Mel,

I think what Stan is saying [speak up if I'm wrong] is that even the use of the term murdered rather than just killed is in and of itself ascribing a moral judgement.

Killing is the action..murder is the defining term.

Noodle

<small>[ February 02, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: noodle ]</small>

((((((((((((((((((Noodle)))))))))))))))))

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
[QB]

What I am saying is that the same action under different circumstances is assigned different morality.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But that is not correct. Murder is either murder or it is not. That does not mean that morality is "relative," Stan. Murder is defined by a SPECIFIC set of circumstances and actions. It either is or it isn't. THAT DOES NOT CHANGE.

Nor does the morality of murder change. The definition of moral relativity is shifting standards of morality, i.e.: sometimes murder is ok and sometimes it is not. You have already stated that murder is NEVER RIGHT, so you can't claim that morals are relative and then claim that "murder is always wrong."

They are contradictory statements.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Obviously, the same applies to SF.
The point is that when we think in terms of absolutes at all times we are putting ourselves in a box and cannot move when we have to.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Are you "absolutely" sure of this? If there are no absolutes, then you can't be absolutely sure of this, right?

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">If you do not want to use the above definitions we can use yours and I could always find instances were murder or adultery may seem acceptable.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Now THAT is the definition of moral relativity! However, you have already claimed to believe that murder is always wrong so you would be contradicting yourself if you tried to make such a case.

Okaaaaaayyyy.....let's muddy the waters a little...

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Murder isn't ever morally right. The term itself is derived from a judgment regarding killing under specific circumstances.

Sometimes killing is moral (self defense). Always, murder is immoral (because it is killing with malice).

What a grody thought!
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Murder isn't ever morally right. Let's just assume for a minute that we were back in 1941, or substitute you favorite current individual, and you had Adolph Hitler in the crosshairs of the scope on the rifle you are holding. You KNOW that if you don't kill him, WW II, the Holocaust, the thousands of servicemen who fought in the war and died WILL happen. YOU need only increase the pressure on the trigger by a very slight amount and the bullet that will stop all of that from happening will be on it's way. Premediated Murder. Assasination. Justifiable Homicide. Whatever term chosen. The point is that you CHOSE to willfully and purposefully kill Hitler for all the right and "moral" reasons. Would the killing be morally "right" or morally "wrong?"

The age old dilemna.

For the record, I'd choose wasting him in heartbeat if it were in my power to do so. And yes, it would be morally wrong. "Thou shalt not murder." If need be, I would "lay down my life" for my brothers to keep such a monster from inflicting his brand of evil upon the world.

It's not "morally relative." Murder is murder, and it's wrong by God's command. Yet in that circumstance I would violate God's command because I would be looking back at the known history of what DID happen because no one "took him out" when they had the chance. I would stand guilty of violating God's command, no matter what the excuse or justification. The moral code does NOT change and is not relative. Only my "choice" is relative. God WILL hold an accounting for all violations of His commands and only by the grace of Christ will we be forgiven. So why would I choose such an action, knowing that it was morally wrong and against God's commands? Simply because to "Do nothing" in that instance would also be morally wrong. This a "Catch 22" situation. To "do nothing," when it was in my power to "just say NO!" would be immoral and would bring untold pain and suffering on others, primarily innocent others. "Doing nothing" is also an action, a choice, that has consequences attached to it.

There is none who are without sin, no not one. All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. There is but one name under heaven by which we must be saved. Thank God for His provision, for working our salvation Himself.

Can someone argue with MY position? Certainly. But that still does NOT change the fact that God is absolute. God sets the standards according to His will, not ours. Whether we agree with Him or not is irrelevant, He, not us, is sovereign.

Of course folks like 2Long are going to reject that argument out of hand because they don't accept the existance of God, much less His sovereign authority. So, given that rejection of a "final say" in the matter, human reason really only leaves one answer....morals are relative and CAN change with circumstances and with changing acceptability (or unacceptability) of behaviors by society in general. In short, you do NOT have the right to impose YOUR chosen moral values on anyone else. Each person must come to choose their own set of moral values, and those values are equally as valid as are yours, even if they are in conflict with each other.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">2 take the most pessimistic (2 many) extreme stance in reply 2 your statement:

"Obviously, if there is no God who IS sovereign and who does have the right to determine what is "good" and what is "evil" for everyone, then everyone is left to pick and choose as they see fit."

There *IS* no sovereign god, so it's not an issue of whether she has or doesn't have a right 2 define good or evil for anyone. ...and now, before the Christians out there crucify me for that statement, I'll reiterate that it is an extreme stance, not necessarily the one I subscribe 2.

But this doesn't just "leave" us 2 pick and choose what these terms mean "as we see fit", because that is an equal and opposite extreme reaction 2 being "left" without the sovereign god. No, we're not "left" 2 decide what these terms mean for us, we are RESPONSIBLE 2 find out what they mean and . And I find responsibility 2 be liberating. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Okay 2Long, I don't intend to get dragged into a discussion about the existance of God right now, so let's forgo that point right now and pick up on your last paragraph.

But this doesn't just "leave" us 2 pick and choose what these terms mean "as we see fit", because that is an equal and opposite extreme reaction 2 being "left" without the sovereign god. No, we're not "left" 2 decide what these terms mean for us, we are RESPONSIBLE 2 find out what they mean

2Long, why would you, me, or anyone be "responsible" for finding out what the terms "mean" if the meaning is relative anyway? Even if YOU felt a responsibility to undertake such a search, no one else is obligated to feel the same way you do. They are responsible only for their own feelings and actions, not yours.

On the contrary, many of us "submit" our choices to the "society" or "group" that we have chosen to identify ourselves with, usually for some concept of the "greater good" or simply to "maintain some semblence of order" instead of the laizze faire chaos of "everone doing their own thing."

But that doesn't make society, or it's choices "right." Nor does it immunize "society" and those "accepted morals" from change, especially as more and more differing opinions(people) and "desires" are added into the societal pool.

Before long, your "old society" may find itself in the minority and with "majority rules" find that the old "morals" are no longer accepted and you have to choose to accept or reject the "new morals." But what the heck, it's all "relative" anyway. No absolute "right and wrong" and no external, objective, yardstick (or constant value), and there is no authority for saying "this or that" is "right or wrong." The best that can be offered would be that it is "right or wrong" according the moral standards of TODAY only. "Come back tomorrow and it might be different!"

Remember, we are NOT talking about the physical universe here. We are talking about humanity, complete with all our emotions and feelings and desires. We are talking about "good and evil" as existing or as an abstract philosophical discussion. It doesn't follow "physical laws." But it nonetheless exists just as "Love" exists. Define love if you can. Call love relative. But it doesn't change the fact that love exists and that "true love" is self-sacrificing. God IS love, and from that flows the unchanging moral standards that Love extablishes. It is "evil" that wants to twist that into "it's all relative" as being "acceptable."

But that brings us back to the existance of God and a religious discussion. Not willing to go there now, but if we take the "spiritual" out of the world, what's the point in having morals to begin with?

Simply that without an "authority figure" to "report to," we are free to do whatever we wish. We can't know the "limits" if the limits have never been established and "proven" immutable.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">But by that, I'm not suggesting that we each need 2 experience or even inflict the horrors we hear or read about (like infidelity) on others in order 2 become knowledgable or wise about them - we don't. Speaking of infidelity, in particular, I think we can learn enough about that from this board or through counseling and coaching, as a reasonable substi2te risking hurting others in our quest for a thorough understanding - 2 determine what's right or wrong for each of us. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">It's a nice idea, and certainly many can learn this way, but that in no way establishes a "universal" moral code or requires that others reach the same conclusions or even choose to avail themselves of the data you choose. The operative relativistic phrase you used is the only outcome you can reach...."2 determine what's right or wrong for each of us." We each draw our own conclusions irrespective of others. There is no "objective reality" under this thinking whereby those "choices" can be measured, much less "judged."

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by noodle:
<strong> Mel,

I think what Stan is saying [speak up if I'm wrong] is that even the use of the term murdered rather than just killed is in and of itself ascribing a moral judgement.

Killing is the action..murder is the defining term.

Noodle </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Noodle, but that is the same point that I have made ad naseum. That doesn't explain why he thinks that morals are relative.

Yes,

Have you ever had the pleasure of sitting through conversations with two people who think they are talking to each other..but actually they are having two separate conversations <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

I think that until we establish agreement on this point..the conversation is at a standstill.

So the question now is..what MAKES murder wrong as opposed to merely different than something that we feel is justified such as killing in self defense.

The action is killing in either case..the judgement hinges on something else.

Carry on <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

Noodle

<small>[ February 02, 2005, 05:46 PM: Message edited by: noodle ]</small>

I think the issue is that he has a different definition of moral relativism.

See, moral relativism is commonly understood to mean shifting standards of morality, ie: sometimes murder is ok and sometimes it is not. Said standard usually contingent upon some subjective measure of the beholder.

I think that Stan feels that because there are different types of killing [justified vs unjustified], that this means that morals are relative. But that is not what it means at all. Murder is always wrong. Self defense is [usually] right. Adultery is wrong. Marital sexual relations are right.

In other words, the rightness or wrongness of those acts do not change. That means that morals are NOT relative.

Given the proper definitions, the moral standards defining murder, adultery, lying, etc, do not change.

See what I mean?

Oh..

Mercy killing may be a good example.

See..if a person has a good deal of time to live..and looks more or less normal..and the decay is slow..we tend to be a little put off by the idea of elective suicide.

However..if a person has a mortal wound, and there is no help of any sort on the horizon..and the person is suffering and screaming PLEASE KILL ME...

Well that's a little different, except that it isn't.

Noodle

noodle, I am sure there are tough situations but that doesn't change the fact that murder is murder and is morally wrong. Finding even one exception doesn't make murder right.

FH:

I think you might be surprised 2 learn that I don't fundamentally disagree with much of what you said. See? I knew you'd be surprised! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Much of what I disagree with has 2 do with the focus on specific chioces of terms and concepts 2 the extent that they sound like recordings. Don't take offense, either. I found my own statements when I was a Christian being met, more often than not, by responses like "you're just parroting what you read in the bible or heard in church. You're not thinking for yourself." In my case, it wasn't true, mostly, but for the recipient I can see that it seemed that way.

I like your hypothetical scenario about Hitler. Hm... I agree with you, that, even if I "knew" that I would be judged as a murderer by a supreme being for the act, I wouldn't hesitate for a NY minute. But there are "outs", gray areas in your scenario:

♣ If you went back in time 2 1941 and changed the fu2re, you might never have been born. If you were born in a timeline without the Holocaust, you then wouldn't have Hitler as a target 2 go back in2 time 2 shoot. Maybe Stalin? (after all, by many accountings, he killed upwards of 26,000,000 of his own people - 4.5 times Hitler's number).

♣ Depending on your nationality, 1941 was during WWII, so shooting Hitler could be considered an act of war.

I believe that it is possible 2 be spiri2al without being religious. I also believe that it is possible 2 have faith without being religious. Different strokes for different people who stroke, perhaps.


One thing I will note here for your perusal. This is an observation I have been making for a number of years now about my own thinking about religion, my religious background in particular, and my interactions with religious and non-religious friends in the 30+ years since I stopped going 2 church. Much of my "reaction" 2 posts of yours reminds me of arguments I used 2 have with Christian friends many years ago. I used 2 enjoy those arguments. Early on, they weren't very rewarding. As time went on, though, each of us was better able 2 listen 2 the other's viewpoints, and we always ended on a mu2ually respectful level.

That's harder 2 do with internet boards, because you don't have the face-2-face oppor2nity 2 monitor each other's expressions and can't quite be certain of one another's tone (or intent). We "hit and run" more often than not, I'm afraid, unless we keep things light (and thus often uninformative). As a result of this, plus the reason I came here in the first place, I've found myself getting on the defensive when perhaps I shouldn't, or going on the offensive when I know better than 2 do so.

I certainly wish you well in your recovery efforts, as I'm sure you do me.

All in good spirits, I hope.

From Eckhart Tolle's "The Power of Now"

"When you say Being, are you talking about God? If you are, then why don't you say it?

The word God has become empty of meaning through thousands of years of misuse. I use it sometimes, but I do so sparingly. By misuse, I mean that people who have never even glimpsed the realm of the sacred, the infinite vastness behind that word, use it with great conviction, as if they knew what they are talking about. Or they argue against it, as if they knew what it is that they are denying. This misuse gives rise to absurd beliefs, assertions, and egoic delusions, such as "My or our God is the only true God, and your God is false," or Nietzsche's famous statement "God is dead."

The word God has become a closed concept. The moment the word is uttered, a mental image is created, no longer, perhaps, of an old man with a white beard, but still a mental representation of someone or something outside you, and, yes, almost inevitably a male someone or something.

Neither God nor Being nor any other word can define or explain the ineffable reality behind the word, so the only important question is whether the word is a help or a hindrance in enabling you to experience That toward which it points. Does it point beyond itself to that transcendental reality, or does it lend itself too easily to becoming no more than an idea in your head that you believe in, a mental idol?

The word Being explains nothing, but nor does God. Being, however, has the advantage that it is an open concept. It does not reduce the infinite invisible to a finite entity. It is impossible to form a mental image of it. Nobody can claim exclusive possession of Being. It is your very essence, and it is immediately accessible to you as the feeling of your own presence, the realization I am that is prior to I am this or I am that. So it is only a small step from the word Being to the experience of Being."

-ol' 2long

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ForeverHers:
<strong>For those who do NOT have Christ as their Lord and Savior, the questions remain, as they have throughout history; What set of moral "codes" will be embraced and what will be the "authority" of those codes so that they "must" be obeyed.

With regard to Shakespeare's comment, that is typical "humanistic" reasoning. The "denial" of the existance of "good and bad," "good and evil."

WAT - There is absolutely nothing wrong with choosing the "Golden Rule" as your "moral compass." I wonder where it had it's basis?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My moral "code" was learned from my parents and from my life experiences. Right and wrong became abundantly obvious from simple interactions with my baby brother. When he hit me, it hurt. When he lied to my parents about who broke the window (me), I didn't like it. Hence, I learned about human interactions and what felt good and what felt bad. Pretty simple.

I have all the authority I need and I choose to obey it. No one says I "must" obey it. Doing so as my own free will, it carries more worth for me than being afraid of NOT obeying it as "ordered" by some "authority." No one makes me do it other than my own conscience. Pity those who feel "forced" to obey The Golden Rule - or whatever their code happens to be - under some authority. Very sad indeed.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">With regard to Shakespeare's comment, that is typical "humanistic" reasoning. The "denial" of the existance of "good and bad," "good and evil."</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">See? Once again! You accuse any humanist with the inability to distinguish good and evil - or even its existance! Why? Isn't it obvious to you that your belief system doesn't have a monopoly on knowing right from wrong, good from evil? This brings me right back to the openning post on this thread. I feel like I'm talking to a WS in the fog. Nothing gets through, so why try?

As far as the origins of The Golden Rule - I cannot say. I do not know. But I do know that its essence is central to faiths that originated LONG before Christianity. It is core to every documented faith that has ever existed on this rock, that I know of. Even those who worshipped multiple gods, golden idols, volcanos, stars, and spirits of all sorts - including NO spirits and total absence of a divine diety. It is intuitive.

WAT

The 'Golden Rule' predates Christianity and is found in various ancient texts of Ancient Egypt (1900 years BCE),Zoroastrianism (700 years BCE) Chinese philosophy (500 years BCE) such as the Tao and Confucious, Bhuddist and Hindu teachings, and predates Jesus quoting it by showing up in the Hebrew Bible- Leviticus.


Wikipedia- Golden Rule

From www.faith.com:

"THE GOLDEN RULE: ALL FAITHS, ANTIQUITY

The Hebrew Book of Leviticus served as a handbook for the ancient priests of Israel. Much of it is devoted to specific regulations concerning offerings, sacrifices, ritual purity, ordination, feasts, and festivals. But one line has withstood the passage of time: "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Lev. 19:18).

In rabbinic Judaism, it was recast as a negative statement by the sage Hillel: "Do NOT do unto others, what is hateful to you."

The origin of the Christian Golden Rule is Matthew 7:12 (King James Version): "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."

The origin of the Chinese Golden Rule is the Analects of Confucius 12:2:
"Do NOT do to others what you would not like yourself." The sage goes on to say: "Then there will be no feelings of opposition to you, whether it is the affairs of a state that you are handling or the affairs of a family."

The origin of the Golden Rule in Buddhism is the Dhammapada, 10:129-30: "Having made oneself the example, one should neither slay nor cause to slay." The text goes on to clarify the maxim: "As I am, so are other beings; thus let one not strike another, nor get another struck [by someone else]. That is the meaning."

The Golden Rule is so simple, so universal, and unfortunately so underused. To apply it in everyday life, round the world, would solve most problems. Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself."

-ol' 2long

WAT,

I agree. I do what I do not because of fear of punishiment or hope of reward. I do it because it is the right thing to do. Period!

As for the moral question of murder, I would like to tell you my story, and see if you think this was a moral act by my sister and I. Not by my sisters and brothers and I, because all but one sister and myself opted out of the family equation when **** it the fan.

My dad was a chronic, acute alcoholic. Also a war hero and the kindest most generous man I have ever known. He loved my mother and us kids with every ounce of his being.

Four years before his death he had been diagnosed with cancer of the asophogus. Did the treatment, didn't work. Three years later had most of his throat removed. Had quite drinking though much of this thanks to a great rehab center in Ann Arbor Michigan. One day my mom has a tooth removed because of an absess, she died later (but was brought back to life by recessation, and put on a respirator, but brain dead) that night from heart failure due to infection. We went through a week of her in a coma then my dad had to make the decision to pull the plug.

He starts drinking again, straight vodka, with his throat mostly gone he no longer was able to eat. Makes me promise to not put him in a nursing home. I did. He goes on drinking for a few months like this, I finally have to take the car keys leaving him home stranded. Not able to stop drinking because the withdrawal would kill him, I agree to supply him with vodka. All the while I am driving all over the state of MI to get somebody to come help him. Several vets come, but it is too late. Called 911 several times, they would recesitate him and leave. He begged me not to force him to the hospital or to go through DT's again. I agree. My sister and I finally bring him enough vodka for more than just a day (which was a bottle), finally he dies. Remember he is an acute cronic alcoholic with most of his throat removed and not a very good prognosis for a cure, considering that after my mom died he refused any further treatment for the cancer or intervention for his alcoholism.

We took away his car keys, stopped all intervention for help from outside sources and supplied the vodka which finally took his life.

Was this moral? I would like to know what others opinions are.

To me it was. I did it out of love for my dad. Even on his death bed he thought he was in Viet Nam. Kept telling me he had to get some rest so he could go back up again. 240 airborn missions in two years, and he still needed to go back up again, or so he thought on his deathbed.

Was this moral, what my sister and I did?

Yes, I think killing is relative.

Killing is not a moral, though. The moral at issue is murder and that is not relative. Killing that fits the definition of murder is absolutely wrong. Morals are not relative.

And I would invite anyone who thinks morals are relative to post their address and let me come over and murder them. If morals are relative, there should be nothing wrong with that. [most relativists tend to change their tune when someone wants to harm them]

I betcha relativists don't want their spouses to be "relatively" faithful. I bet they expect their spouse to live as if adultery were absolutely wrong and would react negatively if she lived out relativism by committing adultery.

weaver, as far as your dad goes, I simply don't see anything immoral about what you did. Your dad made a choice and there wasn't much you could do about it.

Oh this is just getting way too deep for me.

Carry on for the rest of you though!

Mel, you have to be well rested to be able to carry this thread. Good grief it's a tough one.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Melody said:

noodle, I am sure there are tough situations but that doesn't change the fact that murder is murder and is morally wrong. Finding even one exception doesn't make murder right. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ML:

All we need to do is find one exception and the morality ceases to be absolute------- it becomes relative.

I believe someone in this thread has already stated that murdering Adolph Hitler may have been morally correct if we had know that millions of Jews were going to die by his hand.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Stan-ley:
<strong>

All we need to do is find one exception and the morality ceases to be absolute------- it becomes relative.

I believe someone in this thread has already stated that murdering Adolph Hitler may have been morally correct if we had know that millions of Jews were going to die by his hand. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Stan, but humans do not have the gift of foresight. We can't just murder people because we "think" they might turn out to be bad. No one knew Hitler would murder 6 million Jews so your hypothetical is not only moot, it still doesn't mean murder isn't wrong. Murder is still murder and murdering Hitler would not change that fact.

The basics of morality are clear. Everyone knows murder is wrong. Even Hitler knew murder was wrong. Thats why he had to dehumanize the Jews in order to justify killing them.

The fact that there are difficult problems in morality doesn't "disprove" the existence of moral absolutes any more than difficult problems in science disprove the existence of objective natural laws. We can't deny that morality exists just because we have trouble knowing the answer in a few difficult situations.

Mel,

Agree. [although, since I do believe in moral absolutes that isn't really a big shock]

I believe that the moral itself can be absolute. I believe that what makes something moral or not is that God says so <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ..but what complicates the issue [which I was trying to get to earlier..but a fussy baby swiping at my face and keyboard really motivates me to be short and sweet] is that we as humans do not always have the ability to know what we are dealing with.

If you believe that scripture is true..then you'll notice a rather direct manner that God had of dealing with those OT folk.

"The big cloud of fire says turn left at the river"

Now though..we have documents of other peoples accounts of still other peoples experiences with the big cloud of fire.

We also have an indwelling spirit.

Ya win some, ya lose some.

The moral may be absolute, the answer may be less so..or at the very least..the absolute correct answer may evade us.

The devil is in the details.

Noodle

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by noodle:
<strong>

The moral may be absolute, the answer may be less so..or at the very least..the absolute correct answer may evade us.

The devil is in the details.

Noodle </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Noodle, I agree with that. While morals are absolute, sometimes the proper application of those morals is not always easily discerned. But such is life......