Is morality absolute or is it relative? This has been a subject of numerous philosophical debates, and we still don’t seem to have an answer. The advocates of moral relativism argue that a human being’s moral fabric is a function of his social environment and upbringing. Hence there are no absolute moral rights or wrongs, everything has to be judged in context of the person and the society, and different societies have different definitions of morality altogether.
The proponents of absolute morality believe there are things that are absolutely wrong or right, these things remain right or wrong irrespective of the context, person or the culture. Enough arguments and counter arguments exist for both sides, but I found one killer logic in support of absolute morality.
It says that if morals were relative then we couldn’t say that “molesting children for fun is an absolute moral wrong”, as there are no absolute moral wrongs in the first place. Unless you believe in absolute morality such an act might indeed be moral in some universe. Hence there is no other option but to believe in absolute morality.
The logic on the face of it looks irrefutable, but nonetheless let me give it a try. I’ll try to disprove this argument through two different ways. Let me tread the more dangerous path first
Let me stick my neck out and say that we indeed can’t claim that “molesting children for fun is an absolute moral wrong”, and yes such an act could be moral in some distant universe with a totally different set of moral values.
Now don’t I look like a psycho killer who has just feasted on a raw human heart 😛 Well if you think that is the case let me give you another example. Think of a universe where all conscious life is considered equally sacred. In this universe killing an ant is exactly akin to killing a man on all legal and moral parameters. Now one day a fine young gentleman from this planet who was hitchhiking across galaxy loses his guide and accidently lands upon our beautiful earth. What would this gentleman think when he’ll see me and the million other meat eaters feasting on that juicy chicken burger. Would I appear any different to him than “a psycho killer who has just feasted on a raw human heart”.
“Molesting children for fun” is such a despicable thing for our moral conditioning that we can’t imagine it to be anything but an absolute evil. The proponents of absolute morality simply use our despise to color our judgment and obstruct an objective approach to the issue. But once we take a purely objective view we realize that molesting children might indeed not be immoral for some culture just like eating chicken burger is not immoral for us. So on a purely objective basis we don’t need to accept absolute morality simply because we don’t need to accept that “molesting children for fun is an absolute moral wrong”
Well through my second line of argument I will try to salvage some of my ruined image, by the time I end this argument I hope that atleast some of you won’t see me as “a psycho killer who has just feasted on a raw human heart” 😛 The logic here is pretty simple and non controversial. My argument here is that to believe that “molesting children for fun is an absolute moral wrong” we don’t have to believe in absolute morality! Now isn’t that a logical fallacy, no it isn’t.
Relative view of morality assumes that the each society develops its own unique moral framework. In fact morality is a rational outcome of society’s struggle to achieve the larger interest of propagation of species. “Molesting children for fun” will not serve the interest of any society hence it will be wrong in each and every society. Hence it becomes an absolute wrong while morality still remains essentially relative 🙂
Let me know your thoughts on this. And by the way there is a logical proof for God based on the premise that morality is absolute. Do check it out for some guaranteed fun http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/logic.php
The Rational Lover 
your second argument is in line with the discussion we had on wee hours at GnB ( not Gupta’s n Boys) that ac act which bring harmony to society is good and once which harms society is bad.
But i have a greater question , hope u might have some insights on this. How to predefined an act to be right or wrong , if we donot know its effect on society…say human cloning.
My answer would be that you cannot always know what is good and what is wrong and hence the definition of morality can never be complete. And indeed there could even be things which are gray.
ps: It is still Gossips n Bytes damn it 😛
Morality is just people’s point of view… Things that can be morally violent to some can be acceptable to many others and vice- verse !!! I think till the time somebody doesn’t gets hurt by what can seem “Moral” to few people any thoughts or gesture is acceptable. So yes …i agree to ur thought that says “there’s nothing like absolute morality” But would like to add that any view or any action that hurts or inflicts people with pain should be termed “absolutely immoral” Like child molestation …It gives a child a mental bruise for a lifetime….And so it can be termed “absolutely immoral” !!!
When you discount the absolute nature of morality, you will have to stop passing universal moral judgments.
An act is never immoral because it produces a bad outcome. It becomes immoral when it is against your conscience irrespective of what outcome it produces. Hence you cannot condemn child molestation to be absolute immoral because “It gives a child a mental bruise for a lifetime”.
Things cannot become absolutely immoral because they are absolutely unacceptable to you. Because your acceptance is simply an outcome of “your” moral conditioning and hence cannot be absolute and universal. 🙂
So ur point is somebody, who does anything that’s hurtful to people and society,but does not feel guilt in his conscience for doing that, is doing a moral act ?? !!
Can you sentence a snake for biting you, is a madman morally wrong in throwing stones at you. When there is no guilt, there is no underlying moral framework and hence no concept of moral right or wrong
I thought we were talking moral n immoral in case of human beings !!!
Animals don’t know what the outcome of their act is… we can…that’s the mere reason that humans are categorized as the ” most evolved” group of creatures… Even snakes don’t bite for no reason…They bite to defend or retaliate !!!
Exactly….. animals can’t be morally wrong because they have no moral framework, no conscience and they never feel guilt.
So any entity devoid of guilt, irrespective of how anatomically identical it might be to humankind, can’t be morally wrong.
Human being too used to live this same kinda life… Exactly the same one that u r talking about…that time was called as Stone Age !!!!!!
Yes I am aware my dear…….but that doesn’t proves a thing.
That does…If we start living life having no moral framework..We’ll be pushed back to Stone age !!
Few things in world have to be termed Immoral if we have to live a civilized life in a civilized(read Modern) Age !!
I never asked you not to follow a moral framework
Oye !! Am talking bout in general !! 😀
even i am talking in general terms, i never say that society should not have moral framework, society does and should have moral framework, but “that” moral framework is specific to “that” particular society. Hence it’s unfair to impose such framework on a global and absolute level.
To me, morality is a sense towards the code of behaviour that differentiates my action, reaction and decisions between morally correct or morally wrong according to the rules I have been forced to accept all these years by my family, friends and my own learning. But who had made those rules or moral frameworks, may be a group of morally sane people( religion), who thought what could be in the best interest for their then-society. May be thats why, hindu’s find it morally wrong to eat Cow and muslims don’t. Exactly opposite in case of Pork. But To an american, how does it matter?
This makes me think.. its relative, relative to the ppl we stay with, relative to the environment we stay in.
May be that is why, we do differentiate one responsible person from being morally responsible. The american I was talking about, might be a responsible person with morally responsible to american society, but immoral to the Indian society.
Nice food of thoughts. Expecting more from you.
hmmm…easier example??? I love pork and beef….but a lot many do not 🙂
very true…..my example was just to accentuate the wide contrast in moral acceptance
Interesting, but I still believe in a system of absolute rights and wrongs and would not be willing to accept arguments that are forwarded on the premise of other universes existing 🙂