Culture and Objective morality

[oscarkipling]

Whats the deal with culture specific morals? I mean we've got this one idea that there is is absolute objective morality the trickles forth from god and then we've got these supposed cases of culturally specific morals. When I read or someone tells me that it was okay to penalize this or that transgression with death, but only within this culture or only at this time or that women weren't supposed to be able to do this or that thing but only "back then" I have a hard time understanding how this is objective and unchanging morality....is this just me or are these morals subject to the situation?

[Athanasius]

Whats the deal with culture specific morals? I mean we've got this one idea that there is is absolute objective morality the trickles forth from god and then we've got these supposed cases of culturally specific morals. When I read or someone tells me that it was okay to penalize this or that transgression with death, but only within this culture or only at this time or that women weren't supposed to be able to do this or that thing but only "back then" I have a hard time understanding how this is objective and unchanging morality....is this just me or are these morals subject to the situation?

I don't think the phrase absolute morality should be taken to mean that our moral directive remains the same no matter the situation. I'm a moral absolutist (I think relativism is plainly silly) yet if asked I wouldn't tell a Nazi there were Jews under my floorboards. I don't think in that case it's lying, I don't think the Nazi has a right to that information. I also wouldn't condemn a man about to starve to death if he stole food; he has a right to live and anyway I don't think I'd call it stealing because of that.

I think the base morality stays the same while it may be the case that depending on the situation, we may need to act differently.

[oscarkipling]

I don't think the phrase absolute morality should be taken to mean that our moral directive remains the same no matter the situation. I'm a moral absolutist (I think relativism is plainly silly) yet if asked I wouldn't tell a Nazi there were Jews under my floorboards. I don't think in that case it's lying, I don't think the Nazi has a right to that information. I also wouldn't condemn a man about to starve to death if he stole food; he has a right to live and anyway I don't think I'd call it stealing because of that.

I think the base morality stays the same while it may be the case that depending on the situation, we may need to act differently.

This has to be far and above my most favorite subject to talk about here.

I am not seeing the distinction really. If not telling the truth is only a lie under certain conditions then I would say that it is necessarily a relative phenomena...the same goes for stealing. I think that using absolutism in this way is basically a tautology saying something like "right is always right and wrong is always wrong no matter the situation". So I am left with lying is always wrong, but not telling the truth is not lying under these conditions. The action is untethered from morality so that actions are morally inert and it is the situation that gives it moral meaning or the action depending on the situation becomes not the action, but another action entirely....none of this rings of absoluteness in any way that is meaningful to me.

[Athanasius]

I am not seeing the distinction really. If not telling the truth is only a lie under certain conditions then I would say that it is necessarily a relative phenomena...the same goes for stealing. I think that using absolutism in this way is basically a tautology saying something like "right is always right and wrong is always wrong no matter the situation". So I am left with lying is always wrong, but not telling the truth is not lying under these conditions. The action is untethered from morality so that actions are morally inert and it is the situation that gives it moral meaning or the action depending on the situation becomes not the action, but another action entirely....none of this rings of absoluteness in any way that is meaningful to me.

To be honest, it's a distinction I'm not quite sure how to justify. Which I haven't been for a while so I'll bring it up here and give it another shot.

I used my examples purposefully because I see a conflict in presenting such a 'black and white' absolute morality. We have in both cases the right to live contrasted with either lying is always wrong or stealing is always wrong. Which moral prerogative takes precedence? Or perhaps, which is the greater / lesser evil of two choices? I think I could go two ways with it. Either I acknowledge that lying is always wrong / stealing is always wrong while at the same time positing some sort of morally exonerating circumstance so as to allow lying or stealing -- even though the action is wrong (in this case the lesser evil). Or I categorize what many would normally consider lying / stealing as something other than lying / stealing. The former is what I think most people would do (and in the end I might join them), the latter is perhaps the position of a moral objectivist rather than a moral absolutist. In the case of the latter I believe I'm presupposing the value of life (life is valuable / we have a right to live) with the question: if we all equally have the right to live, then how can someone else decide whether I live or die, either explicitly (Nazi's) or implicitly (food).

In the end, I may just have to join the former camp. The actions are always wrong, however, one is morally obligated to performing that action which is the lesser evil in the case of moral dilemmas.

[oscarkipling]

To be honest, it's a distinction I'm not quite sure how to justify. Which I haven't been for a while so I'll bring it up here and give it another shot.

I used my examples purposefully because I see a conflict in presenting such a 'black and white' absolute morality. We have in both cases the right to live contrasted with either lying is always wrong or stealing is always wrong. Which moral prerogative takes precedence? Or perhaps, which is the greater / lesser evil of two choices? I think I could go two ways with it. Either I acknowledge that lying is always wrong / stealing is always wrong while at the same time positing some sort of morally exonerating circumstance so as to allow lying or stealing -- even though the action is wrong (in this case the lesser evil). Or I categorize what many would normally consider lying / stealing as something other than lying / stealing. The former is what I think most people would do (and in the end I might join them), the latter is perhaps the position of a moral objectivist rather than a moral absolutist. In the case of the latter I believe I'm presupposing the value of life (life is valuable / we have a right to live) with the question: if we all equally have the right to live, then how can someone else decide whether I live or die, either explicitly (Nazi's) or implicitly (food).

In the end, I may just have to join the former camp. The actions are always wrong, however, one is morally obligated to performing that action which is the lesser evil in the case of moral dilemmas.

I could see this as just another aspect of fundamentally morally flawed humans...like a sort of intrinsic limitation of the universe for us to be unable to resolve these sorts of things in a completely conflict free morally righteous way....But how does this apply to God? I mean not in a God is the authority kind of way but like...mechanically, how can this be?

[Athanasius]

I could see this as just another aspect of fundamentally morally flawed humans...like a sort of intrinsic limitation of the universe for us to be unable to resolve these sorts of things in a completely conflict free morally righteous way....But how does this apply to God? I mean not in a God is the authority kind of way but like...mechanically, how can this be?

Whereas I think the Christian would 'blame it' on the fallen nature of the cosmos ('sin'). Having to choose between two moral evils, picking the lesser.

[oscarkipling]

Whereas I think the Christian would 'blame it' on the fallen nature of the cosmos ('sin'). Having to choose between two moral evils, picking the lesser.

that's actually what I was talking about, trying to view it though my poorly constructed christian lens. This is fine I think and works well enough, but I still have trouble with God's role in all of this.

[Athanasius]

that's actually what I was talking about, trying to view it though my poorly constructed christian lens. This is fine I think and works well enough, but I still have trouble with God's role in all of this.

The same it's always been, I suppose. Though I'd have to say I'm not quite following you?

[decrumpit]

I could see this as just another aspect of fundamentally morally flawed humans...like a sort of intrinsic limitation of the universe for us to be unable to resolve these sorts of things in a completely conflict free morally righteous way....But how does this apply to God? I mean not in a God is the authority kind of way but like...mechanically, how can this be?

Lying, killing, all can be done without sinning.

The necessary terminology might be helpful here. A falsehood (lying to the Nazis) is not always wrong. Nor were my parents morally wrong for telling me that babies came from prayer (this worked nicely till I learned about Muslims).

So we have lying (telling a falsehood with the intention to malignantly deceive others) and murder (the willful taking of an innocent life).

Killing and telling untruths aren't wrong. The answer lies in the intention and definition.

[Jabba]

I think waht we have here is a case of situation ethichs: to manipulate a certain situation so that moraly it seems right.
But think about this...
Since the basic of this matter is the diffirence between right or wrong, we could use the Ten Commandments as guide. But unfortunatly, that's exactly what they were, guidelines to determine between wrong and right.
Gal 3:19...to make us aware of sin.
But, in the New Testemant Jesus came to bring a new law, brotherly love,
Matt 22:34 - 40 and, in effect, it replaced the Ten Commandments...Effe 2:14 - 15. But who or what then should guide us today between wrong and right? The Holy Ghost...read Romans 6:7 and Romans 8:6.
The Holy Ghost, through our faith, will guide us to make the right dissicions. But it takes time in Christ to hear and understand how to listen and understand what the Holy Ghost is trying to tell us. This can only be achieved by styding the scriptures, praying to God for guidance and to strengthen our faith in Christ.

Be blessed...and have faith.

[oscarkipling]

Lying, killing, all can be done without sinning.

The necessary terminology might be helpful here. A falsehood (lying to the Nazis) is not always wrong. Nor were my parents morally wrong for telling me that babies came from prayer (this worked nicely till I learned about Muslims).

So we have lying (telling a falsehood with the intention to malignantly deceive others) and murder (the willful taking of an innocent life).

Killing and telling untruths aren't wrong. The answer lies in the intention and definition.

I don't know that you didn't just sort of just transpose the problem and put it all on the interpretation of other words like innocent and malignant...idk, thanks for the answer though

[Sold Out]

Whats the deal with culture specific morals? I mean we've got this one idea that there is is absolute objective morality the trickles forth from god and then we've got these supposed cases of culturally specific morals. When I read or someone tells me that it was okay to penalize this or that transgression with death, but only within this culture or only at this time or that women weren't supposed to be able to do this or that thing but only "back then" I have a hard time understanding how this is objective and unchanging morality....is this just me or are these morals subject to the situation?

Oscar...you're still on here, you ol' dog? I've been away for MONTHS and you are still churning away. Way to go!