Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Absolutely!
I hear a lot of Buddhists on here and elsewhere proclaim that there are no absolutes; 'no black and white, only shades of gray.'
What does Buddhism say on the matter? Are there undeniable truths in this world? Even the Buddha spoke of good and evil sometimes, did he not?
But does anyone here really believe that talk about no absolutes? I mean I know many of you talk that way, but I have a hard time believing you all.
Aren't there certain things that are just absolutely morally wrong with no possible mush, gray justification for them? Genocide? Rape? Etc...
If you acknowledge that those two examples are indeed absolutely wrong, doesn't the whole 'no black or white' edifice kind of crumble?
What does Buddhism say on the matter? Are there undeniable truths in this world? Even the Buddha spoke of good and evil sometimes, did he not?
But does anyone here really believe that talk about no absolutes? I mean I know many of you talk that way, but I have a hard time believing you all.
Aren't there certain things that are just absolutely morally wrong with no possible mush, gray justification for them? Genocide? Rape? Etc...
If you acknowledge that those two examples are indeed absolutely wrong, doesn't the whole 'no black or white' edifice kind of crumble?
0
Comments
Just for the sake of argument, if there are some kind of moral absolutes, how is it possible that people were able to justify things like murdering an entire tribe for their land and women at one point in time but not now? Were they simply ignorant of those moral absolutes? If so, why? And what makes them absolute? God? If so, which god? Laws of nature? If so, which laws and where do they come from?
I don't like killing. I don't even like the thought of it. But that doesn't mean there's some cosmic dictate that states it's evil and wrong under any circumstance. And even if there was, what about people like Hitler? If you say that things like murder and genocide are always wrong, but people like Hitler are evil and must be stopped at any cost, does that mean it's OK to murder and entire group of people if they're all like Hitler? If the answer's yes, then it'd appear that such moral "absolutes" aren't very absolute, and if the answer's no, then evil has a natural advantage over good in that it's protected by these absolutes even as it transgresses them with wild abandon.
Objectively speaking, I can't say that anything is right or wrong, but I have no trouble doing so subjectively. I don't like the thought of killing or being killed. I don't like the thought of raping or being raped. And it's easy for me to see how other people tend to feel the same way, therefore I can at least see how such actions are relatively right or wrong based upon this point of reference. But I don't believe the universe is designed in such a way as to make any specific action done by human beings absolutely right or wrong (remember, we're not the only animals who kill, rape, etc.).
The way I see it, we simply experience the results of our actions in ways that are interpreted to be right or wrong based upon a myriad of factors, some of which may be unique to our species. The main reason I take this relativistic position is the fact that I've yet to discover an immutable source or basis for such absolutes besides the fact that I find them repugnant. If I knew without a doubt that there was such a basis, then my position would certainly change, but I'm currently unconvinced of its existence. I can see how these actions are morally right and wrong from a human-centric point of view, but I fail to see an objective seat from which they can be judged one or the other in any absolute sense.
As for the Buddha, I'm not sure whether he spoke about morality in an absolute sense; although, I suspect that he did, especially in regard to kamma. He spoke about morally reprehensible acts, for example, based up the idea that intentional actions have the potential to produce certain results, which, in turn, have the potential to produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings. Intention actions rooted in greed, hatred or delusion produce painful feelings, while intentional actions rooted in non-greed, non-hatred and non-delusion produce the opposite, and I suppose that's an absolute basis for morality.
In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to agree with you when considering it from this perspective. Even so, I'm not ready to jump on the absolutist bandwagon just yet. To do that, it'd have to be shown that such a law objectively exists in the universe and that it applies to everyone equally, regardless of the specific circumstances involved beyond the intentional actions themselves. And that's not easily proven.
You often hear Buddhists say there's absolutely no black-and-white, period? Isn't that black-and-white thinking, too?
For what it's worth, when I said that yesterday, I was refering to the statement "killing is wrong, period." Personally, I can think of plenty of situations where killing is justified, compassionate, "right," whatever you want to call it. Some people disagree on that. So I guess the issue isn't black-and-white.