Moral Absolutes

[jomifl]

Are there any moral values that can be or should be considered 'absolute' or are they all up for argument and subjective opinion?

[sandyRoe]

First thought is that killing another human being should never be acceptable. But then 'mercy killings' spring to mind.
So probably not.

[jomifl]

and self defence?

[pixie373]

I think they have to be subjective, by definition, really. Killing people is morally wrong- until you think about the overpopulation problem. It depends if you look at the "personal" or the "big picture" sometimes, i suppose. I don't see how some things are ever justified - sexual abuse, paedophilia, animal abuse... But i suppose that is still only my opinion. Clearly, there are those who think otherwise.

[heathfield]

Arthur Dent - "But that's unethical!"
Slartibartfast - "Oh! It it? I'm sorry. I've been out of touch for a while."

[rockyracoon]

I don't think any moral is absolute, even murder, if someone was pointing a gun at a class full of 6 years olds then I'd see no moral boundaries to killing them. I'd steal to feed my kids if I had to, infact there probably isn't anything I wouldn't do (or not do)given the right set of circumstances.

[sandyRoe]

It would be very hard, probably impossible, to find any sort of justification for paedophilia.

[rockyracoon]

Actually, yes you're right Sandy, that is absolute.

[bert_h]

Well, what's paedophilia to some people may not be to others. In some Pacific island communities it's just sensible education for a boy to be given his first sexual experience by an aunt, and I don't think they wait till he's 16. So even if the fact is objective, its age boundary line has some subjectivity.

[Prudie]

Sex between parents/children would surely be impossible to justify.

[joko]

i suppose there should be a distinction between murder, euthanasia, manslaughter and other terms for causing the death of another person.

the word 'murder' seems to imply someone deliberately taking the life of another for their own ends - which is never ok.

i guess motive is the issue

[sandyRoe]

Bert_h, I thought paedophilia was an interest in prepubescent children. A 15 year old south sea islander is hardly that.

[pixie373]

Not necessarily, sandy. Age gap is also part of the definition of paedophilia. So a 40 year old man with a 15 year old girl is defined as a paedophile.

[ummmm]

I'm not sure you're correct on that one pixie.

[pixie373]

I didn't realise until i saw one of jim's links, which gave lots of legal pages of the definition. Will post link, if i can re-find it.

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

Rape.

[jim360]

I think the links you're meaning are these:

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/faculty_sites/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/GRNBOOK.pdf

?

If not you can trawl the whole thread where paedophilia was extensively discussed:

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1313271.html

[pixie373]

Thanks jim! Was having trouble finding it x

[naomi24]

Child abuse in any form. No question.

[ludwig]

Causing another person* serious harm or suffering for no other reason than your own amusement or entertainment.

I can't see any circumstance where that might be morally excusable.

*You could possibly extend that to any sentient being.

[joko]

theft is an interesting one - because although theft, by definition, is wrong, there are undoubtedly circumstances in which it would be understandable, forgiven, justified, expected, deserved etc etc