Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
I wouldn't consider this an absolute. It's being enforced by another being. IMO, absolute would be hardwired into the universe itself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Objective Morals Debate (Atheists only)
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
True, I was thinking that while I posted that but yeah. You're right.
But God made the universe in Christianity, so the creator would most likely know 'what's wrong vs right'.
But to a degree you're right; it'd be good for those who want to sin.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Karma would be a more "absolute" morality. It doesn't require the intervention of other beings to enforce it. Do bad, get bad. Do good, get good.
The Christian concepts of heaven and hell work like this to some extent, but I'm wary of calling them evidence of absolute morality because the rules for entry in either one vary...a lot.
McBell
Unbound
I asked for a religious absolute.
Not every Christian believes that murder is an absolute bad.
Not every Christian believes sins are absolutes.
Can you show me some that don't?
If God made life, he would be the one who can put an absolute meaning/goal behind it.
Why is that?
I'm sure we can make our own personal goal of life, but it would take a creator of the absolute to create an absolute meaning.
If you make the universe, you would be the one who has the right to make an absolute universal goal because that would be your reason for creating it (depending on which God you are).
As soon as there becomes more than one sapient mind, then goals aren't particularly absolute anymore.
If I build a sapient robot with a goal, and it decides that it's a bad goal and proposes a different one, then my will is no longer absolute over the robot. There's nothing inherent in the creator->created process that dictates that the creator's morality is absolute.
The only theistic context where morals would seem to be absolute are in monist propositions where the only thing that does exist, is god (all is one). Other than that, any anthropomorphic/monotheist depictions of deities are just as prone to relative morality as anything else.
Yes, as I said with Gjallar, a creation could even imagine God's goal to be bad.
But if he actually made something, doesn't he know exactly what it is meant for?
Yes, a god could know what it's meant for, but once there are other sapient minds involved, it's no longer absolute. It's just a set of opinions, with god's opinion I suppose being the one with the most power.
I could invent a robot with a particular goal in mind, but then it could decide on a different goal. At that point, who is to say which goal is better?
So any anthropomorphic/monotheist god concepts don't particularly contain absolute morality.
McBell
Unbound
I would go one or three steps further and say that they are EXTREMELY subjective...
FlyingTeaPot
Irrational Rationalist. Educated Fool.
McBell
Unbound
If you mean an all encompassing, all inclusive, absolute black and white, then I agree.
However, I do understand and accept the fact that there are black and white / good and evil for individuals, neighborhoods, groups, societies, etc.