Debate:Is there an absolute righteousness?

This is a Debate page. Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil! This debate was created by Oz Talmor.

Proposition

I've been quite the fanatic on political and religious issues that I am passionate about. But as a self criticizing person which is an attribute that came initially from my military experience has placed me in state of self-doubt. I'm not changing my mind as I have already been through that phase multiple times. I can express this in the concept of an equation for extreme simplicity; a man believes that his way of life is the righteous way of life and he believes that any one who conflicts with this idea is potentially harmful and is a danger to the individual or/and society as a whole. But the perpetrator believes that the person accusing him of being a danger he himself is a threat with his disastrous way of life and believes that his own way of life is the true and peaceful way to go.

Religions can't be right, politics can't be right, I can't be right. I believe there's a righteous way of life but it isn't absolute, or better yet, it can't be universally accepted. Righteousness may not exist at all.

--HateToKnow (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

^{— Unsigned, by: HateToKnow / talk / contribs} 06:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

We happen to have an article on that here: Moral relativism

We also have an article on the opposite: Moral absolutism | Nullahnung (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Kind of uneasy about the word "righteousness" which - to me - suggests something defined by the Great Beard in the Sky or the Church.

Perhaps "Absolute moral standard" or "logically consistent ethical code which can be independently arrived at through the application of reason" or something like that would be better.--Weirdstuff (talk) 15:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Non aggression principle and golden rule I think is about the two most reasoned principles that get you the closest to where you're trying to go.LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Hobbes says in Leviathan that there is no way to quantify a "greatest good" since people will always disagree about what their idea of the greatest good. But he said you can define a greatest evil: violent killing. If you accept this then the greatest good appears to be that which minimizes violence and killing. Which is what leads him to advocate for the state, which is a proven failure as a concept as genocide and mass murder rarely happen outside of an institutionalized religious belief in government. Basically the belief system, the religion of government is the common denominator in the various holocaust-type scenarios and bloodbath battles of history. If there were no blind faith belief in the "authority" of Napoleon, how could you have a waterloo? LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he is kind of right in that violence and killing are the "greatest evil" but to then say therefore it follows we should imagine into an existence an imaginary "entity" to justify a double standard where you basically give the government a monopoly on violence as the "solution" to this problem is where it goes off the rails. Governments kill about 1000000+ people/yr BEFORE you include war into the figure so the idea they prevent violence and killing is highly suspect if not conclusively false.LogicMaster777 (talk) 02:54, 22 December 2014 (UTC)