those being electrocuted not because Right is relative, but because they beleive that killing under any circumstance is WRONG in a very real and absolute sense.
Rodney King, Christ, and Shiva are pointed to as examples of persons (or deities) being called different names because people percieve their actions differently. Rodney King is a criminal simply because that is what he is: the tape clearly showed him to be a breaker of the law (i.e. a criminal). Whether he deserved the beating he got is another matter; probably not, because each criminal is afforded the same procedure of law (the courts) whereby his punishment is determined.
As for Christ and Shiva, I can say this: "It ain't bragging if you can do it." I believe Creators and Deities are allowed certain licenses where creatures and worshipers are not allowed to tread. What each does is Right, if you believe them when they say what they are and why they are here to do, because that is their nature: it is what each was supposed to do. They speak the Truth because what they speak conforms with what is reality.

13) I believe the Descartes quote has been misinterpreted in this thread. If one reads the "Discourse on Method", the solipsism is a result of D's doubting. D's senses, his smell, taste, touch, sight, were the first things that he doubted away. He cites mirages, optical illusions (e.g. the "bent" pen in the glass of water), as examples. Next, D. doubted his own existence, because he remembered dreams that seemed real in which he was doing stuff, but realized laer that it was only a dream; it was possible that he could always be dreaming. Then D. doubted away mathematics, etc., by the classic "Evil Genius" thesis: what if a malevolent force were putting 2+2=4 into his head, and in reality 2+2=5?
The solipsism "cogito ergo sum" was the only thing he couldn't doubt away. For when he was doubting his own existence, he realized he was doubting; doubting is a kind of thinking; only a conscious being can perform the action of thinking; therefore he must exist.
D. had trouble with the notion of certainty: how can one know for sure what is true. He embarked on radical doubt in order to find a proposition logically indubitable, which was to be the certain foundation of all knowledge (my philosophy book, p. 134).
Of course, D. ran into trouble when he tried to prove the existence of everything else through the solipsism. In a nutshell (and at the risk if oversimplification), D. proved the existence of God by the mere fact that he was thinking about Him, and said that if God were truly Himself, then He wouldn't fill D's brain with images of an outside world without guaranteeing that they actually existed.
Of course, a little thought reveals how circular this reasoning is.

14) Most importantly, the fact that notions of what is Right are not always followed is no proof that absolute Right doesn't exist. That's like saying there are no laws against speeding because no one obeys them.

That's all for now.

[This message was edited by Jwpublius on 07-05-01 at 03:19 AM.]

"I've lived so long with pain, I won't know who I am without it."
~Ender

Have a fantastical day!

The extremes of looking at the world as black and white OR entirely gray are never good. In a "black and white" world you can't see the forest because there are too many damn trees in the way, and in the "Gray" world you are perpetually confused. As in many things the answer is taking a "middle of the road" stance.

The things that I've mainly seen discussed in this forum and in more public debates are over

1. Love
2. Psychology
3. Abortion
4. The Death penalty
5. Social trends
6. Religion
7. Nature vs. Nurture
8. Age limits
9. Time travel
10. Censorship
11. Politics
12. Sexuality
13. Genetic Ethics
14. Technological Ethics
15. Regular Ethics
16. Art
17. Men and women
18. Abunch of other intellectual or silly stuff

These all seem to be within the realm of the debatable. But the examples of "Right" and "Wrong" that I've seen here are over things like
1. Theft,
2. Murder
3. Lying

These topics are not usually debated, I've never seen a Thread that asked ""C'mon, what's wrong with shoplifting?"" or Should Fraud really be a crime? that is because these topics are largely pre-determined by human nature and simple logic.

But questions about Art, Love, and psychology are almost "universally defined as products of perception.

Other questions such as Genetic Ethics, Mass Abortion, and Legislated Sexuality have never been able to be debated until our modern Era, so they were never addressed in basic moral codes.

There is a type of logic called the _______ Triad", it states that in order to arrive at a conclusion you should take two extremes of a situation (( a thesis and antithesis )) and fuse them equally into one.

Extremes are generally bad and lead to mobs lynching each other in whichever radical direction you take, but happy mediums generally fair pretty well. So try never having too much "blind faith" but also never getting lost in a world where there is "no wrong".

Uggghhhhh.....when I get on these long posts I have trouble telling if I'm being coherant or not, tell me if I'm not being so.

+++Seth_X+++

~~~ "If you feed a man
a fish, you feed him for
a day. If you teach a
man to fish, you feed
him for life.."
(Japanese Proverb )
~~~~~

On the other hand, if it is agreed that moral absolutes exist in life, perhaps we should inquire into what these moral absolutes are.
For example:
Is to be just necessarily to be Right?
Is murder always wrong?
Does war really eliminate human culpability from every sinful act?

How about it?

JWPublius, I am posting in this pretty well covered thread for two reasons,

One: to say WOW.

That was awesome. You were all over this like flies on honey. I have had this debate a thousand times before. It drives me mad.

Two:
Fair_Gwen, if you are still reading, don't feel that you have been overmatched. I believe you were both debating well. Now if only you both had debated the same topic.

You see, jw is trying to prove the existence of absolutes, and you are debating the degree to which they are evident.

I think it is clearly the case that absolutes exist.

It is further clear that absolute truths exist.

It is even further clear that it is a complete waste of time to dispute that some things are absolutely true, because the mere fact of stating that no things are true is itself a declaration of an absolute. That is not word play, that is simple logical fact. To say that NO things are absolutely true disallows the possibility of some things being true. By that fact an absolute.

However, I believe that the point that Fair_Gwen was making was not that there are no absolute TRUTHS, but rather that we have no way of determining whether or not particular things are absolute right or absolute wrong, and is, in fact, the point of view I shall champion in Fair_Gwen's stead, (though secretly I disagree).

So, I begin:

The mere historical fact does not, in and of itself, prove that it is absolutely true that there are absolute moral codes. Nor does it prove as an absolute truth what those moral truths are. That is to say, in view of the length of time that has occured in the universe, our lack of evidence regarding non-earth civilizations, and our own poor historical record regarding very ancient civilizations like the egyptians, the atlanteans, etc. our volume of evidence is relatively small (no pun intended).

By what method of logic or standard of reasoning do we assume that laws common to every known civilization are proof of an absolute moral code?
Is it not possible that were we to have a greater amount of data to analyze that we would find the absolute moral code very different from the in-practice moral code we have witnessed up to this point?

Is it not also possible that the apparent evidence in favor of an absolute moral code is due to some other defining factor? Such as that while the universe as a whole tends toward chaos, and despite our own destructive nature, nevertheless mankind tends toward order over chaos? A humanistic and/or evolutionary point of view can name the semi-universal moral code as no more than a product of our own genes, could it not?

You are stating that the existence of an absolute moral code is self evident. You cite existing common moral standards and laws as proof of this. But this evidence presupposes that humans adhere to a correct moral code. I am stating that this is not self-evident, in that it is also possible that we adhere to something other than an "absolute moral rightness", such as a genetic dictate, or, and this is out there, perhaps an "absolute moral rightness" does exist, and yet we, as a species, through some bizarre character flaw on the DNA level, actually do the exact opposite. Perhaps in the scheme of humanity there is an inborn sense of rightness that is completely off the mark in the scheme of the universe at large.

........

Ok, have at me.

Fair_Gwen, I hope I have taken over your position well, as I said I do not share it so if I am off target feel free to jump on back in, I shall remain on your side throughout this thread.

Peace,
~!/

Oh, ps. one more thing. I am saddened to see a remarkably intelligent man disregarded for his religion. Surely quoteland has not reached the point where a great thinker such as CS Lewis is cast aside for being a Christian. Is his logic any less valid? Are his thougts less valid? Being a Christian makes you no more "biased" than being a non-Christian, a Buddhist, or an atheist. Really, I hope Quotelanders dont start down that road of intolerance.

1) If you accept that some things are always right and some always wrong, how can you argue that it is not evident that there are absolute truths? You must see--it must be "evident" to you--that they are inherently so. You must, then, mean that you accept them on some sort of "faith". While that's okay, I'm trying to prove that there are certain absolutes on the basis of reason. I assert that these absolutes--what they may be we will address later--are not only evident to reason, but to everyone's reason.

2) What do you mean by "evident"? Do you mean "evident to the senses" or "evident to reason". I think you left that point ambiguous.

3) Regarding your point about historical fact, in some sense I agree. Just because absolute truths were evident to great moralists doesn't mean they evident to me. However, I think that they are evident to me in other ways (and most likely in the same ways they were evident to great moralists).
Try to remember the last time you had a quarrel or were insulted. (Yes, I am adopting Lewis' example). Did you not have some sense that you had been "offended": that the other person had done to you an "unjust" or "wrong" action?
To proceed to more "absolute" truths: have you ever been mugged, raped, lied to; your life threatened? Did you enjoy it? Did you think that you deserved it--that it was somehow right? Was your first reaction to it not a sense of injury, of violation,--that it was "wrong"?
Now--aren't such reactions human? You're a human, I'm a human, the next guy's a human. We all run on the assumption that the only animal being on earth with the conscious use of reason is a human. Under such an assumption, I can deduce that the next guy will probably have the same reaction to the theft/murder/rape/lie as I have, since he is human. Then I can assume that I have stumbled on an action that is universally, and, therefore, absolutely, wrong.
Using my reason, then, it is EVIDENT to me that I have experienced a wrongful act, and that it is wrongful for everyone else as well.
As for quarrelers, CS Lewis said it succinctly enough: see my above post.
Now, this should prove my point about humanity in the present. As for humans past (for whom we have records), what I have already said about humans should apply, but I will post some more excerpts from Lewis at the end of this reply. My assumption is that their sense of being wronged or insulted is the same as our sense.
As for humanity such as the Atlanteans, I can say this: considering what I have remarked already, it is more likely that they would share with us our sense of rightness and wrongness. The fact that we have few records of them does severly limit what we can say about them (although I think the Timaeus [which, by the way, to the demise of my crediblity here, I haven't yet read] implied that the Atlanteans were somehow morally culpable for their doom). For the purposes of this debate, however, it seems that to mention them is moot because we have no definitive records (that I know of) about their morality. We go with what we do know of humanity, and exclude the Atlanteans (at least for now).
As for non-earth cultures, we cannot definitely prove the existence of intelligent life beyond our own world, let alone a possible system of beliefs. The point, therefore, is moot. In any case, it does not disprove the existence of absolutes in the universal consciousness of humans.

4) I do acknowledge the possiblity that any moral code we could know of with complete surety might be in fact very different than what we humnas have observed.
I think it is the case, in fact, that we practice a different code of morals than what we acknowledge as right and wrong. Many of us have killed, for example, in wars; all have lied; many engage in sexual immorality, etc. However, my point is rather that we all ACKNOWLEDGE an absolute moral code, not that we necessarily follow it. Likewise, we all acknowledge tax laws or traffic laws, but we do not always follow them.

5) To acknowledge a universal moral code may very well be genetically ingrained in us. If it is, however, it only supports my point. We all acknowledge the code; it is universally human. If the code were a part of our genes, that would only support the contention that the code is universally human.
You may conted with me on this that we are genetically bound to accept it: thus, it is not a matter of free choice. I would say, then, that it is to ACKNOWLEDGE the code that we are genetically bound to do, not to follow it. No one really denies its existence: they try to show that all along they were following it. Even if they do deny its existence, they go back on their assumption very shortly thereafter. Consider (if you will) one of Bill Watterson's "Calvin and Hobbes" strips: the one where Calvin declares his belief in relativism and "the end justifies the means". Hobbes trips him, and Calvin falls into a mud hole. When Calvin objects, Hobbes says, "You were in my way. Now you're not. The ends justify the means." Calvin replies, "I didn't mean for everyboby. Only for ME!!" It was evident even for Calvin that there is a universally human moral code of conduct.
I will also point out that even if an absolute code is a "genetic dictate", we are free to disobey it. I'm with Lewis here to, where he says "At any time we are all subject to many different sets of laws. But the Law of Human Nature [which is our sense of a universal code of conduct] is the only one we are free to disobey if we choose." (See above for citation).

6) Perhaps our sense of right and wrong are off the mark when compared to that which may exist in the Universe. But, since we know next to nothing about the Universe, nor of any moral laws it may contain, the point is moot. Is a moral sense of right and wrong universally human, and evident to all humans? I think so. We acknowledge it when we quarrel, or when we feel a sense of injury.
Do we always have the correct idea of right and wrong? No. But issues of right and wrong play such a large part in human society that it is difficult to argue that it is not really evident to humans.

7) Do all humans agree that certain things are right and others wrong? I think so. Otherwise there would be no bases for moral systems anywhere.
Do all humans agree on a set of actions that is always right and a set of actions that is always wrong, and are these certain actions the same for every culture and individual? Yes, I think so. Is that not what the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all about?
What are these then? Always wrong in every society: murder, unretributive assault, rape, theft, lying, corruption, etc. Always right: certain duties done on behalf of family, friends, and country: for example, caring for and raising the young, sick, and the elderly; loyalty; devotion; courage; etc.
How can one know for sure whether an action (other than examples such as murder above) is right and wrong? I'm not sure; by guess is that it's innate: listen to your gut, or your conscience, or your head, or whatever you want to call it. Aristotle developed a sysem which I have been taught to call the "Via Media". In between any virtue, there are two vices: the one is a deficiency, and the other is an overcompensation. For example, if courage is a virtue, then cowardice is its deficient vice and foolhardiness its vice of overcompensation.

8) Examples of universal absolutes, mostly excerpted from the appendix of Lewis' "Abolition of Man". Most men to whom right ad wrong was evident from reason saw this:

The Law of General Benificence

"I have not slain men." (Ancient Egyptian. From the Confession of the Righteous Soul, "Book of the Dead," v.
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics [=ERE], vol. v, p. 478.)
"Do not murder." (Ancient Jewish. Exodus xx.13.)
"In Nastrond (=Hell) I saw ... murderers." (Old Norse. Volospa 38, 39.)
"Who meditates oppression, his dwelling is overturned." (Babylonian.
Hymn to Samas. ERE v.455.)
"He who is cruel and calumnious has the character of a cat." (Hindu. Laws of Manu. Janet, Historie de la Science Politique, vol. i, p. 6.)
"Has he ... driven an honest man from his family? broken up a well-cememnted clan?" (Babylonian. List of sins from incantation tablets. ERE v.466.)
"What good man regards any misfortune as no concern of his?" (Roman. Juvenal, xv. 140.)

I have quoted more examples in an above post. I will post others later; but for now this will be sufficient. I will also try and see if I can track down any of Lewis' citations on the internet for the sources, and post hyperlinks to them. For now, I have found this link to the Analects of Confucius:
http://www.chinapage.org/confucius/kungtze1.html

That's all for now.

Most nations have a sense of civilization. European nations are a perfect example of this ideal. Nations have a set of standards that they adhere to and they expect other nations to adhere to these rules. These rules include (some have become outdated) such as respecting a white flag of parley or surrender and not firing upon it, declaring war, etc. All of these are in the interests of being civilized.

The old gentleman code of the South is another example. They believed in being courteous, respectful of ladies, etc. This code was considered the behavior of "gentlemen".

I am sure I could think of more social ideals, but I will stop at this point. The point of all those standards was to point out that everyone sets standards of civilization; standards that are to better us as people. To the best of my knowledge, this is where we get the word barbaric, or someone who is not as civilized. While civilization can include technology, it usually includes sophistication. The common thread in all of these is that the rules are designed to promote "fairness". The rules engender a stable society, and sets standards that have similarities. The fact that whole nations appeal to these codes says that there is an absolute standard that we all measure against.

Although I am not religious, I believe very heavily in the "do unto others as they do unto you..." I don't do anything to anyone else, that I wouldn't appreciate done to me.

Picturing yourself in someone elses shoes should really determine the absolute right and wrong of situations, that is my guess. Not that it applies always to legal and ethical matters or whatever, but it should.

The other one is to "stick to basics." I am sure that some people in this thread won't agree but "you don't build a nice house on weak pillars."

"So let it be written. So let it be done." - Rameses II

Correct me if I'm being presumptuous but I think you mean, "do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" ??

Otherwise the revenge factor might rise exponentially......

All good wishes,

Airedale