A question for people who believe in Moral Absolutes

Why couldn't gods be just as wrong about absolute morality as everybody else?

i don't know. i think morality can still exist, but only as a human perception of how a functional society should operate. if we see 2 humans fighting, most "decent" people would see that as "wrong". when we view it in "nature" it's seen as territorial, part of "the pecking order", or sexual (i.e. over a mate). this can also apply to theft and vandalism, as 2 examples off the top of my head.

yeah, that's kind of what i'm saying...but they were wrong from the viewpoint of society today. there are still (admittedly very few) primitive tribes out there who even 100 years ago we would have regarded as "savages", but to them in their society they are not morally wrong in things we percieve them to be.

someone has to witness, or be affected by an event for morals to even enter the equation. the questionability of good vs. bad makes it subjective surely.
to be honest, i hate subjective/objective arguements, mainly because i'm no good at them, but also because, as i even used in this reply, if you can question somethings value, or even existence it becomes subjective. it's about your perception of it. therefore everything is subjective, including objectivity.

i think

There is a really big difference between science and social construct.

An absolute morality makes no sense from a scientific point of view.

1. The fact is that your moral views are very similar to the views of the society and time that you were brought up in, and very different from the views of other societies and other times.

2. There is nothing outside of human society that gives any evidence for a system of morality. Moral rules only apply within human society, and are vastly different from human society to society.

Well, whatever you allege Bentham said or would have said, Thomas acknowledges that utilitarians would have different responses. This suggests that utilitarianism does not apply a universal standard. That would mean that the utilitarian "morality," like all other moralities, is subjective, not objective, and certainly not absolute.

I certainly hope that if I had absolute knowledge of the absolute morality, I would change my behavior accordingly. I think very few people believe that they are behaving immorally. We have a great need to think highly of ourselves, we can do this in one of two ways (often we do both) change our behavior to suit our concept of morality, or change our concept of morality to suit our behavior.
Looking at myself "objectively" I hope that I would only change the behavior and not the conception. (In the case that I know that the conception is truly the absolute morality).

Uh-huh . . . and who determines what is right, and how is that determined? It doesn't matter who's "right," if that can't be determined. In that case, all morality is functionally subjective, which is the point i've been getting at all along.

Joe,

1. You brought the idea of scientific truth vs. moral truth into the discussion when you compared a moral truth to a fact like the Earth orbiting the Sun. I am just pointing out that scientific fact is objectively testable and there are no objective tests for morality.

2. Aristotle is not a good example. Aristotle is part of our cultural heritage. There are similarities because our culture has been aware of Aristotle since Aristotle was alive. Pick a contemporary Asian, or African philosopher and you won't find the same similarities. There was cannibalism practiced at the time... something that isn't part of our current system of morality.

3. Dogs do follow the laws of science as understood by humans.

Science laws, as understood by humans, give facts in an objectively testable way about how dogs are conceived, how fast they accelerate when dropped a long distance, how they age, how their senses work, what makes them sick, how genetics affect size and skin color... and on and on. There is comparison to any "moral truth".

There is a big difference between the objectively testable facts of science, and the untestable so-called "absolute truths" of a moral system.

What a mess our dualism makes for us. The subjectivity of idealists appears so absurd to the objectivists and the absolutism of the latter appears equally absurd to the relativist-subjectivists. I'd rather look absurd to both sides by acknowledging as an objective fact that everything is subjective (including the notion of objectivity).

A better example would be with the law. You'd agree that not everybody follows the law (in the sense that they do not adhere to the law's dictates). Does that mean that there's no such thing as law?

The "law" (i.e. human social laws) are not a good example for any purported absolute morality.

On reflection, I actually don't see how that follows. Why couldn't gods be just as wrong about absolute morality as everybody else?

Then you're talking about social mores, not morality.

So what?

It's true that everybody has a different subjective opinion, but if you think that everybody's opinion is correct then you've already decided that there's no such thing as morality.