| highwaystar101 said: @ Slimebeast: How about this example? Is it morally permissible to force people into slave labour? It was accepted by most people a few centuries ago. Now it is seen as one of the most unacceptable things in the world, with most people lobbying against it. Is this an example of absolute moral laws when the moral standards can change to such a degree? ... Also, stealing is always wrong with absolute morals. So is stealing a nuclear bomb from terrorists (that they built and owned themselves) to stop them detonating it also morally wrong? Because it has to be wrong, even though it is done for the right reasons if absolute morals were in place. |
No it's not. Read a bit about absolute morals first. Well, actually in philosophy books there might be something labeled "moral absolutism" but that's not what I'm refering to and you should have understood it by now, I'm talking about universal morals (they're absolute too).
And your examples are bad because they're moral gray areas. With slavery and abortion you not only have very different premises - like I said one person believes it's a baby with a soul while the other believes it's a lump of cells without personality and value - you also have a significant benefit for the negative action.
It's too difficult to dicuss those gray area scenarios at this point. One would say abortion is wrong because it kills an individual while the counter argument is that you save a mother and an unwanted child from miserable lives.
Stick to drastic examples. Like torturing babies without benefit (other than let's say a mild pleasure for the perpetrator because he gets some kind of kick from watching other organisms suffer). Show me how that is not wrong.
