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.
I think there can be objective claims made about the universe in which we live; truth if you will. If we just say Truth just is and cannot be defined, then there is really no point in even using the word anyway.
As an atheist, unlike what people tend to think, I do believe there are objective morals as well as certain absolutes in regards to morals. While many favor moral relativism, I think its basic premise fails at a close glance.
No one actually operates in moral relativism. Everyone holds themself to a type of personal code, no matter how pure or vile it may be. Everyone, no matter how good or evil, puts limitations on themselves. Moral relativism I think fails because its very premise is that all morals are relative; an absolute claim in it of itself.
Perhaps you disagree with me that there can be moral absolutes? We will just run into problems with such a rigid moral construct? For a lot of moral questions, I might agree to that. But is it ever justifiable to rape? Genocide? Honor killing? Could you ever twist a situation to condone any of these behaviors?
That's why I believe that a society has to operate under some moral absolutes.
There are no absolutes in dualistic, relativistic "reality". It's impossible. All truth is relative except ultimate truth, which Buddhists call Dharma. That's because Dharma is nondualistic.
As an atheist, unlike what people tend to think, I do believe there are objective morals as well as certain absolutes in regards to morals.
This thought reminds me of something that I read concerning virtue by the Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu in his essay Freedom from Fear:
Some people have argued that, because the Buddha recognized the principle of conditionality, he would have no problem with the idea that our virtues should depend on conditions as well. This is a misunderstanding of the principle. To begin with, conditionality doesn't simply mean that everything is changeable and contingent. It's like the theory of relativity. Relativity doesn't mean that all things are relative. It simply replaces mass and time — which long were considered constants — with another, unexpected constant: the speed of light. Mass and time may be relative to a particular inertial frame, as the frame relates to the speed of light, but the laws of physics are constant for all inertial frames, regardless of speed.
In the same way, conditionality means that there are certain unchanging patterns to contingency and change — one of those patterns being that unskillful intentions, based on craving and delusion, invariably lead to unpleasant results.
If we learn to accept this pattern, rather than our feelings and opinions, as absolute, it requires us to become more ingenious in dealing with danger. Instead of following our unskillful knee-jerk reactions, we learn to think outside the box to find responses that best prevent harm of any kind. This gives our actions added precision and grace.
Comments
What is a dead bird, but a sum of impermanent components...?
It is compounded Truth. It is, and soon it won't be. Just like everything else.
That's as close to a definite truth as you can ever hope to get!
As an atheist, unlike what people tend to think, I do believe there are objective morals as well as certain absolutes in regards to morals. While many favor moral relativism, I think its basic premise fails at a close glance.
No one actually operates in moral relativism. Everyone holds themself to a type of personal code, no matter how pure or vile it may be. Everyone, no matter how good or evil, puts limitations on themselves. Moral relativism I think fails because its very premise is that all morals are relative; an absolute claim in it of itself.
Perhaps you disagree with me that there can be moral absolutes? We will just run into problems with such a rigid moral construct? For a lot of moral questions, I might agree to that. But is it ever justifiable to rape? Genocide? Honor killing? Could you ever twist a situation to condone any of these behaviors?
That's why I believe that a society has to operate under some moral absolutes.
Palzang
But isn't that itself an aboslute claim?
Palzang
This thought reminds me of something that I read concerning virtue by the Venerable Thanissaro Bhikkhu in his essay Freedom from Fear:
Jason