Is moral progession possible or are morals relative?

Question

Moral progression implies an objective standard against which two moralities might be tested, precisely what relativism denies.

Is the relativist bound to accept that there can be no improvement in what are essentially subjective opinions?


Peace; DD

My last day for 40 *not including Sundays ;0)

(( I will miss the interaction or else it wouldn't be a sacrifice.))

Mark the Q interesting if you're observing a lenten fast.

Answer 1

Moral progression is possible, but it implies an absolute moral standard to meet. We can only make progress toward any goal if the goal is stationary. If moral goals depend on an individual thinker, democratic decision, or consensus of opinion, they will be continually shifting, leaving no possibility of progress.



By the same reasoning, moral regress is possible, and history suggests it is common. For example, under the communist empires of the late 20th century, about half the world came under totalitarian rule, which is hardly progress toward the standard of freedom. Because of court decisions and media propaganda, Americans have been going backwards on the right to life, even electing a president who champions infanticide for babies who survive abortion.



Given that both moral progress and regress take place, we must assume a stationary standard of moral perfection. Indeed, we all assume such a standard virtually every time we express an opinion. If I say, for example, that I shouldn't have to pay such high taxes, then I'm implying that there is an objective ideal tax burden reflecting the objectively proper work of government.



Such a moral standard depends completely on a superhuman moral standard maker, an authoritative intelligent designer and arbiter of human action, who America's founders called "nature's God."



Cheers,

Bruce

Answer 2

Too many folks confuse relative mores (societal and cultural norms and practices) about things like consensual sexual behaviors or modes of dress or diet or regulations regarding uses of intoxicants, with morality.



I do believe there is an absolute moral code for humanity.



It is this: What is harmful to yourself, you ought not do to others.



It was sighted by Jesus as the primary moral imperative (Mathew 7:12). Although he may just have been cribbing off of Rabbi Hillel (who, if we trust bible scholars' timelines, died when Jesus was about 12). Rabbi H said the same thing Jesus would later say (that is the summation of all the law and the writings of the prophets). It's in the Mahabharata. Buddha says it, Lao Tzu says it, and Confucius says it. There are Islamic versions, Shinto Versions, Native American versions and versions from a variety of ancient Greek and Roman philosophers. For instance, Thales, the father of Greek philosophy, said it 7 centuries before Christ. If nothing else, even if it doesn't represent an absolute morality, such an impressive consensus should allow us to use it as if it were an absolute moral standard. Especially as it requires no eternal threats, nor promises of heavenly reward in order to operate, just enlightened self-interest.



Game theory shows that using a strategy based on a such a code leads to viable long term success: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat



Moreover, evolutionary biology and game theory mathematics overlap, and show that such behavior can confer adaptive benefits on a population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_and_the_Theory_of_Games

Answer 3

Actually morals can be both relative and have an objective standard to which they can be tested.



... take Christian morality for example. Today's Christian morality is superior to that of the New Testament. And the New Testament's morality is a whole ton better than the Old Testament's morality. The objective basis for this relative morality is the physical and emotional harm that has been slowly reduced as we come up with increasingly better moral systems.

Answer 4

I don't think there is a measuring stick for moral systems.



Like, sure, everyone would gladly volunteer THEIR OWN morals as a measuring stick and judge all other systems according to how they match theirs. But that's completely arbitrary again.