absolute vs. relative morality

Post Reply New Topic

This thread was inspired by the "would there be any reason to love god if there was no hell" thread. I've found that, when discussing philisophical questions, the issue of absolute vs. relative morality often comes up, so I thought I should post a thread about it.

Vote please!

Please only vote other if none of the options describe you. If you only differ slightly, just pick the one that is the closest, and post regarding what you actually think.

If you vote other, please explain.

No swearing, please. Even with cute little symbols.

I think that morality is by definition an absolute. Now, this does not mean that I think that all people in all places must act the exact same way or that I think that morality truly exists, just that, like gravity, it relates to all people in an absolute manner. Not all people are held by their feet to the ground by gravity, but they are all bound to it, and not all people will necessarily be influenced by the same gravitational forces in the same manner, the astronauts who went to the moon were held within the moons gravitational field more so than the earth's, but gravity was still an absolute.

(I like the option: "Could you please tell me what this word "morality" means. I keep on hearing it, but no one will explain it." in the poll)

I believe in a mixture of the two, but I favor absolute. The thing common to all sapient beings (not just humans, but all intelligence in the universe) is suffering. no one wants to suffer and thus reducing suffering is the right thing to do.

i think a lot of functional morality can be derived from simple studies and observing cause and effect. that being said, absolute morality is pretty impossible to achieve even if everything can be measured perfectly.

In the end I think morality is just an instinct. At the heart it’s something that’s felt rather than something that can be derived logically.

The following link is a moral problem that I think sheds some light on it.

http://allphilosophy.com/topic/3073

Utilitarian logic fails to differentiate between the two scenarios given, yet most people say they would act in the first scenario while the vast majority wouldn’t act in the second.

How many times do I have to shout this from a mountiantop??


Morality, like all human knowledge, is provisional in nature.

I think of morality in a functional sense - as a framework that helps one to make choices that are the most likely to result in outcomes favorable to the individual and their society and the world in general. Morality exists because it can be hard to conceptualize all the possible effects of each action.

Absolute morality is advantageous when it really is hard to assess all the possible effects of an action. In an absolute moral system, one does not have to think about consequences; one simply follows the rules. And these rules are often based on a long history of wisdom and experience. The disadvantage is that in a minority of situations, an absolute moral principle will produce a result different from (or even contradictory to) that which it was designed to achieve.

Relative morality involves more thought and understanding of possible consequences. It requires the individual to take responsibility for assessing the situation and determining the best course of action. Some individuals who take on this responsibility will have more success than they would with absolute morals, while some will have less. The main advantage of relative morality is that it allows morals to adapt to new situations.

When morality is allowed to adapt to new situations, it is allowed to adapt to the rapidly changing world in which we live. Rules that were effective for thousands of years may not have the same desired effect on modern society. This is why I believe that it is imperative for at least some people, especially those to whom others look for guidance, to engage in some degree of relative moral reasoning, even if it is based on traditional priorities and guidelines.