Is there an absolute moral code?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
ShieldAxe
Scholar
Posts: 256
Joined: Wed May 11, 2005 8:52 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Is there an absolute moral code?

Post #1

Post by ShieldAxe »

Is there an absolute moral code? By absolute we mean perfect, complete and therefore unchanging. Presumably christians believe god provided the moral code in the bible. This is essentially what CS Lewis argued in 'Mere Christianity'. He said there have been changes in moralality but they were insignificant, so there is an absolute moral code.

I think there were highly significant changes in the biblical moral code. Let's take the 2nd commandment in Exodus 20:
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me. And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Does anyone still think it's moral to make children and grandchildren pay for the crimes of the father? Doubtful.

What about Leviticus 20:9?
Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life.
Does anyone still think it's moral to kill your kids for misbehaving? No.

Is it still moral to kill homosexuals? (Lev.20:13)
Is it still moral to kill blasphemers? (Lev.24:16)
Is it still moral to kill rape victims? (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
Is it still moral kill those who don't keep the sabbath? (Ex.31:14)


The moral code certainly seems to have changed in significant ways. How is it absolute then?

A 3rd Gentleman
Student
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 11:20 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: Is there an absolute moral code?

Post #2

Post by A 3rd Gentleman »

Not even the existence of divine morality solves the absolute/prescriptive morality problem, because the only way god can give you a logical reason to follow say- in the case of christian dogma - is by appealing to your subjective with promises of heaven/hell, closeness of relationship to the creator etc...

If one is to assess that what they want in and out of life is inhibited by the effects of their acting in accordance with a specific ethical guideline all the time, can it be argued that this person should act in accordance with that ethical guideline all the time?

Two common rebuttals - the argument that what is right is right is a tautology and the argument that one should do to others as he wishes for himself ignores the fact that it is completely possible to treat others in contrast with what one would desire for themselves and still be the receiver of entirely satisfactory responses - are the most sufficient answers to the query, but I have found both to be patently dishonest and inadequate rationalising.

So, yes, I am a moral relativist and I believe that all behaviour is objectively equal and inherently valueless. However, on a less adverse note, I am still a generally stand-up proponent of classic morality, but only because most tenets held by classic morality are accomodative and supplementary of my ambitions and desires. I believe personally that those who are antisocial or socially regressive should be punished as opponents of my subjective objectives.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #3

Post by AlAyeti »

Why analyze only the Bible?

Those people that say the moral codes were directed at Israelites are correct from the context of the text.

From the theme running through the Tanakh (Old Testament), it seems that God had a plan and a mission for the Israelites. A "chosen people" mixed with some converted gentiles and there you arrive at Jesus the Messiah. But yes, you do need the New testament to prove it.

What about comparing Darwinian Evolution to morality.

Rape? OK.

Murder? OK.

Adultery? Encouraged for the most part.

Stealing? OK.

Abortion? Probably not OK. Species proliferation is the main theme in nature.

Infanticide? OK for dominate males to do or if offspring need to be rid of for abnormality in an offspring or hunger in the mother.

Same-sex mating? Worthless condition of the individual as species survival depends on successful breeding. OK if same-sex maters benefit herd survival.

Lying? Hmm false advertisements? OK

Genocide? Species go extinct everyday.

War? OK Ants and wasp's war all the time. Lions and Hyenas hate each other as well.

Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you? Hmm. Where does symbiosis come from?

Loving God with all your mind, with all your heart and with all your strength? What started evolution? Sure seems like animals and plants do just that.
Last edited by AlAyeti on Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bugmaster
Site Supporter
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2005 7:52 am
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #4

Post by Bugmaster »

AlAyeti wrote:Lying? Hmm false advertisements? OK
You heard it here first, folks. Darwinian evolution inevitably leads to false advertisements. AlAyeti has the scoop !

User avatar
trencacloscas
Sage
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm

Post #5

Post by trencacloscas »

Does anybody care to define 'moral' first? :| :? :-k

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #6

Post by AlAyeti »

BugM,

There are flies that mimic bees, there are non-poisonous snakes that look very much like poisonous snakes.

There are things that look like twigs that are actually bugs.

I don't usually like teaching third grade lessons.
Last edited by AlAyeti on Thu Oct 13, 2005 10:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #7

Post by McCulloch »

AlAyeti wrote:Genocide? Species go instinct everyday.
I really suspect that you meant extinct. #-o

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #8

Post by AlAyeti »

Bugmaster,

The moderators pointed out that I had personally insulted you with what I posted. I edited it accordingly.

But I assume sometime that people can understand my analogies without having to spell them out every time.

Bernne1, has spoiled me in understanding almost everything I mean.

Please excuse me.

User avatar
micatala
Site Supporter
Posts: 8338
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:04 pm

Post #9

Post by micatala »

AlAyeti wrote:What about comparing Darwinian Evolution to morality.

Rape? OK.

Murder? OK.

Adultery? Encouraged for the most part.

Stealing? OK.
Why stop at evolution? Let's look at Einstein's Theory of Relativity, or the standard atomic model of chemistry.

Rape? OK. Nothing in these theories to say there is anything wrong.

Murder? Fine.

Adultery? Why not.

So, following your logic Physics and Chemistry also promote immorality. I suppose pretty much any scientific field would.

It seems to me you are equating apples and oranges. Evolution describes what happens biologically. It has little to nothing per se to say about morality. It is only a false reading into evolution ideas that are not there that leads to the conclusions you are making (IMV).

As far as the OP's question, I would ask two questions.

Are the laws of science that we know eternal and immutable, or are they only the best approximations that we can conceive of at this point in time?

If there are eternal and immutable scientific laws, will it ever be possible that humans will completely understand them in their entirety and how they apply in all possible circumstances?

My answer to the first question is "I don't know." My answer to the second question is probably not.

I would give the same answers with regards to 'moral codes.' There may be an 'eternal and immutable' moral code, but even if there is, we will only ever have an approximate knowledge of it.

I would submit that the Biblical view is that there is an eternal moral code, but that humans will never be able to completely understand or fulfill it. The 'changes' in moral codes, Biblical or not, that have occurred over history might be attributable to our lack of understanding and ability to follow such codes. Certainly Jesus allows as much in his discussion of marriage and divorce in the OT versus what 'should' happen. In a sense, Jesus is expecting us to evolve morally.

User avatar
harvey1
Prodigy
Posts: 3452
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 2:09 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: Is there an absolute moral code?

Post #10

Post by harvey1 »

ShieldAxe wrote:The moral code certainly seems to have changed in significant ways. How is it absolute then?
Remember the guy from Matrix 2 who kept reciting cause and effect? Well, anyway, there's a cause and effect for every moral code. Regardless what the moral code is, it would have a corresponding moral effect on society based on its degree of adherence, widespread application, etc.. In principle, with enough knowledge of the effects of the many different moral codes, one could predict (at least in a statistical sense) the effect that a new moral code would have on society. For example, it's not so hard to imagine the effect of having a universal moral code that old people ought to die when they start getting too sick to care for themselves. Once that kind of moral code became universal, we can expect to see a society engaging in euthanasia practices, etc..

So, regardless of what society apts as their moral codes where the majority in that society support, the moral effects themselves are absolute. The moral codes themselves can change in significant ways, but the effects once recognized by society, push society to reconsider their moral codes. Therefore, I would suggest that moral codes are attractor-like, and in that sense they are absolute. Since human civilizations evolve slowly over decades and centuries, the attractors (moral codes) are not yet firmly set in stone, but we already have many moral codes firmly in place (e.g., universal criminal laws). Given high speed communication and free transportation in the world, we'll see a much faster settling in on these attractors, and hence a common moral code will probably emerge if humans don't destroy themselves. Of course, moral codes will always vary as new circumstances arise (e.g., discovery of new technologies, population growth, environmental problems, etc.), but as the opportunity for new circumstances to arise begins to drop off (e.g., as technology growth levels off, population growth levels off, environmental issues stablize, etc.), then morality codes will become very fixed.

The fixed moral codes of the Hebrew Bible, I think, show this phenomena. By the time of the late Bronze age, human society in that region had become stable enough such that moral codes were thought to be obvious given the nature of their society. Despite all the changes our society has seen over the past 3 millenia, it is amazing how similar their moral codes are to our moral codes today. Yes, there's major differences (e.g., stoning an adultress), but given 3 millenia it just shows how stable those moral codes were after 100-300K years of modern humans living on the planet. That suggests that the world in a 100 years from now will have very similar morals that we do, unless of course there's some drastic unexpectant change (e.g., nuclear war, ETI discovery, etc.).

Post Reply