No announcement yet.

Moral absolutes

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Moral absolutes

    Do you believe there are any moral absolutes, and if so, what are they based on?
    😈 "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." Anton LaVey 😈

  • #2
    No,however I do recognize the ability for ethical consistency, I do not see much discussion in way of morals which simply come down to an opinion.
    sure, we can go over our preferences however we can not really show for anything. If you have an ethos though be which you live your life we can go over that and see if it is coherent and if it is consistent with your actions.
    as far as i figure that is about all you can expect of someone here, I do not expect someone to have the same ethos as me however i do expect them to have one.
    It is crucial to integrity, character and honor. Ethos impresses upon pathos. the relationship between these tells me a lot about a person and what is important to them.
    Those who seem to have an ethos in conflict with mine, I leave them be lest it should concern me.
    Those who are of like ethos, likely either want the same things in life for go about the same principles in getting there.
    These are compatible people with whom i can create an intentional community and work with.
    I'm all for building those communities however I'm not under any politically correct illusion of believing that a specific way of living can be right for everyone,
    and believe, very much so that most conflict comes from invading anothers process and space... either because one wants them to think as they do, or wants the resources [of their land].

    Getting back to topic though, for morals to be absolute they would have to carry the same weight universally which they do not...
    They are only absolute in defaulting to relativeness. Even if we work it out like Einstein worked out space-time,
    observers of space time see events differently based on their perspective and only agree when certain space-time-intervals work out
    It is the same way with good and bad, what is good for someone else may be bad for another.

    The phrase, "do to others as you would do to yourself"

    Is very thoughtful and sweet however it does contain an inherent flaw, as it assumes what you need is the same as what they need.

    Likewise, "do to others as they would have you do unto them" is also problematic as it can lead to putting their needs before yours, in an unhealthy way.

    ultimately, how one treats you is determined by what you stop, allow and [re]affirm.
    Essentially people are treated by how they treat themselves,
    "what is being done to you, is how you are doing"
    "What one does to themself, they will surround their peers with"
    "What you do to yourself, you do to others, even though the expression thereof may be different"
    These three are much better rules of thumb if you ask me.
    However i can see these abused when it comes to victim blaming,
    These are to be personally applied, no one is harder on you than yourself.

    Also, if morality were absolute it would not make for a good story.
    it can be seen as absolute in the atemporal, yet good and evil cease to exist.
    There is only causation.... and this is a problem for morals if we are to define them as value judgements regarding good and evil.
    Good and evil aren't objective, they are subjective... they aren't things so much as experiences and honestly we can even go further and say that
    they are a reaction to an experience, a lens the filters, and either focuses or distorts the image into clarity or confusion.
    and good can be bad, intoxicating even, I do not see "good vs bad" as anything but a comparative tool for sake of expressing point.
    I personally do not see it an enlightened position, yet it is, part of that process.

    That is not to say they aren't real, as far as we should be concerned they are very real because our attachment to them informs our reality.
    if you are in a bad place, you are going to have a bad time... and vice versa.

    It is real because we are subject to the stories we weave, yet. at the same time morals exist in the story.
    You have to have a play of characters to really explore it, and thus ones morals usually reflect how they have been impressed upon by their social interactions.

    so where does this leave us.... well I'm rather fond of Crowley's take on it.
    I believe our ethos should-be constructed as to propel us towards our ever aspiring self, and fulfillment of our nature (true will),
    while at the same time not intervening in another's process of doing the same.
    and this was the meaning of the Wiccan Rede, which is a take on his work.
    On the outside it is just another gold font, yet when doing what though wilt is understood to refer to true will,
    and the balance of that, the harm part, is the resistance to true will... it takes on a different meaning entirely.
    That's obviously another discussion....

    So again i believe everyone should have an ethos, even if they subscribe to anarchy. i suppose that much is absolute...
    that without one you can't really go anywhere you want. you might like where you are at however there tends to be long term consequences.
    Again, ethos affects pathos, so it just depends on what path you want to take... and i'm not going to tell somebody which path to take, but they'd beter know they are on a path, you know?

    Crowley's ideal is straightfoward in its statement of liberty of personal process, and that to secure it for oneself is to champion it in others,
    it promotes the rights of all, while still respects the right of all to choose their paradigm.
    As a matter of destination and journey, the guiding star is absolute in finding our way there.
    That principle must be held, in order to strive towards that state. We can not focus elsewhere, and expect to end up at where we intended by any volition of our own.
    But this assumes you wa't gnosis, you want self-discipline and you want a world where each is allowed to come into their own.
    You may not,
    There's usually a north star in any paradigm, that guiding point or principle
    and that puts everything in the paradigm in relation, and that creates our social interactions and there arise our morals.
    Tsalagi Nvwoti Didahnvwesgi Ale Didahnesesgi
    (Cherokee medicine practitioner of left and right hand paths) - The Anikutani Tradition


    • #3
      I think I agree with Draco's long post. I have my own morals and strong convictions but they are mine alone. I don't think there are actually any universally shared moral absolutes (even if there are some things which most people would agree on) and I certainly don't believe there is any universal authority or God which makes rules everybody should obey.


      • #4
        It's a while since I asked this question and I guess my answer has been evolving over the years.
        The simple answer is, no, there are no moral absolutes. I think I agree with the gist of what Draco was saying. There are some things "I" think are wrong all of the time and among those things I would guess that there are some which society as a whole would agree with. But I don't think there is any God or Divine Standard to measure things against or use as a basis for a shared system of moral values. The most we can ever hope for is just that, a consensus in society about what is right or wrong. Even then, we will all do or say somethings which are likely to be outside the consensus from time to time. Hopefully there will always be a large majority who feel that things such as rape and slavery are wrong, but on less obvious things such as the use of recreational drugs there is always going to be a difference of opinion.
        For me as a Satanist, the main point is there is no Divine Law or Person to hide behind; every moral judgement, great or small is an entirely personal decision.
        😈 "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." Anton LaVey 😈