# Moral absolutes **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 1, 2002, 7:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753 "2002-12-01T07:42:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/81 "2002-12-04T06:45:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joel \* > \*\*Harming and/or killing somebody just because you **WANT** not **NEED** something of theirs is wrong because you’re harming someone who doesn’t deserve it, And why is it wrong to harm someone, then? > [@](#): > > and you’re taking something from them,that they had to work for, to earn the money to buy. And why is it wrong? > [@](#): > > But the main thing is the complete devaluing of human life, having shoes be more valuable than a human. And then? What makes a human more valuable than a pair of shoes I want? See…The problem is that for proving that something (killing people for their shoes) is wrong, you have to first _assume_ various things (that harming people is wrong, that a human life is worth more than a pair of shoes, etc…). So, your moral judgment isn’t based on some absolute which would be exterior to you, but on your preexisting moral values (harming someone who didn’t deserve it is wrong, taking something from someone is wrong, etc…). It’s circular because each time you say : I know that A (killing someone) is wrong because it implies B (harming him) which I know is wrong. So, you’re still at the same point : you’ve now to explain why B is wrong. If you can’t or don’t it’s the same as saying “A is wrong because I say so”. > [@](#): > > The second, an abusive parent putting a cigarette out on a child’s arm: There’s a million things I could list. Oh, where to start. Well, treating a CHILD cruelly and extremely harsh…do I honestly have to spell out why both scenarios are wrong? It should be blazingly obvious. There’s no need to explain it, because once again you would say “because harming people is wrong”, “because children can’t defend themselves and it’s wrong to attack people who can’t defend themselves”, etc… Once again _assuming_ your moral rules as a given. You’re not proving that putting a cigarette on a child’s arm is absolutely wrong, but that it is wrong according to the moral values you’re holding (and which are still not proven to be “absolutely valid”). When you say “it’s blazingly obvious” , what you mean is “it’s blazingly obvious for all people who agree with my basic moral values”. But this is not an absolute. To be absolute it should be independant of anybody opinion. The law of gravity is absolutely true because even if I disagree with it, I will still fall. But morals can’t be absolute because as soon as people think “harming children is unimportant”, then harming people isn’t immoral anymore. Let’s take another example. Someone can think, for instance, that there’s no circumstance where someone should kill someone else except in self-defense. For them, the death penalty is immoral. Some other people can think than a criminal must receive a punishment. For them, death penalty is moral. I assume that in this case, you understand why morals are relative. You understand it because it’s an issue on which people usually disagree. But the only difference between the statements : “death penalty is immoral” and “torturing children for fun is immoral” is that in the first case only, say, 50% of people agre while in the second case 99,99% of people agree. But there’s no difference in nature between these two statements. None is provable. And if tomorrow 99,99% of people agree to say that the death penalty is very wrong, both statements will be on par. You’ll note that both acts are of the same nature. In both cases you’re harming someone. But you arbitrarily decided that harming “for fun” is wrong while harming “for revenge” is OK (many people think that revenge/ “an eye for an eye” is a good enough reason to justify the death penalty). And also that harming someone below a given age is “more wrong” that harming someone above this age (or else, why would you insist on mentionning children/babies in your examples?). Which is totally arbitrary. There’s no way to prove that harming a 2 y.o. is morally worst than harming an adult. And I could argue that death, which is definitive, is worst than torture. Hence that executing a criminal is worst than torturing a baby. How could you prove me wrong? Your error is that you think that “moral relativism” means that there’s always a way to justify an action within a given set of moral rules that you take as a given (including “harming someone is wrong” or “a human life is worth more than a pair of shoes”). What we are saying is that this basic set of rules is itself arbitrary and depending on the time and place. And even if some of these rules have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of people in the overwhelming majority of cultures, there’s no difference in nature with rules which have been accepted by only a minority of people in a minority of cultures. You’re in fact saying “almost everybody think/feel that torturing babies for fun is wrong. That’s an absolute”. Nope. That’s only what almost everybody think/feel. An absolute moral rule would be true for everybody, whether they agree or not, and would be provable without reference to another moral rule. ---
**Author:** ![loinburger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/db5fbb/32.png) [@loinburger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/loinburger)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 8:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/82 "2002-12-04T08:14:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Joel \* > … > do I honestly have to spell out why both scenarios are wrong? It should be blazingly obvious. You _do_ need to spell out why both scenarios are wrong if you want to make the case that they’re both _absolutely_ wrong. I’ve already said (in order to point out that I’m not just playing Devil’s Advocate) that I believe that both scenarios are wrong, but that my justifications rest on the _non-absolute_ principles of logic, language, and culture. So, even though the justification as to why both scenarios are wrong is blazingly obvious to me, it is _not_ blazingly obvious as to how this justification (or any such justification) could be considered to be absolutely correct. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/83 "2002-12-04T13:37:25Z")
## quote: ## Originally posted by Joel What is right about devaluing human life? What is right about being cruel and causing unecessary harm? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ramanujan \* > \*\*i never claimed anything was. \*\* But when you ask: “what exactly is absolutely wrong about devaluing human life, about cruelty and harshness? please be very specific, and pay attention to the word “absoutely”.” That implies that you don’t believe it, or else you wouldn’t want it explained to you, because you would know why. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/84 "2002-12-04T13:39:20Z")
## quote: Uhm, your opinion may only apply to you. In that case, it is restrictive. It’s restricted only to you. * * * > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Spiritus Mundi \* > \*\*Once more: **I am the one forming the moral judgment**. > > Please think about that for a moment and then tell me exactly how “my opinion” forms a restrictive bound for “my decision.” \*\* Ok, the way you phrase that, yes, once you form an opinion, you probably will act on it. That is true. ---
**Author:** ![Ramanujan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/51bf81/32.png) [@Ramanujan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramanujan)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/85 "2002-12-04T13:40:31Z")
claiming that it is not absolutely wrong is by no means claiming that it’s right. please answer the question. ---
**Author:** ![Nobody](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/94ad74/32.png) [@Nobody](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nobody)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/86 "2002-12-04T13:52:36Z")
Well, that’s it for me. This thread is to depressing to me to go on. I guess to summarize what I’m trying to say, it should be blazingly obvious that no matter what people thought, or did, or think, or do, or will think, or will do, that it’s wrong to unnecessarily and knowingly harm another human being. But to be asked why that’s true, or to be told, well, the Vikings did it so that proves you’re wrong… I guess I have nothing else to say. Oh, and as for the “absolute perspective” thing… well, whatever, I don’t care any more. I’m out of here. If a moderator want’s to close this thread, fine by me, I’m moving on. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/87 "2002-12-04T14:21:50Z")
Unnecessarily harm? Maybe I should ask when harm is absolutely necessary? Or are you that far gone? ---
**Author:** ![loinburger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/db5fbb/32.png) [@loinburger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/loinburger)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2002, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753/88 "2002-12-04T16:11:38Z")
**Joel** : I certainly don’t believe that _I’m_ infallible, so I guess I don’t understand how you’ve apparently come to the conclusion that _you’re_ infallible. If you _don’t_ believe that you’re infallible, then I guess I just don’t see what’s so depressing about having people disagree with you when your arguments basically amount to “It should be obvious to everybody that I am correct.” C’mon, I doubt that you’d accept that kind of argument from anybody on any other debate topic, so it’s horsesh\*t for you to be so indignant over not having the argument be accepted by the rest of us on this particular topic. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/moral-absolutes/139753.md?page=4)