My Take On Absolute Morality.

[ QUOTE ]


So while writing about what a horrific instutution slavery was, he couldn't repudiate it for himself. Economically he needed his slaves; and politically, if he expected to get anywhere both in Virgina and nationally, he needed slavery. While George Washington freed his slaves in his will, Jefferson did not, except for relatives of Sally Hemings, for obvious reasons.

I'm assuming David would say that those founders from the north who, while not slaveowners and, in some cases, exceptionally active anti-slavery advocates, were just as immoral as Jefferson because they favored a Constitutuion which sanctioned slavery.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know about the exceptional anti-slavery advocate but assuming an absolute morality I think that the average Northern leader who viewed slavery as nothing more than an issue to be negotiated is not much different from Jefferson. There probably are psychological distinctions that could be made between a slave holder and someone who didnt have the "stomach" for it but tolerated it nonetheless, but I dont see much distinction in moral culpability.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I obviously didn't mean the Golden Rule to be taken completely literally.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course not. But my point is that if you try to phrase it so that can be taken literally, it will have to include some kind of wishy-washy word like "reasonable" in there that will detract from its absoluteness.

I don't think there's any overarching general moral principle -- the Golden Rule, utilitariansm, Kant's categorical imperative, etc. -- that successfully applies to all situations in any kind of absolute way. IMO, any moral absolutes you find will have to be drawn much more narrowly.

[KeysrSoze]

Meh, most of what the average person would call moral is a construct of the society they live in. True morality would be base instinct IMHO. You don't call a lion immoral when it kills the young of its defeated rival to bring the females into heat, do you? In fact that action is perfect morality in their species. Humans are more gregarious and have different instincts, like protecting those with close genetic ties to yourself, beating down rival tribes for their stuff, ostentacious presentation to get mates, etc. Well I'm rambling, just saying I'm not in the school of thought that morality is set in stone given from up high and anyway what many religions preach as moral is the complete opposite of what's built into our genes to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Meh, most of what the average person would call moral is a construct of the society they live in. True morality would be base instinct IMHO. You don't call a lion immoral when it kills the young of its defeated rival to bring the females into heat, do you? In fact that action is perfect morality in their species. Humans are more gregarious and have different instincts, like protecting those with close genetic ties to yourself, beating down rival tribes for their stuff, ostentacious presentation to get mates, etc. Well I'm rambling, just saying I'm not in the school of thought that morality is set in stone given from up high and anyway what many religions preach as moral is the complete opposite of what's built into our genes to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that if a lion wants to go scuba diving, that's immoral?

I think it's a whole lot simpler to say there is no true morality, and base instincts are base instincts

[KeysrSoze]

[ QUOTE ]

I think it's a whole lot simpler to say there is no true morality, and base instincts are base instincts

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that sounds better.