Moral absolutism vs. Moral relativism vs. Nihilism

Moral absolutism:
There are moral judgements (claims of good and evil and right and wrong) that are absolutely true, regardless of the moral framework (society, culture, value system) in which they are uttered.

Moral relativism:
There are no moral judgements that are absolutely true. The truth of moral judgements is relative to the moral framework in which they are uttered. The same judgement may be true in one, and false in another, and there is no exterior standard by which to compare them. It does not make sense to try to judge the truth of moral claims without a frame of reference.

Nihilism:
Begins by accepting moral relativism as true. Then claims that, because moral judgements are relative to their frame of reference, and there is no standard by which to determine the true frame of reference, all moral conversation is meaningless. Morality is entirely abandoned.

What do you believe, and why?

 

I'm a moral absolutist. Sythe made a thread on this before, and he demonstrated that morality was based upon preferred behavior, that is, how humans want to be treated. Preferred behavior is universal (psychopaths do not count, as they have basically defected from the natural order of things), therefore, morality is universal.

I don't, however, see why I should be moral.

 

I believe in Moral Relativism. There are certain time where something may be wrong but be right in a another situation. ex, beating up someone is wrong, beating up someone to defend yourself is right. The only thing is it's hard to judge moral relativism as to wether what someone did is actually right or wrong, and many people try and use this to there advantage.

 

Nihilism because moral relativism is true. Because moral judgements are relative to their frame of reference, and there is no standard by which to determine the true frame of reference, all moral conversation is meaningless. Morality is entirely abandoned.

Hahah, nah. IMO there's good, bad, and what I want to do.

 

Can't I be a moral absolutist and nihilistic at the same time? Let's see, I agree with some parts of nihilism, but I do think there IS a basic framework of morals built into humans. So maybe I'm not nihislistic, maybe more agnostic I guess. I'm rambling here...

 

Nihilism, because an action depends on where the situation stands. For example, you're starving to death and you had to steal food from a poor man in order to survive and retain your health. The morals of most cultures condemn any sort of crime they concieve as a sin, and so if you're forced into or need to commit an act seen immoral, then it isn't immoral and you should be forgiven because all deeds should be dependant upon intention.

 

But if you didn't steal in that situation you would die. Someone would die either ways so if you stole, you starved the poor man to death. But in order to survive is it a major sin?

 

So moral absolutism is true?

 

Survival and morality are not one and the same concepts.

Of course there are certain behaviours that are necessary for a civilization to survive and flourish. That does not mean these behaviours hold any kind of intrinsic moral value whatsoever.

Civilizations have come to evolve a certain way because people have come to have an idea of what needs to be done to ensure their OWN survival. This is the whole idea behind the so-called social contract. But absolute morality has nothing to do with it.

 

We label the mentally ill explicitly because they exhibit abnormal behavior. So do you exclude them merely for your convenience?

You speak as though everything must be either moral or immoral.
It wouldn't be absurd to say property rights are neither.

What?!
How did you come about your conclusion that all those things are universally preferred?

Happiness is relative.
And good mental health is merely the mental state of the normal, which is derived from the majority. Hardly universal.

Universally preferred behavior does not exist.
Sure, you could argue that something such as living is universally preferred, because those who don't prefer it obvious aren't still alive. And even if it were, you've only proved that breathing, eating, and drinking are preferred.
What else could be preferred? Surely not the things listed above.

 

For all matters of morality, I simply refer to my friend Machiavelli

 

Yes, but war and anarchy, while caused by us, are not moral, while one could argue about eating to be used for survival which is moral....rather confusing topic i must say.....

 

War is not inherently immoral. Suppose an all-volunteer force is put together to fight a small conflict which saves the lives of millions. Would you argue against this?

 

Well, all right, let me specify the situation a little more:

A tyrannical government is oppressing its population. The population is generally uneducated, unarmed, and suffering from terrible diseases which distract it from fighting back. They have sent a very clear and unambiguous plea for help, with a promise to help pay back their saviors any way that they can.

It would require a very small force (all volunteers), very little time, and have a very low casualty rate. Those that died would have their families provided for by generous people who have already volunteered the funds.

In short, it's the "perfect scenario". I would consider that sort of war to be a just war.