Philosophy Discussions

[Napoleonic-Russia]

If it was created, then it didn’t exist before its creation.

That doesn't answer my question. What is "it" that you're talking about that didn't exist forever?

Absolute truth,

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That doesn't answer my question. What is "it" that you're talking about that didn't exist forever?

Absolute truth,

I say that it has

[The Free Joy State]

To do so would involve playing fast and loose with our acknowledged definition of murder, which is an illegal killing with malice aforethought.

Of course, you could ask how it would be for the military to bring down their opponents with cuddles and not killing (were you engaging in a thought experiment), but the fact is that murder has a definition.

But the reason murder is consider is bad, is that it’s taking the life of another. It states the absolute truth that killing others is wrong. Yet we don’t treat killings for military purposes and executions as murder. Why is that? Maybe because absolute truth doesn’t exist.

No, the reason people consider murder bad is because it is taking the life of another with intent.

Killing someone in self-defence has always been an acceptable action.

No morality system anywhere has ever said "If someone is trying to kill you, don't defend yourself. Let them. It would be immoral to fight them off."

EDIT: Later correction (bad choice of words)

[El-Amin Caliphate]

To do so would involve playing fast and loose with our acknowledged definition of murder, which is an illegal killing with malice aforethought.

Of course, you could ask how it would be for the military to bring down their opponents with cuddles and not killing (were you engaging in a thought experiment), but the fact is that murder has a definition.

But the reason murder is consider is bad, is that it’s taking the life of another. It states the absolute truth that killing others is wrong. Yet we don’t treat killings for military purposes and executions as murder. Why is that? Maybe because absolute truth doesn’t exist.

1: Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So yes, according to Absolute Truth, murder is bad.
2: If you're talking about "killing" then yes, there is no Absolute Truth to that.

[Napoleonic-Russia]

Absolute truth,

I say that it did.

So nothing created it, and it applied to things that didn’t even exist At one point. (Like abortion or electric power). So what makes absolute truth truth then?

[Purpelia]

But the reason murder is consider is bad, is that it’s taking the life of another. It states the absolute truth that killing others is wrong. Yet we don’t treat killings for military purposes and executions as murder. Why is that? Maybe because absolute truth doesn’t exist.

No, the reason people consider murder bad is because it is taking the life of another without cause.

Killing someone in self-defence has always been an acceptable action.

No morality system anywhere has ever said "If someone is trying to kill you, don't defend yourself. Let them. It would be immoral to fight them off."

Actually some have. Some go so far as to say don't kill any living thing ever, not even insects. Just look at some hardcore versions of various Indian faiths.

[Bombadil]

But the reason murder is consider is bad, is that it’s taking the life of another. It states the absolute truth that killing others is wrong. Yet we don’t treat killings for military purposes and executions as murder. Why is that? Maybe because absolute truth doesn’t exist.

No, the reason people consider murder bad is because it is taking the life of another without cause.

Killing someone in self-defence has always been an acceptable action.

No morality system anywhere has ever said "If someone is trying to kill you, don't defend yourself. Let them. It would be immoral to fight them off."

That's not true, everyone has cause. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone with intent.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I say that it did.

So nothing created it, and it applied to things that didn’t even exist At one point. (Like abortion or electric power). So what makes absolute truth truth then?

I didn't say nothing created it. Read my first post in this thread again, please.

[The Free Joy State]

No, the reason people consider murder bad is because it is taking the life of another without cause.

Killing someone in self-defence has always been an acceptable action.

No morality system anywhere has ever said "If someone is trying to kill you, don't defend yourself. Let them. It would be immoral to fight them off."

That's not true, everyone has cause. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone with intent.

My error. You are correct.

That was a bad choice of words on my part.

[Napoleonic-Russia]

But the reason murder is consider is bad, is that it’s taking the life of another. It states the absolute truth that killing others is wrong. Yet we don’t treat killings for military purposes and executions as murder. Why is that? Maybe because absolute truth doesn’t exist.

1: Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So yes, according to Absolute Truth, murder is bad.
2: If you're talking about "killing" then yes, there is no Absolute Truth to that.

But absolute truth innately applies to all things. It makes it relative if it only applies in certain aspects.

[Purpelia]

I think a lot of people are confusing what absolute truth actually is. Because it does exist. It just isn't present in the realm of men and human interaction. Absolute truth exists only in the realm of cold mechanical properties of the world around us. Things like the molecular composition of my keyboard, the chemical interactions between the air I take and my body or the current position of the earth disk relative to the sun. That sort of thing is where you have absolute truths, either measurable or not but still absolute.

Once you get into soft things like human or even animal interaction absolute truth dies a slow death in favor of fuzzy logic.

[Bombadil]

I suppose one has to answer 'truth about what?'

There is truth without the human mind and then there's the fuzzy nature of perception. Hence that quote that the only consistent position of philosophers is that every other philosopher is wrong.

And thus each of us views reality differently, and to assume that no one ever came up with what was actually true dismisses every other advancement, and to say that our advancements now are absolute truth dismisses that great mind before that, then calling into question how to even tell, if they are true, why they don’t know ever truth?

No, nothing can be said to be absolutely true. That said we can operate on assumptions that things are consistent enough as to act upon as if true.

I might make an exception to mathematically true, in which case I'd expand what I believe to be absolutely true.

Even then it's like the sun coming up, if the mathematical equivalence of the sun not rising one day for no discernible reason - although that in and of itself would be the equivalence.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

1: Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So yes, according to Absolute Truth, murder is bad.
2: If you're talking about "killing" then yes, there is no Absolute Truth to that.

But absolute truth innately applies to all things. It makes it relative if it only applies in certain aspects.

That's not how Absolute Truth works.

Absolute Truth works by being an all-pervasive thought, a - actually we're using the wrong terminology here. We're not talking about Absolute Truth, we're talking about Absolute Morality.

Anyways, Absolute Morality works by being a single belief on something, a unifying concept enforced by the one who is Absolute. Absolute Morality isn't about making blanket statements on broad topics, it's about guiding people to right and wrong, in all aspects of life, which means it has to be intricate.

[The Free Joy State]

No, the reason people consider murder bad is because it is taking the life of another without cause.

Killing someone in self-defence has always been an acceptable action.

No morality system anywhere has ever said "If someone is trying to kill you, don't defend yourself. Let them. It would be immoral to fight them off."

Actually some have. Some go so far as to say don't kill any living thing ever, not even insects. Just look at some hardcore versions of various Indian faiths.

Technically, Buddhist monks are not supposed to kill in self-defence but are allowed to defend themselves.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

The way I see it, there are logical statements that are absolutely true. Iron will always have more protons than Oxygen. That is true independent of whether us humans are here to observe that fact. Morality is a different story. There are some who would say homosexuality is moral, some who disagree. Is either of them objectively wrong? Morality seems merely to be one's opinions on what is right or wrong. And opinions by definition cannot be absolute truth. That said, there are certainly some moral judgement I have that I treat as fact. I think it's wrong to kill anyone except in self-defense. Is this an absolute? I certainly hope so, but I don't know.

[Phria]

1: Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So yes, according to Absolute Truth, murder is bad.
2: If you're talking about "killing" then yes, there is no Absolute Truth to that.

But absolute truth innately applies to all things. It makes it relative if it only applies in certain aspects.

Would you say that the existence of absolute truth would imply that there are no false statements?

[Phria]

But the reason murder is consider is bad, is that it’s taking the life of another. It states the absolute truth that killing others is wrong. Yet we don’t treat killings for military purposes and executions as murder. Why is that? Maybe because absolute truth doesn’t exist.

1: Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So yes, according to Absolute Truth, murder is bad.
2: If you're talking about "killing" then yes, there is no Absolute Truth to that.

The descriptive statement about what we have defined as murder does not necessitate the prescriptive statement that we ought not to murder (see Hume's guillotine). Something is not immoral just because it is unlawful.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

1: Murder is defined as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another". So yes, according to Absolute Truth, murder is bad.
2: If you're talking about "killing" then yes, there is no Absolute Truth to that.

The descriptive statement about what we have defined as murder does not necessitate the prescriptive statement that we ought not to murder (see Hume's guillotine). Something is not immoral just because it is unlawful.

I was talking about "unlawful" in terms of the Absolute Truth version of unlawful if that makes sense. What I mean is that unjustly killing somebody with intent to kill - murder, is immoral according to Absolute Truth. Killing - justly or unjustly ending someone's life, is allowed or not allowed according to Absolute Truth, depending on the reason.

[Phria]

The descriptive statement about what we have defined as murder does not necessitate the prescriptive statement that we ought not to murder (see Hume's guillotine). Something is not immoral just because it is unlawful.

I was talking about "unlawful" in terms of the Absolute Truth version of unlawful if that makes sense. What I mean is that unjustly killing somebody with intent to kill - murder, is immoral according to Absolute Truth. Killing - justly or unjustly ending someone's life, is allowed or not allowed according to Absolute Truth, depending on the reason.

So according to you unlawfulness constitutes immorality by definition. Since I take it that you're a theist, I'd like your perspective on this: Is something moral because God says it it moral, or does God say it is moral because it is?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I was talking about "unlawful" in terms of the Absolute Truth version of unlawful if that makes sense. What I mean is that unjustly killing somebody with intent to kill - murder, is immoral according to Absolute Truth. Killing - justly or unjustly ending someone's life, is allowed or not allowed according to Absolute Truth, depending on the reason.

So according to you unlawfulness constitutes immorality by definition.

That's not what I meant. I mean yeah, it's part of it, but not the be all end all.

Since I take it that you're a theist

Correct, Muslim to be exact.

I'd like your perspective on this: Is something moral because God says it it moral, or does God say it is moral because it is?

Both. Allah SWT created morality, so yes, He dictates what is moral and what isn't by His will, and because He created the moral thing to be good, while He created the immoral thing to be bad.

[Bombadil]

First, if you're going to bring religion into it then take it to the religion thread, it has nothing particularly useful to say other than [insert god] is the absolute truth and the absolute morality so it's kind of a pointless conversation.

Otherwise I might make a case for the thought there is no absolute truth but there is absolute morality. Ot at least we cannot determine absolute truth but we can determine absolute morality.

The issue with absolute truth is that it's bound by what humans can perceive. Given we cannot perceive all, and we cannot know if we ever can, then we cannot say we can determine absolute truth. By extension I'd argue we cannot know absolute truth exists, everything could be in constant, random flux if not two truths coexisting.

Morality is different given it's a construct of being able to perceive. I'd argue that the absolute moral is 'do not steal', where one can steal property and security. To steal is absolutely morally wrong but that's not to say it's not necessary.

So bullying is to steal an individuals security, whether physically through pain or mentally through self esteem. Murder is definitely stealing, a life. I think that's where we argue that being gay is morally fine since it doesn't inherently steal from anyone but to suppress homosexuality is stealing their right to security.

Of course if someone is wilfully stealing from others then it becomes necessary, though not moral in the theft itself, to protect people.. thus we steal security by jailing them even though that's morally wrong (I'd further argue this is expressed in experiments where we genuinely rehabilitate over just imprisoning, moral wrong is expressed in poor outcomes).

I can extend this through to taxes and etc., that to withhold money unfairly from society is also stealing.. but we get very much into societal relativism about what is acceptable immoral theft.. and that's not even touching on something like abortion.

[Beggnig]

Do You Believe in Absolute Truth?

[Bombadil]

Do You Believe in Absolute Truth?

That's dumb.. if I answer I don't know if absolute truth exists it then asks if that's absolutely true.. that's not a fair question. Odd for a religious site to set up things to force a conclusion.. how unlike religion.

Religion is irrelevant to the conversation given you've decided as to a single source of truth and morality.

[The Free Joy State]

Do You Believe in Absolute Truth?

And?

This appears to be redirecting us to some theological website or other. I'd have thought religious discussions belong on one of the theological threads.

*snip*
Morality is different given it's a construct of being able to perceive. I'd argue that the absolute moral is 'do not steal', where one can steal property and security. To steal is absolutely morally wrong but that's not to say it's not necessary.

*snip*

It's like the old argument: Is it wrong for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread to feed his hungry family.

Stealing is wrong, except isn't it more morally wrong to set up circumstances so that children can be allowed to starve -- hence the premise of Les Miserables, and why Jean Valjean is such a sympathetic character.

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Do You Believe in Absolute Truth?

This is a very odd site. It asks the question of whether logic is made of matter? That's an interesting question, but it seems like a false dichotomy, and I fail to see how its answer confirms religion.