Morality

[Samuel Dravis]

DI, Totenkopf:

 

I don't think that the fact that there exist different objective moral systems makes those views any less objective -- it's clear that a particular moral rule can be arrived at by different people as long as they use the same system. That there are multiple systems does not take anything away from the objectivity of these moralities.

 

"But all these different moralities give me different answers!" You were expecting something else? Different equations are sure to give different answers.

 

"But," you might say, "why should I follow one of them and not the other?" I'm not sure what is meant here. Perhaps it's like saying, "There is more than one way to get the result '42' out of a math operation, therefore it's ambiguous which is the RIGHT way to get 42." Now that's a curious opinion.

 

Some types of morality are more suited for some tasks than others. Virtue ethics, for example, might be suited to someone wanting to conduct their personal lives morally, but it becomes hard to use in other situations. Utilitarianism would be useful to legislators because it is precisely the consequences of laws that they are concerned with. Why shouldn't you use different approaches in different situations?

 

"Isn't it true that there are truly evil people in the world?" Perhaps, but this is unclear. You need to clarify what is meant by that. "Isn't it true that there truly evil (defined in the Christian sense) people in the world?" Yes, of course there are such people. "But I meant in an ABSOLUTE sense, not just Christian!" But now you must define what is meant by 'absolute' in objective terms.

 

"But why should I be moral?" If you're asking that question, you're not interested in morality. You're interested in the material benefit of your acting morally...

[Totenkopf]

Actually, I was addressing the point that if one asserts that there is ONE absolute morality, who determines what it is and how. The problem with asserting different moralities for different situations opens you up to a regular pandora's box of ethical dilemmas. Once again, who becomes the arbiter of what is moral and what's not? You can ask why you should act morally all you want, but without some kind of moral code you're only running in place, and blindly at that. One of the problems with spider's posts was his assumption that his was the only self evident basis for a universal absolute morality, yet failed to demonstrate how others COULDN'T come up with a competitive absolute and objective morality system based on a different set of principles. I also suspect that the term "objective" means different things to different people, perhaps notsomuch in what it is but at how such a concept is derived (or put more simply, objectivity is apparently subjective).

[Samuel Dravis]

Actually, I was addressing the point that if one asserts that there is ONE absolute morality, who determines what it is and how.

I agree, that does seem to be a problem.

 

The problem with asserting different moralities for different situations opens you up to a regular pandora's box of ethical dilemmas. Once again, who becomes the arbiter of what is moral and what's not?

Well, quite simply: whatever method you're using 'decides' what is moral and what's not. You can't separate the morality from the system by which you determine it.

 

You can ask why you should act morally all you want, but without some kind of moral code you're only running in place, and blindly at that. One of the problems with spider's posts was his assumption that his was the only self evident basis for a universal absolute morality, yet failed to demonstrate how others COULDN'T come up with a competitive absolute and objective morality system based on a different set of principles.

Sure, I agree.

 

I also suspect that the term "objective" means different things to different people, perhaps notsomuch in what it is but at how such a concept is derived (or put more simply, objectivity is apparently subjective).

It could be. I define objective here as "that which is the same for everyone." An objective fact can be that a length of wood is this long, regardless of what particular system of measurement is used to give a name to that length (1 foot, .3048 meters, etc). In objective morality, for example, it's an objective fact that if you take this situation and apply this reasoning to it, you'll end up with this result. Subjective morality would not have this chain of reasoning-->result; i.e., two people would not necessarily agree on what the right course of action is in a particular situation.

[Arcesious]

There still seems to be an instinctive difference in personality every human has, so the same experiences by two humans, living exactly the same lives, can end up not fully dictating their moral standards.

 

So, genetically Identical humans. Each live exactly the same life, with absolutely no difference sin either of their lives. They are later presented both with some identical question that is quite complex with many different moral subcategroies to think about when answering it, that require a moral veiw to answer. They each answer differently, even though they are identical in ever aspect of their lives. Why? Not by chance. It's because every single human has a different inborn personality, which has certain traits and characteristics that make thier morals different, even if they are identical in every other way. This pretty much agrees with the other posts said, so it's not a debating post, but rather one to add to the discussion. I'm open to corection about this, however. As there are things I don't think I've thought about in making this post that other people will think about.

[Inyri]

It's because every single human has a different inborn personality, which has certain traits and characteristics that make thier morals different, even if they are identical in every other way.

Proof?

 

Stop saying things are facts when you have nothing to back it up but your opinion. It's not only annoying, but it takes away from the thread when you make assumptions and pass them off as truths.

[Arcesious]

Okay, I was wrong about that.

 

But isn't it true that every human being has a different personality, and therefore at least slightly different morals, at least?

[Inyri]

I don't know every human being, so I couldn't say.

[Arcesious]

That's a good point. I can't really be sure of that can I? (Rhetorical)

[Jvstice]

Morals arise from values. Values are decided by those who are alive. Even in deciding whether life is worth living or not, a value is placed on life. Those who decide that life is not worth living, quickly take themselves out of the debate. So you can say that there are certain universals.

 

I don't believe that anyone under any moral system in any part of the world would disagree that murdering small children without any provocation or danger to oneself or ones loved ones, or greater society is morally wrong. Or that they'd try to reject it within any moral framework. Of course I was trying to take into account every possible ends justifies the means arguement I could think of. lol

 

On the other hand I took a psychology of religion class in 1998 I think. One thing I remember is that education level had a lot to do with what people decided was immoral. The less educated you were, no matter your religion or world view, the more likely that you were to say that if something disgusted you, then it was immoral. As people got more educated, they were likely to point to more abstract principles of right and wrong.

 

In the first case, if its' down to disgust, that's a very subjective measure. If it's abstract principles I could see the reasonings comparing different equations to get the same answers. Not so much if it's compared to whims of over 6 billion individuals.

[DeadYorick]

Okay, I was wrong about that.

 

But isn't it true that every human being has a different personality, and therefore at least slightly different morals, at least?

 

Morals stem from how people were raised. But Arcesious I guess you are right in a simplified way. Since every human being is unique on how their emotions and personality are displayed they have different morals and different views on right and wrong

[Totenkopf]

Sam:

Well, quite simply: whatever method you're using 'decides' what is moral and what's not. You can't separate the morality from the system by which you determine it.

 

Yes, but who decides which method for any given situation or circumstance? That becomes the dilemma.

 

 

It could be. I define objective here as "that which is the same for everyone." An objective fact can be that a length of wood is this long, regardless of what particular system of measurement is used to give a name to that length (1 foot, .3048 meters, etc). In objective morality, for example, it's an objective fact that if you take this situation and apply this reasoning to it, you'll end up with this result. Subjective morality would not have this chain of reasoning-->result; i.e., two people would not necessarily agree on what the right course of action is in a particular situation.

 

Perhaps, but that is much easier when using physical measurements. I agree that objective morality makes things clearer, but what if my system of objective morality conflicts with yours? The problem with subjective morality (aka relative) isn't merely that there are 2 or more sets of conflicting objective moralities, but that all are equal. Hence all manner of arguable atrocities can be indulged in and the relativist is powerless to condemn them. Sure it may not work for him personally, but it's fortunately not his problem (until/if it becomes so).

----------------------------------------

In the first case, if its' down to disgust, that's a very subjective measure. If it's abstract principles I could see the reasonings comparing different equations to get the same answers. Not so much if it's compared to whims of over 6 billion individuals.

 

What abstract principles appeal to you may not to others, making even "educated" approaches to morality potentially very subjective.

[Jvstice]

Sam:

 

What abstract principles appeal to you may not to others, making even "educated" approaches to morality potentially very subjective.

 

 

True too. Also there are differences whether you are talking about personal morality and something to apply on a larger societal scale. On the larger scale I'd also say that measures are subjective to a great degree and would tend to personally err toward noninterference where there are disagreements rather than erring towards tyrany. Every society faces a choice of which to err towards.

 

On the whole though but I'd rather live under laws that at least try to be based on reason even if the starting assumptions are very different than ones I'd have made or even agree with. I think most people would if they themselves were not the ones making the rules or 100% agreed with their rulers on the things that their rulers/leaders are disgusted about. At least if your leaders are applying reason to decide what's just and fair there is a basis for discussion, and if necessary reform and change when you see what the principle being defended is.

[Ray Jones]

If the reasoning behind your version of absolute morailty doesn't jive with someone else's

How could it, it's absolute. There are no different "versions" like we have in relative morality.

 

who determines what the "true absolute morality" is to begin with?

No one certainly. Again, the idea is there is a clear point to start from. From there on you'd have to walk. How moral you act depends on how good you are at using empathy to find out how much you'd put distress unto other lifeforms, and of course on which route you'll take finally.

 

While the outcome might be individual-dependent (what else ), the most moral way to go is *always* that one where the least amount of stress is caused.

 

Of course that automatically "creates" commonly known morals like don't kill, don't steal, etc.

 

DI was right in pointing out that SA merely builds his concept of absolute morality around the idea of empathy, but that he doesn't actually prove that his is the correct answer.

Just because he didn't prove anything to be correct it doesn't automatically make other concepts more correct. The idea to use empathy to see how moral my actions may be is sound logic to me, and while I assume no one can prove it to be the correct idea, I find it to be quite precise and universal.

 

I don't know exactly how Spider thinks about this, or why, I just think what he said in that thread in the Chambers makes sense (to me at least), and gives a good base to start off to develop a common sense of morality which can be applied anywhere among humanity (and beyond that) since I also think we won't get any further using subjective morals instead.

 

Of course, I know that having so many cultures out there in the real world, there are many subjective, or localised standards of morality out there, deeming different things to be moral (around a common base of equal morals). But again, just because something is a local (morally acceptable) custom, doesn't make it absolute right (or wrong) automatically, just like death penalty is acceptable here and here but not there and there. I don't want to render any set of different morals invalid, either.

 

I think at the end of the day (and in case I want to act moral) I cannot do wrong considering any local set of morals when I use "objective morality", like when I'm not going to use death penalty at all. In case nowhere it is deemed immoral not to use death penalty, that is. But hey, I cannot be moral all the time.

 

I could build a system around using truth as the "stress" (ie more truth =good. less =bad) to determine the ultimate morality of actions.

I'm not sure how you abstract this. Truth and stress are two different things. How you want to use truth to determine whether an action is moral or not is unclear to me.

 

So, "absolute" morality is arguably ultimately subjective in the eyes of those who don't agree with its underpinnings.

Irrelevant. Everything is perceived subjectively. Tell me one thing that isn't. But just because every brain sees a unit circle in a different way, or maybe someone even dislikes the idea of calling it a circle and names it a "special ellipse", doesn't mean there are any different versions of it.

 

If every "moral" act is based on self interest, morality can only be subjective.

Every moral act is based on the same self-interest: the desire to act moral. Every moral action is determined using the same scheme. Hence objectivity.

[Totenkopf]

How could it, it's absolute. There are no different "versions" like we have in relative morality.

Yet relative (to you/the indivdual) at the same time. Funny that.

No one certainly. Again, the idea is there is a clear point to start from. From there on you'd have to walk. How moral you act depends on how good you are at using empathy to find out how much you'd put distress unto other lifeforms, and of course on which route you'll take finally.

While the outcome might be individual-dependent (what else ), the most moral way to go is *always* that one where the least amount of stress is caused.

Of course that automatically "creates" commonly known morals like don't kill, don't steal, etc.

Just because he didn't prove anything to be correct it doesn't automatically make other concepts more correct. The idea to use empathy to see how moral my actions may be is sound logic to me, and while I assume no one can prove it to be the correct idea, I find it to be quite precise and universal.

I don't know exactly how Spider thinks about this, or why, I just think what he said in that thread in the Chambers makes sense (to me at least), and gives a good base to start off to develop a common sense of morality which can be applied anywhere among humanity (and beyond that) since I also think we won't get any further using subjective morals instead.

Of course, I know that having so many cultures out there in the real world, there are many subjective, or localised standards of morality out there, deeming different things to be moral (around a common base of equal morals). But again, just because something is a local (morally acceptable) custom, doesn't make it absolute right (or wrong) automatically, just like death penalty is acceptable here and here but not there and there. I don't want to render any set of different morals invalid, either.

I think at the end of the day (and in case I want to act moral) I cannot do wrong considering any local set of morals when I use "objective morality", like when I'm not going to use death penalty at all. In case nowhere it is deemed immoral not to use death penalty, that is. But hey, I cannot be moral all the time.

 

This may be all nice and fine for an empathy based system, but otherwise irrelevant.

 

I'm not sure how you abstract this. Truth and stress are two different things. How you want to use truth to determine whether an action is moral or not is unclear to me.

 

Easy, the point is that there may be competing sets of first principles that underly competing morality systems. You trumpet an empathy based system here, but anyone could pick a whole other series of issues to start from. One could choose beauty, truth, efficiency, ad nauseam. You might not be able to relate to those systems, but (like spider) you don't show how those systems are invalid, rather that you are fixated on concepts of pain in constructing your system of absolute morality.

 

 

Irrelevant. Everything is perceived subjectively. Tell me one thing that isn't. But just because every brain sees a unit circle in a different way, or maybe someone even dislikes the idea of calling it a circle and names it a "special ellipse", doesn't mean there are any different versions of it.

 

Here you seem to be intentionally confusing things. Just because I want to call blue red, doesn't make it so. Things can be percieved objectively, even given limitations. Maybe I'm color blind, but I know the order of traffic lights is an alternative system of telling me when to stop/wait/go. Once everyone is basically on the same page, no matter what personal affectations you wish to introduce to the equation, things can then be perceived objectively. It's more often the hows and whys, rather than the whats, that cause much of the consternation.

 

Every moral act is based on the same self-interest: the desire to act moral. Every moral action is determined using the same scheme. Hence objectivity.

 

Interesting. How do you explain the amoral/immoral person? Most of whom either think that morality is a fiction or who actually revel in doing evil things.

[Samuel Dravis]

Sam:

 

Yes, but who decides which method for any given situation or circumstance? That becomes the dilemma.

I don't think that is a moral dilemma, however. At most it's amoral which one you pick. Saying "When I use system 1 and it gives me X result, and I use system 2 and it gives me Y result, then which one is better?" presupposes another objective moral system over the ones you're deciding between. However, if you've already 'hit the limit' on objectivity in moral systems then there is no such overarching system by definition. If that's the case, then none of the individual but equal (in objective status, anyway) systems can be called subjective because there would be no alternative 'objective' moral system to make that distinction meaningful.

 

Edit: To make this clearer, these objective moral systems do not lack anything that would make them more objective.

 

As for why someone would follow one and not another, I imagine it's the way they live. People create moral systems - I've never known the body of a dead person to demonstrate that killing is wrong - and those systems are necessarily shaped by who they are. By virtue of being human, we all live similarly, so some ideas will be more universal than others-- and thus have more "moral weight." Lying vs. murdering, for example.

 

Perhaps, but that is much easier when using physical measurements. I agree that objective morality makes things clearer, but what if my system of objective morality conflicts with yours? The problem with subjective morality (aka relative) isn't merely that there are 2 or more sets of conflicting objective moralities, but that all are equal. Hence all manner of arguable atrocities can be indulged in and the relativist is powerless to condemn them. Sure it may not work for him personally, but it's fortunately not his problem (until/if it becomes so).

As I replied to your main objection in the above, I'd like to comment on your statement that the relativist is powerless to condemn other's actions. While this is true of the relativist, this is not true of someone following an objective morality, even if there are other objective moral systems. A Kantian can argue that stealing is wrong, and the only way you could object to that is to say that there is no reason to follow Kant, not that the result the Kantian got is wrong according to his system. While some people might not care (moral weight, again) about Kant's moral theory, that is irrelevant to the universal applicability of those ideas.

[Totenkopf]

To your first point, it still presents a dilemma (moral or otherwise) in that a system will be chosen for the purposes of order or in asserting a universal system. Dilemma being which one (of however many) gets picked and how it will impact all affected.

 

To your second point, we're pretty much in agreement. Whether your absolute system is "correct" or not, it is in place and doesn't equivocate. The relativist refuses to be nailed down on anything and thus approves (by default if nothing else) all things.

[Ray Jones]

Easy, the point is that there may be competing sets of first principles that underly competing morality systems. You trumpet an empathy based system here, but anyone could pick a whole other series of issues to start from. One could choose beauty, truth, efficiency, ad nauseam. You might not be able to relate to those systems, but (like spider) you don't show how those systems are invalid, rather that you are fixated on concepts of pain in constructing your system of absolute morality.

Err, what? Why do *I* have to show preemptively that *your* silly ideas are invalid when you didn't even show at least one serious attempt to prove them to be valid?

 

There is a reason why it is empathy that is used and not beauty, or whatever poppycock you'd like to submit here for whatever reasons as "tool" to "find" moral.

 

Spider explained how he defines morality and why he thinks using empathy is a valid method find this morality, I can do the same if you'd like to.

Mind to explain how beauty, truth, efficiency, w/e are valid "methods" to find a course of action that is moral, and maybe what this morality means which you find using beauty?

 

 

Here you seem to be intentionally confusing things. Just because I want to call blue red, doesn't make it so. Things can be percieved objectively, even given limitations. Maybe I'm color blind, but I know the order of traffic lights is an alternative system of telling me when to stop/wait/go. Once everyone is basically on the same page, no matter what personal affectations you wish to introduce to the equation, things can then be perceived objectively. It's more often the hows and whys, rather than the whats, that cause much of the consternation.

This is leading nowhere, and even less it shows in any way that objective morality is relative.

 

Interesting. How do you explain the amoral/immoral person? Most of whom either think that morality is a fiction or who actually revel in doing evil things.

Again, he who doesn't want to be moral simply isn't.

[Totenkopf]

Well, Ray, half the time it's hard to follow your train of thought b/c it's so awkwardly worded. I know what spider thought, so your reproducing it here is just pointless repitition. You were apparently once again answering a question that wasn't asked. You have to show that other moralities are baseless since you're asserting that yours, however *silly*, is essentially THE correct one (not one of many possible ones that might be internally consistent). The problem that he ran into, and that you haven't remotely solved here, is showing why your empathic based system is THE system, not merely one that can be applied universally. He basically argued that his empathic system was self evidently THE universal system (not merely one that COULD be applied) but failed--as have you--to show that it truly is. Your statements at the end of that post are completely nonsensical. Because people arrive at a decision they think is moral doesn't make it objective b/c you think their processes are somehow the same. You appear to be throwing around the word objectively a little too loosely here. Hell, by that line, even subjective decisions have objectives in mind and must apparently be considered objective.

[Jae Onasi]

Ray, if I use truth as the defining basis for morality instead of empathy, it alters some of the decisions I could make--there are situations where being truthful is not always the empathetic choice, but it could still be the right choice to make.

 

I'd also like to know how empathy, which is fundamentally based on how someone feels subjectively, can be the basis for an objective system. Some people are more empathic than others, and at best all you could do is come up with a consensus on what most people feel is the best empathic response--but that wouldn't make it universally 'right'. If you base your system on what causes the least distress, how are you going to handle masochists or sadists? It causes the sadist far more distress not to cause pain. The masochist is in distress unless he's receiving pain. Extreme examples to be sure, but those problems crop up with an empathy based system.

[Ray Jones]

Well, Ray, half the time it's hard to follow your train of thought b/c it's so awkwardly worded.

This might also be due to the fact that my thought of train is hard to follow when you focus on twisting words instead and stumble over your own creations then.

 

I know what spider thought, so your reproducing it here is just pointless repitition.

This is a thread on the topic of morality, and yours in the Chambers is too. I thought introducing some of its ideas here would be somewhat contributive, because in case you might not notice, there are others who do not know about your thread in the Chambers, so chances are I did not do it to annoy *you* with pointless repetition.

 

You were apparently once again answering a question that wasn't asked.

Which question? Why you cannot use beauty instead of empathy? Firstly, I explained why I don't need to answer it, and secondly, please, PLEASE, think for yourself.

 

You have to show that other moralities are baseless since you're asserting that yours, however *silly*, is essentially THE correct one (not one of many possible ones that might be internally consistent).

I never said it is THE correct one. N-e-v-e-r. In fact I said I would know there are a lot other moral systems working and I don't want to render any of them invalid. I just said I think it is also a good way to determine morality of an action.

 

The problem that he ran into, and that you haven't remotely solved here, is showing why your empathic based system is THE system, not merely one that can be applied universally.

Again, I'm not proposing it as THE system, merely as an objective one that can be universally applied. Hm. Hm. So far you now jumped from deeming it subjective in any possible way to accusing me of proposing it as THE moral system, so I must prove it.

 

Yet you left out to explain how you want to use "beauty" to maintain an objective moral system, what you said would be an equal alternative to empathy.

 

And you know what: you simply can't. All you did is you used this trying to trick me to dive into nonsensical rhetoric about why you can't use your "example". Semi-optimal attempt.

 

Your statements at the end of that post are completely nonsensical.

I don't think so. It makes as much sense as your question how I would explain immoral persons.

 

Because people arrive at a decision they think is moral doesn't make it objective b/c you think their processes are somehow the same.

You seem to be completely missing the point. It's not about what people think is moral.

 

You appear to be throwing around the word objectively a little too loosely here. Hell, by that line, even subjective decisions have objectives in mind and must apparently be considered objective.

I didn't throw anything. So far I "presented" an idea, you tried to **** it whatever way, but failed blatantly.

 

 

 

Ray, if I use truth as the defining basis for morality instead of empathy, it alters some of the decisions I could make--there are situations where being truthful is not always the empathetic choice, but it could still be the right choice to make.

But you don't use empathy to define morality. Just because you attempt to use empathy doesn't make your actions moral. Regardless of any morality you use empathy to determine how your action is going to influence someone else. You can't use truth to do that, can you?

 

I'd also like to know how empathy, which is fundamentally based on how someone feels subjectively, can be the basis for an objective system. Some people are more empathic than others, and at best all you could do is come up with a consensus on what most people feel is the best empathic response--but that wouldn't make it universally 'right'.

The idea is that the quality of your empathy is directly connected to your ability to act moral.

 

If you base your system on what causes the least distress, how are you going to handle masochists or sadists? It causes the sadist far more distress not to cause pain.[/Quote]The moral thing to do is not causing distress to others. It is not immoral to cause distress to yourself. When the sadist uses empathy he will find that when he inflicts pain to someone non-masochistic, it will cause them distress. If not, he's is unable to act moral in that case. In case you're into pain, it'd be a moral act of you when you let him hurt you. He's acting moral too, since his action doesn't cause you any distress. You don't act immoral if you don't let him hurt you simply because your not into pain. You'd act immoral if you don't let him hurt you with the intention to cause him distress.

 

The masochist is in distress unless he's receiving pain.

When the masochist wants to be hurt, it'd not be immoral if you do so. (in consensus with his likings, that is) It is immoral for the masochist to force someone to hurt him when that someone doesn't feel comfortable doing so (=distress). It is not immoral not to do anything to the masochist then. It is immoral when you're not going to hurt the masochist with the intention to cause him distress.

 

So, if you, in any of both cases, intent to cause any distress, you're acting immoral, regardless whether you're into S/M or not.

 

Extreme examples to be sure, but those problems crop up with an empathy based system.

No one said it's easy. It's working pretty well though.

 

How would the sadist/masochist scenario work for let's say Christian morality?

[Darth InSidious]

Which Christian morality?

 

I'll write a fuller response when I have a minute.

[Jae Onasi]

I'd like to nip in the bud right now the tendency for this subject to get caustic. Focus on the talking about the ideas and not saying or implying 'you're an idiot for thinking this'. I don't want nasty insinuations to develop here.

 

Your statements at the end of that post are completely nonsensical.

There are much better ways to word this, if it needs to be said at all.

All you did is you used this trying to bait me into nonsensical rhetoric about why you can't use your "example". Fail.

If you think it's baiting, then please report the post instead of making a comment like 'Fail.'

[Ray Jones]

No, Jae. Not baiting. Baiting. As in "no need to involve report buttons". ¬¬

 

 

I rephrased, however. ;

[SilentScope001]

"But why should I be moral?" If you're asking that question, you're not interested in morality. You're interested in the material benefit of your acting morally...

 

Hey, Samuel Dravis. Two questions, since, erm, you seem to be on the side of there being some sort of objective moral, or at least creating a moral system by which you can evaulate moral systems. I think. This debate is a tad confusing.

 

1) I was going to ask you why I should be moral, but then you state that I am merely interested in the material beneift of me acting morally. Which may be true.

 

So, let us start. What is the material benieft of me acting morally? Why should I do something moral when it may be in my best interest of me not to be moral?

 

2) Also, let us suppose we have a secular moral system, and I break it. Now, in a religious moral system, I can ask for forgiveness to the Intelligent Designer/God/Gods/etc., and volia, everything is right again. But I broke the secular moral system, and therefore, I would be immoral unless I set it right. But I can't set it right, see, because to my knowledge, the secular moral system, has no redemeption mechanism. I cannot pray to the Kantian god after I made an innocent mistake and lied in order to save someone's life (as lying is morally wrong).

 

So, basically, how do I redeem myself in a secular moral system? Is it possible to be redeemed? Or are you cursed forever?

[Ray Jones]

Why ask for forgiveness? Anyway you are deemed to live with the knowledge about what you've done, and hopefully you learn for your future. No need to go somewhere to get redemption. I case you are a man of high moral, you're not interested in doing an "immoral mistake" twice.

 

*not Samuel*