Is morality relative or absolute?

Relative, obviously.

Look at history. Consider what was permissible in Biblical times to what is permissible now.

You can SPECULATE that there is an absolute morality, inherent to the universe or something. But we obviously don't know it, and there is no reason to believe it. Morality will continue to be shaped by culture.

Absolute! <')))><

I hate to break this too you friend....but yes.

If my wife (hypothetical) is dying, and we need medication for her but I have to money to pay for it; and I STEAL medication so she can live: it is a sin. Of course, I would still steal it regardless.

You see friend, I believe you have the natural ability to discern right from wrong, good from evil. If you are a redeemed Christian, you can do this. Simply let your "conscience" take control.

It's either absolute or it doesn't exist.

relative
I ate a dog once
jk

Commandments aside, morality is relative. What is moral to your Bible isn't moral to other countries, cultures, or people. Therefore, the technical answer is relative. Now if it's absolute to god or not, I couldn't tell you. You'd have to ask him personally. I personally still think it would be relative.

It is only by having absolutes that society can properly exist.

All morality is relative.

If I walk into a mans place of employment and beat him senseless, it's generally an immoral thing to do, but if that man is a Nazi and his place of employment is a death camp in 1944 Poland, it's a moral act.

The morality of an action is defined by the circumstances surrounding it.

Yes but God will forgive you once you repent.

i think humans, being a social animal, have certain natural inclinations that could be interpretted as morals. However there is no such thing as a universal absolute morality. that is just another human concept

Our morality has evolved along side our intelligence and it comes from our evolutionary past. There are many other mammals that behave in an organized and social way, but they do so instinctively. Now that we have big enough brains to reason intelligently, we ask ourselves, "Why do we behave this way?". Morality is the "why". We have the ability to change our morality now, but it is instinctively on at a certain level all the time.

A law cannot exist if not for being consummate. However, laws do not always have to follow morals. Rather, they are created to benefit as many people in a chosen community at a time as possible.

The problem with the ten commandments is that they cover areas that needn't be covered (sabbath, adultery) and skip over areas that should be covered (violence, child abuse, mental abuse, verbal abuse, slavery). Jesus himself skipped out on the sabbath commandment and there is no human that hasn't had an adulterous thought.

In the end, humans have basic morality as a product of evolution. Over the years, the animals that stuck together, lived as such. So we humans know that if we help someone out, we'll be helped out, but we also know that if someone tries to hurt someone that we love more than than them, we'll hurt them. On top of that, we're rational. We know that if we kill someone, someone else could kill us, but if we appoint someone to stop anyone from killing anyone else, that entire problem is avoided. However, the urge to kill is still present. We are hunters and we are predators; we have an urge to end life in something else, especially if it wrongs us in any way or is seen as an imminent threat.

The Bible tells you nothing of real morality. It condones slavery and child abuse (even child murdering). It states that eating pig or crustacean is punishable by death, yet tells you not to murder. If you look to the Bible to tell you everything you need to know about morality, then you're probably not a very moral person.

Morality is absolute. Under any circumstance stealing is wrong. The situation you describe or any similar situation may justify doing a wrong or perhaps explain the wrong, but it is still wrong. I believe, in the eyes of God, this is a sin, and the reason for repentance. If we rationalize your way we would none be held accountable for anything. We cannot right a wrong by simply redefining it or by removing the moral value thereof. This is liberal thinking and the reason for our current state of moral decline.

Victor Hugo presents a nice case of this, sort of, with his character Jean Valjean.

if you have to ask..........

of course it is absolute... to me anyway.

The question you could ask is "can one be moralistic without the ten commandments?"

morality is defined by society. One societies morals are not the same as another's.
There is a difference between sin and morals. Morals are set up by man, God defined sin.

Relative....

They change all the time, even among the religious....

Many things that religion found 'immoral' even just a few years ago, are generally accepted today... example: Womens dresses.... how many still do not show skin by wearing dresses from the neckline to the floor? It was once immoral for a doctor to view the female body during examinations and treatment, many women died...

Morality is completely absolute. It's our understanding of it that is so corrupt. Your example is a good case in point. If the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not steal", and yet we agree that stealing in the case you provide may be okay, then what fuller understanding of the Commandment are we not understanding? And, if using your example as a point of discussion, what happens to the source where the food was stolen from? Was it another family that was as desperate as yours, and it's there native land? If you stole from them to save your family, maybe you endangered or killed theirs, and so maybe the Commandment as we understand it is correct, and your stealing the food from that other family is a sin. Your question calls for much greater thought and discussion than what is available on some YAnswers type computer program. Maybe extensive prayer / discussion with God is more appropriate. God, as in the living Lord Jesus our Christ, Bless you always.

Then you accept as absolute that God is not who He says He is.

Very, very dangerous.

Most if not all of the 10 Commandments are obsolete!

The God that the Priestly Bible writers put together MADE KING SOLOMON THE WISEST MAN EVER, PAST, PRESENT. AND FUTURE, TO SET FOOT ON THIS EARTH! King Solomon was a first class PLAYBOY. He had over 1,000 ladies to please sexually. Unless he did group sex, any one of his wives had to take a number and wait almost 4 years to get in bed with him. Lesbianism and masturbation must have been the order of the day in King Solomon’s household! Rachel, one of Jacob’s wives knew all about DILDOS AND DRUGS! The wives of the wisest man ever to set foot on this Earth must have outperformed Rachel!

Genesis 31:19, 34-35 (NIV) When Laban had gone to shear his sheep, Rachel stole her father's household gods* (*dildos in the form of idols). [34-35] Now Rachel had taken the household gods and put them inside her camel's saddle* (*this may be a colloquial for something else in the female’s anatomy!) and was sitting on them* (*It would have been very disrespectful to be sitting on any “household God,” but they were only dildos!). Laban searched through everything in the tent but found nothing. Rachel said to her father, "Don't be angry, my lord, that I cannot stand up in your presence; I'm having my period."* (*she was probably very juicy already!) So he searched but could not find the household gods* (*the Bible God didn’t allow Laban to find the dildos! BTW, dildos can also be used by gays, and bi-curious!).

Ezekiel 16:17 (NIV) You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols* (*DILDOS made of gold!) and engaged in prostitution with them!* (*Joyce Meyer owns gold plated toilet seats. She has a fetish for gold toilet accessories, too!)

BTW, after rejecting King David, King Solomon was GOD HAND PICKED MAN to build his Temple in Jerusalem! King Solomon built shrines in the Temple of THE LORD and all over Israel FOR MALE AND FEMALE PROSTITUTES. It doesn’t say in the Bible, but I suspect that he must have put a lot of his wives to work in those shrines! The shrines for sexual pleasures of all kinds in the Temple of the LORD were fully functional for over 300 Bible years until a new king Josiah removed some of them.

2 kings 23:7 (NIV) He* (*King Josiah) also tore down the quarters of the male shrine prostitutes* (*male shrine prostitutes were homosexuals servicing God's people when they came to worship the Bible God!), which were in the temple of the LORD…

In the “New Testament” Church in Corinth, Greece, they had ALL the gifts of the “Spirit” so they openly enjoyed the kinkiest sex imaginable sharing their sexual experiences as testimonies of their faith! There was much more sexual activity going on inside this Church FULL OF THE HOLY GHOST AND POWER than anywhere else in the Heathen Temples!

1 Corinthians 5:1-2 - It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father's wife* (*A young teenager guy is having sexual intercourse with his own mother, in full view!). And YOU ARE PROUD!

Prostitution is OK as long as it helps God's people. Rahab was a Prostitute who committed high treason against her own country. She actually lied to the police to protect God's people who came to spend the night with her. She made it into the Faithful Hall of Fame! She will preserve her title of a RIGHTEOUS PROSTITUTE for eternity! It’s all in the Bible!

Hebrews 11:31 (KJV) By faith the PROSTITUTE* (*not ex-prostitute, but prostitute!) Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient.

James 2:25 (KJV) In the same way, was not even Rahab the PROSTITUTE* (*not the ex-prostitute, but the prostitute!) considered RIGHTEOUS for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction (Joshua 2:1-3, 6:17-25).

The idea that a prostitute REPENTS of her sins and wishes to forget her “sinful” life is not applicable in every case! Rahab the Righteous Prostitute must have moaned for God all that night when the Jewish spies came to pay her a visit! Most surely, she will have a happy reunion someday in Heaven with them. BTW, Jesus NEVER healed any prostitute God given craving for more tricks! God the Son Jesus Christ said that the PROSTITUTES* (*not ex-prostitutes, but active prostitutes!) will enter his Kingdom ahead of the Jews (Mat 21:31)! The Jews don't mind at all as long as they are there when they get there! So if you have a choice to favor a prostitute or a Jew, which one will it be? Hint: WWJD?

For over 700 Bible years NOBODY ever saw or read the alleged Tablets of the Law of God that Moses hid in the Ark of the Covenant “as a witness against Israel.” IMHO this is a very stupid way to post the 10 Commandments! Anybody peeking inside the Ark of the Covenant to look at the tablets was zapped on the spot! One single day, 50,070 The Priestly Bible writers knew better than Joseph Smith how to protect sacred secrets, so he learned from them about how to protect the golden tablets of the Book of Mormon! There is nothing in the tablets of the Law of God against homosexuality! There is no proof that the tablets ever existed, either! Yet, Christians today want the stone tables with the obsolete 10 Commandments to be on public display inside of the Supreme Court building!

According to the Bible writers the ONLY place of worship authorized by the Bible God in the OT was in his Temple in Jerusalem that was built by King Solomon. Can you picture in your mind the most conservative clergypersons, prophets, preachers and their families and children going to worship God in the Temple of Solomon while at the same time male, female and gay prostitutes are servicing the rest of the congregation? This was going on for at least the FIRST 300 Bible years since DAY ZERO of the inauguration of the Temple of the LORD in Jerusalem! That is the way it was back then! Like the old time spiritual goes…

"♫♪ Those were the days…♪♫♪, my friend...♫♪♪"

I just wonder if any gay in CA knows any of this stuff that Christians today are covering up and totally ignoring while promoting their own anti-gay made up morality!

how do you come up with these questions?by the way you don't impress me!

Relative. Granted, whilst our ancestors have been evolving morals (i.e. common rules of habit), those developed in the small hunter-gatherer communities and have been absolute interior of those communities. besides the fact that, whilst those comparable communities, that have been extraordinarily ethical with appreciate to their own contributors, met yet another group, they might connect forces quickly for feasting and the eligible men and ladies of the two communities might intermingle, saved the gene pool stirred up. for this reason, the first ethical code applies to the two communities for the era. besides the fact that, if the two communities met and there exchange into opposition for searching/foraging grounds, the communities might combat and then it grew to become "to the victor belong the spoils". So the ethical code mentioned "interior of" the gang did no longer carry on with with appreciate to therapy of the "different". Which carried over into the bible, whilst the Hebrews captured a city and practiced rape/loot/plunder in the call of their "loving" god. if certainty be cautioned that we tend to declare morality as particular to this day in elementary terms in the tribe. For "christians", their morality is bible-given, so absolutely everyone no longer believing of their bible must be immoral. For non-christians, their morals are absolutes "to themselves" and can or won't be derived from sacred scriptures. advantages on your journey!

it is certainly a social construct

Morally relative people are usually absolutely certain that there are no absolutes....I am certain of that.

That said, I think stealing for food is understood to be less of a crime than stealing for profit.

And the punishment is usually less...the Word prescribes work as an answer...but even work is hard to come by sometimes. So many problems, so little time...

Moral relativism is absolute nonsense. If morality is relative. then who is morally wrong? Somebody like Jesus, or Socrates would be immoral because they went against the morals of their society.

No, I would not steal in any condition. By stealing I might be killing somebody else's family, and even if I don't, it doesn't give me a right to take from somebody else.

Moral laws are not given for my benefit, but for the benefit of all of society.