Does my but look big?
June 22, 2007 · By Marsilio Facino
Do you believe in moral absolutes? Are you a fan of the categorical imperative? Ya know:
THOU SHALT NOT…
I realize that our commenters seem to have different moral absolutes from our posters, so I’m not asking you to support traditional marriage, capital punishment, the Dewey Decimal System, or driver’s side airbags. I’m simply asking if you are a complete moral relativist in all aspects of your personal, social and civic life and, if so, whether you think this is odd. So, to give an example:
Suppose you believe in gay marriage, Kyoto, the Green Party and Fair Trade coffee from Starbucks. I assume that although you get a mite twitchy at the Ten Commandments you would draw the line at people who discriminate against others based upon race, creed or color:
Thou shalt not discriminate against people because of….
Feel free to load up the comments and view it as a bit of a straw poll. The question is:
“Do you believe in the existence of moral absolutes? Moral absolutes that are always everywhere true without exception, no ifs, ands, or buts.”
Have fun.
Sincerely,
M. Facino
(rhymes with Cappucino)
I believe in moral ideals not moral absolutes. A moral ideal is a target that you aim at with the full intention of hitting, all the while recognizing that failure is the norm not the exception. What I find most disturbing is the moral superiority displayed by the moral absolutists who deem themselves righteous because they do this or that. Some feel morally superior because they have never been divorced others feel the same way because they drink the right kind of coffee. Both fail to realize that righteousness does not come from action. Rather righteousness comes only as a Gift. On the other hand I do not subscribe to verbal inexactitudes such as gay marriage. Marriage means the relationship between members of the opposite sex. I recognize that the state may allow gay people to make a commitment to each other but I balk at the term marriage to describe such commitments. These verbal inexactitudes are meant to normalize abnormal behavior to the detriment of humanity as a moral being.
I wonder if anyone absolutely believes there are no moral absolutes.
Shane:
Clever semantic trick, but meta-statements are not necessarily self-referential.
In this case, someone could claim that they absolutely believe (absolute truth) that there are no moral absolutes, without being inconsistent.
joe:
“These verbal inexactitudes are meant to normalize abnormal behavior to the detriment of humanity as a moral being.”
On the other hand, not allowing some people to describe their relationship with the same word used by the rest of the species is appalling and divisive. Some people see the reality of separation and division as much more concerning than the protection of a word that by any reasonable account has a history that belongs to no one in particular. Ultimately, denying access to a word is the same game that was played, legally and scientifically, respectively, when women weren’t considered ‘persons’ and blacks weren’t considered ‘human’. Religion even had something to do with the latter.
Not allowing use of the word marriage is mostly so that people with REAL marriages can maintain their requisite level of contempt for anyone with a FAKE marriage – i.e., one of those ‘faggot civil unions’.
“Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas: the belief in a universal negative.”
– GK Chesterton
It seems to me that people created the idea of morality. It’s a fiction. That’s not to say that idea behind morality, which I think most could agree is simply the establishment of common codes of behavior, is not a good and necessary one. The problem is that people usually consider their personal notions of morality to be superior to all others, and tend to socialize primarily with those who already share their beliefs, excluding or being excluded by those who disagree, which overtime and especially if started at birth, strongly reinforces the notion that they are right and everyone else is wrong.
Dewey Decimal System? I am not sure about moral absolutes but I know for sure that the Library of Congress and the Canadian created CODOC systems are far more effective than the Dewey Decimal system. But then again I am just a gay librarian working for the Federal Government.