Are moral rules absolute or merely a matter of convention?

Question

All answers have been really interesting so far. Keep them coming =]

Answer 1

since morals can vary from culture to culture, generation to generation, it's hard to say they're absolute. it depends upon the society and what their general consensus is as to what is moral. and even that can experience flux. i'd like to say some morals are absolute (e.g., you shouldn't kill), but there are so many "exceptions to the rule" (e.g., self-defense) i can't.

Answer 2

They are absolute. I do not go for "situation ethics". To do so means that there are no morals, no laws, no rules, everyone can do as he/she wishes with no consequences.

Sorry, that is not the way it is in real life.

Answer 3

I hope that some might be seen as absolute like rape murder and pillage but no one can really legislate for what goes on in another's mind to allow them to cross the moral/legal  boundaries. Child abuse Domestic Violence and rape  has always been endemic to our society.

So they are treated by some as not applicable t themselves - I heard the other day that new figures show 2 women every day in the U.K are killed by domestic abuse.

So I would say that the most important fact is 'what is' not what we try hard to make happen, or imagine 'should happen'  

So I think when actual legal rules are just a matter of convention and we cannot hold the  boundaries for illegal behaviours then moral rules wont even be in the picture.  

Answer 4

Most are absolute but some are in what is called gray areas, how women are treated is one of them. Is it moral to marry a 14 year old? Not in the present time but back 1500 years many girls married at that age. So was it moral or not?  

Answer 5

All morals are merely convention unless one believe in some higher power which has preordained them, which I don't. That they are convention does not make them worthless as without them society would undoubtedly collapse. Nor it seems are morals limited to humans as recent research seem to suggest that some of the other primates demonstrate "moral behaviour" i.e behaviour that is not about self-gain but for the greater good. Dogs also seem to show an understanding of abstract concepts like "fairness".

So in summary: I believe that morals are rules that are essential for the effect running of a society. Being societal animal, like dogs and monkeys, we probably are genetically predisposed to moral behaviour i.e behaviour directed towards the greater society. Individual morals will always be subject to the context of the society for which they apply.

Answer 6

It depends on what you want to believe.

Conservatives tend to think that there is a human nature and that nature is bound by a moral order.  Though I find it stodgy and limiting, there is truth in such an idea.  We humans tend to behave in certain ways and on average tend to do certain things under certain stresses.  

Liberals would say that morals are merely conventions to allow us to coexist with one another.  These conventions can change as our society and values change, thus morals can change and are not absolute.  

I tend to be more of a liberaly biased person so take what I'm about to say from that point of view.  I would say both are right, but both are lacking.  Take the most famous of the 10 commandments "thou shalt not kill".  Obviously this is not an absolute.  Killing is condoned by societies for two reasons: social justice, and national interest (ie. criminal punishment and war).  We do not chastise our troops for killing, nor should we.  We even celebrate them for their sacrifice.  

However in considering the sacrifices they make we look into the psychological side.  Does a soldier that commits the act of killing on the field of battle suffer damage?  Indeed he does.  So perhaps you need not look into the "God commands it so" rhetoric to see that there exists a human nature.  And given that commiting an act as such has severe 'repeatable' consequences to the psyche you can say that there is at least a human nature absolute.  You do such and such and this is the result.

There is always Free will though.  And free will is powerful in that you can always choose how to react, but it isn't easy.

Answer 7

Convention.  Look into the morality of other cultures.  Even within our own, certain fundamentalist groups within the Church of Latter Day Saints still practice polygamy (it was a common and accepted practice among Mormons until around 1900).  Ritual cannibalism is still in practice.  Most if not all countries condone murder if it's committed as part of a war sanctioned by governments.

Answer 8

both... in the strictest sense they're supposed to be absolute... but in practice things get very very complicated... and what we're left with looks more like convention... don't let the big grey picture fool you its really black and white...

Answer 9

I reckon they're guide lines set down by people who have learned by there mistakes and want to save people the hassle.

Answer 10

I personally would say that rules are guidelines more than set in concrete,I mean I suppose it depends on whether you think it's what you do that counts entirely or if you think why you do it has any real bearing !!

Does it matter if you understand what the rules are trying to prevent and why as long as you obey them simply because you've been told to.

As for 'moral rules',who acts as judge on them,some cultures have practises that others find morally inexcusable.

So I'd say they are matters of convention not absolute at all.

Answer 11

most moral rules have to be seen in their cultural context, they are not absolute.

on the other hands, there are rules that come close to being universal - the holiness of life, the right not to be deprived of ones property; Kant's imperative (simple version: treat others as you want to be treated).

Answer 12

Morality is defined by God.  That makes them absolute in human terms.