Nothing is absolute and fixed, is it? In that case, why does morality matter?
Without a concept of absolutes, even in the teeth of their nonexistence, nothing human would make much sense. The truth is in the striving toward such a vision, not in the vision itself. The anomaly has to do with relativistic thinking, which can be both a plus for deconstructionism and a minus for values.
Good question to begin with.
Most things ‘human’ don’t support morality anyway-At least through behavior.
It’s in the striving for a goal we come to understand that process. The goal itself is merely a title or topic heading on the current paper we are to prove as virtuous
Morality matters because nothing is absolute and fixed. For instance, you don’t have an unchanging soul. Because you don’t have an unchanging soul, your relationship to others matters. Also, fixed rules of behavior with fixed rewards mean that you don’t have to think much about your relationships. So you neglect others - you don’t even have to think of others - so that you do the “right” thing. This is an anti-moral attitude. Morality matters because you see others as like yourself - a vulnerable, ever-changing, thinking and feeling organism that affects you and is likewise affected by you. You can’t find a distinct, separate, unchanging you, as hard as you look. Rather, you find impermanence and interdependence.
I will claim-Morality is the last chance of us not becoming absolutely controlled by an ever advancing gov’t.
Can there not be transient morality? I.e. an intent to find a moral resolution to an issue, as opposed to having no desire to do so. [this Vs the bolded text at the end of the post]
I usually find that although things change we can usually find a reasoned solution e.g.
- Does a man have any rights over an otherwise aborted child?
Possible solution;
a. if the man wishes to be the single parent, then we have the comparison; 9 months pregnancy Vs an entire life.
Ab. Everyone has the right of possession over their bodies.
Aba. A woman has rights over her body.
Abb. A foetus has rights over its body. It is a unique entity from conception, it is not a part of the man nor woman’s body.
b. if the mother thinks she would inevitably love the child once she has given birth to it, and or sees it later in life, then she would feel morally obliged to look after it. In this case her choice is taken away by the fathers position (a).
You see there is no solution, we could keep on like this forever with all manner of potential arguments and situations.
Does that mean someone has to make the moral decision? Thus there is absolute morality?
_
Which also means, why is it a problem?
In your example, if there were to be any moral resolve- based on the limited detail of the circumstance, this is not reasonable to create/destroy because you’re not thrilled about enduring childbirth.
1.How could anyone say it is moral to abort based on convenient liberty ?
But you raised the idea my mind to another situation
What if a woman was kidnapped, tortured, and raped. Then becomes pregnant by that man? Does her innocence grant automatic morality no matter what? What seperates the two situations? They are truly seen through different eyes no matter what your take is on abortion. I would say that an outside observer could not judge it in any direction. It is her life, she must live with herself for the rest of her life.
Having no desire to see morality typical would imply that every act would ignorantly be justified. There is always a possible outcome that is contributing to to the members involved.
There may be harsher reasons e.g. if the mother has no home or would loose her job.
Or she may just not want a baby.
Have you heard the philosophy where it is considered to be murder to bring a child into a world knowing it will die? I don’t agree but that’s because I am spiritual, but if I am wrong then the philosophy stands imho. There are all sorts of justifications for aborting, but mostly its about choice.
Herein lies the problem; who makes the choice, if we have a choice maker then we have a determiner of the moral in the situation, rather than a moral to determine it. Personally I’d take moral law over making a person into the law. We don’t have a third choice in this situation!
Firstly this is an exception, so we should have one moral for lawful conception and another for unlawful conception. The ‘fact’ of the matter is that the foetus is an individual entity, it doesn’t belong to the mother as it is not part of her, equally it is an innocent party too!
Should we give one individual rights over another ~ when the pro abortion mother is contradicting that by not giving the same advantage to her child? I don’t think we can give such rights when an innocent party is involved.
But! The mother should be given the choice because of the distress it may cause, even suicide. Sometimes morals are irrelevant and people should be given the choice, though in my humble opinion the mother should be encouraged to have the child even if to give it away afterwards ~ its 9 months Vs a persons life.
_
And, by the way, this is an absolute statement, or really two of them.
I just think that anything is acceptable in life, so morals or “rules” hold no meaning.
if you adhered to that philosophy I can’t imagine how you would show it
But your indifferent attempt adheres to morals. Everyone who notices morals and can seperate ideas as moral or immoral adheres to morality. It balances greed and temperance.
That we may do no harm.
To insure the survival of our species - every species.
To keep us grounded in personal integrity.
To weed out the jungle of barbarianism.
To show us who we are as human beings.
To allow us to keep a check on our instincts and moments of insanity.
To name a few and not necessarily in order of importance.
Acceptable to whom? Or are you arguing they are objectively acceptable, which implies a God?
And why were you complaining in other threads about the media if everything is acceptable?