Because you're pointing at something, in this case, the concept of "moral," there is no definitive. That you can even associate a concept to the word "moral" means that any definition you give it can have its flaws pointed at.

You have to start measuring from somewhere. Otherwise it's undecidable what is moral and what isn't.

Meaning that moral is always relative.

You can maybe say that; Morals are relative to something, is 1 moral absolute.

Just because some of the theories have the word relative in them, doesn't mean they don't make claims to moral absolutes.

From there, you can maybe go on to imagine if it was relative to an individual, Humanity, life or some other concept. Context is my go to. Contextual Relativism; where Correct or functional moral action is relative to context.

I never understood the ideas of objective anything. Take objective morality. To say there is some form of objective morality would be implying multiple things:

1- Morality is not man made but inherint in the world somehow (I can't conceive of how a bunch of floating rocks can imply any sort of morality but ok)
2- Man has some way to access this objective morality

I won't argue with you on 1. I don't know if there is an objective morality or not maybe there is maybe there isn't. However 2 makes that question irrelevant. Even if there WAS some form of objective morality how do you know you have found it? At least with physical laws we get some sort of confirmation. You thorw a ball in the air at a certain speed 100000 times and it does the exact same movement. At that point you can be pretty sure that your theory at least produces the same results in this particular instance (That doesn't mean you have actually figured out the law. There have been countless occassions where theories in physics made accurate predictions for decades only to then be demolished by a new experiment and make way for a new theory.).

But with morality there is no such measure. You don't get a "Good points" counter on top of your head from which you can know which actions are good and which are bad. So you have no clue whether or not you're even getting closer to the "objective morality". No scientist says "We have figured out the correct law" ever these days because everyone that said that before has been shown to be wrong.

So if you want to believe in an objective morality that's fine, as long as you don't have the ridiculous ego required to say that you have figured out said objective morality (because there is no way you could have). Those two beliefs combined together result in the worst atrocities in history. The second belief is what defines an extremist.

I would like to know what is un-relative(absolute moral?)moral?And what is relative moral theories?I am a Christian then I need to know those to practice the absolute moral. — nguyen dung

Moral absolutism is the belief that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong, there being no circumstances that could put that into doubt. In other words, something like stealing or murder is wrong anywhere and everytime as per this definition.

Just a small point of clarification for now:

The opposite of moral relativism is moral objectivism or universalism, not necessarily "absolutism".

Moral absolutism is the opposite of things like consequentialism, such as (for a Christian example for you) "situationism".

You can be a non-absolutist, like a consequentialist, while still being an objectivist or universalist, not a relativist.

You can be a non-absolutist, like a consequentialist, while still being an objectivist or universalist, not a relativist. — Pfhorrest

:up:

Moral absolutism is the belief that all actions are intrinsically right or wrong, there being no circumstances that could put that into doubt. In other words, something like stealing or murder is wrong anywhere and everytime as per this definition. — TheMadFool

Just a small point of clarification for now:

The opposite of moral relativism is moral objectivism or universalism, not necessarily "absolutism".

Moral absolutism is the opposite of things like consequentialism, such as (for a Christian example for you) "situationism".

You can be a non-absolutist, like a consequentialist, while still being an objectivist or universalist, not a relativist. — Pfhorrest

:up:

Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for "all similarly situated individuals",[1] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature. — Wikpedia

This is possible only if moral absolutism is true, right? On what basis other than moral absolutism can moral universalism be a valid position?

This is possible only if moral absolutism is true, right? — TheMadFool

Other way around: moral absolutism can only be true if moral universalism is true. But universalism can be true — every particular event can be non-relatively good or bad or permissible or impermissible etc — without moral absolutism being true — without every instance of a general kind of action always being good or bad etc regardless of circumstances.

Other way around: moral absolutism can only be true if moral universalism is true. But universalism can be true — every particular event can be non-relatively good or bad or permissible or impermissible etc — without moral absolutism being true — without every instance of a general kind of action always being good or bad etc regardless of circumstances. — Pfhorrest

Indeed, moral universalism, the way it's defined in terms of the domain of its validity, it being universally applicable, enjoys a degree of freedom that seems almost necessary if one wants morality to be, well, universal given the fact that no moral truths that are absolute have been uncovered. Moral universalism is more of an attitude than a moral truth in this sense; like a band of thieves voting unanimously that a given code of honor will apply to all members with no exceptions despite having no real reason for it be so. It looks like if moral absolutes are real, it would serve as the best justification for moral universalism. Am I correct?

I would like to know what is un-relative(absolute moral?)moral?And what is relative moral theories?I am a Christian then I need to know those to practice the absolute moral. — nguyen dung

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is only one unchanging moral principle: "Do good and avoid evil." While good and evil are objective properties of acts, they are properties that depend on the circumstances of the act. For example, it is evil to kill unjustly, but what makes a killing unjust depends on the circumstances. If is unjust to kill an innocent person, but it is not unjust to kill someone who is trying to kill you or another innocent person.

In the same way, Jesus taught that the whole law and prophets come down to two laws: First, love God with your whole being. Second, love others as yourself. This is a different way of saying what Aquinas said, for to love someone is to will their good, and oppose evil to them. And, again, what is good or evil for a person depends on circumstances. Feeding a person is good if they need to eat, and bad if it will make them obese and unhealthy.

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is only one unchanging moral principle: "Do good and avoid evil." — Dfpolis

A vacuous truism like Kant's (rationalistic) 'categorical imperative'. I prefer

That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. — Hillel the Elder

St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that there is only one unchanging moral principle: "Do good and avoid evil." — Dfpolis

A vacuous truism Kant's (rationalistic) 'categorical imperative'. — 180 Proof

Aquinas accompanies the Synderesis Principle (Do good and avoid evil) by an analysis of the nature of good and evil. If he had defined "good" as "that which must be done," and evil as "that which must be avoided," the SP would indeed be circular and vacuous. As he does not, the principle is sound and meaningful.

While Hillel HaGadol was wise and leaned, his maxim does not explain the nature of the good or relate it to Elohim. Aquinas' analysis does.

It looks like if moral absolutes are real, it would serve as the best justification for moral universalism. Am I correct? — TheMadFool

Moral absolutism would necessitate that moral universalism be true, yes, but proving some moral principle is absolute is a bigger task than proving that whatever is moral is moral to everyone. So to prove moral absolutism you would pretty much have to prove moral universalism along the way... which is why absolutism necessitates universalism.

Moral absolutism would necessitate that moral universalism be true, yes, but proving some moral principle is absolute is a bigger task than proving that whatever is moral is moral to everyone. So to prove moral absolutism you would pretty much have to prove moral universalism along the way... which is why absolutism necessitates universalism. — Pfhorrest

I agree :up:

"The nature of the good" is clearly implied (i.e. doesn't require "explaining" in order to be recognized-exercised): refraining from doing to anyone whatever is hateful to you. A praxis not an 'idea' (i.e. idol (pace Plato, Augustine, et al aka "idealists")).

Are you disputing the precept "Do good and avoid evil"?

What is hateful to a person need not be evil. The Nazis found the just treatment of Jews hateful. Does that make their unjust treatment moral? Of course not. I am not disputing Hillel's maxim as a rule of thumb, only as a fundamental moral axiom.

↪180 Proof Are you disputing the precept "Do good and avoid evil"? — Dfpolis

Disputing it? No. As I've already stated, your "precept" is a vacuous truism akin to 'Eat well and avoid starvation'. :roll:

What is hateful to a person need not be evil.

If charitably read as 'hateful = harmful', that is, 'harmful to oneself' and not merely 'undesireable' or 'upsetting' ... but 'damaging' (physically, psychologically), then - whether or not you call it "evil" - Rabbi Hillel's golden rule is both instructive and informative with respect to how we ought to treat and dignify each other.

The Nazis found the just treatment of Jews hateful.

"Nazis" - individual human beings - violated Hillel's maxim by deliberately harming "Jews" - also individual human beings - in ways, which "Nazis" could not have not known, would have harmed them had what they did to others been done to them as well. Your trite example, Dfpolis, exposes a profound failure to comprehend this. Canonical fortune cookie "precepts" such as yours were clearly of no help with moral judgments or conduct for Catholic 'brown shirts' (or Italian & Spanish Papist 'black shirts').

There is no point in discussing this further.

Apparently not.