Morality is absolute. Moral choices are not, or they would not be choices. Rand was very clear on why a rational, volitional being needs morality. Anyone is free to question that thesis; I am not going to repeat it. khalling asked: "explain the difference btwn objective and absolute."

Alone on his island, Robinson Crusoe could choose to fish, or plant, or hunt. But he had to choose. The fact of choice is a moral absolute. The content of the choice is not: it is contextual. In society, pursuing a specific career is a moral choice. Many options are available. The fact that you must choose something - even choosing to be a moocher - is a moral absolute. What you choose is not absolute, but contextual; and context determines what is objectively moral, regardless of the ethical implications.

Rand called her theory of egoism "Objectivist ethics." In her essays, she wrote mostly about morality and very little about ethics. She took the English language as she found it. Despite the fact that she knew perhaps four languages (Russian, French, German, and English), Rand did not delve into linguistic analysis. In other languages, "ethics" and "morality" do not exist as separate words. In English, we commonly use the words interchangeably, just as we do for "weight" and "mass" or "speed" and "velocity." When we have technical discussions, the distinctions become important.

I was working in transportation when a colleague suggested that I take a class in computer programming "so the people in data processing can't hand you a bunch of baloney." I took a class and liked it. I went to work as a programmer. On a project, no one wanted to write the user manual. Having published a few articles and two small books, I did the documentation. I became a technical writer. When the current recession started, I took a part-time job as a security guard. As the economy continued to slide, I needed a four-year degree to even apply for work as a technical writer, so I earned one in criminology. Those were all moral choices, but ethics had nothing to do with it.

khalling wrote: "Ethics are external and morality is internal." As a quick summary, or talking point, that does indicate the difference between morality and ethics. But as above, you can make many "external" moral choices. Where I work, a husband and wife also work. I went three weeks without a network connection and four without a telephone. On his second day, she called around and got him what he needed. She did not do that for me. It was certainly moral of her to take care of her husband. But I regard it as unethical. Nepotism is contrary to the culture of a democratic, capitalist workplace.

Completing a masters in social science, I took a graduate class in "Ethics in Physics." I found that technical societies for geologists, geographers, engineers of all kinds, have different statements of professional ethics. They all boil down to "be nice; do no harm." But they are all different in detail, and properly so. The work of a geographer is materially different than that of a geologist.

I also attended a seminar in the teaching of ethics to graduate students in counseling. As I recall, their statement of ethics runs 25 pages. Moreover, the point of the seminar was that to practice as a counselor - to practice _ethically_ - you need to do more than attempt to apply the ethics document. Life is more complicated than that: the document is a guide. Ethical choices are highly contextual.

khalling wrote: "Ethics and Morality are blood brothers just like geometry and algebra can be expressed in similar ways." In fact, of course, blood brothers are genetically unrelated. Becoming blood brothers is more like a marriage ceremony. If you look at any modern textbook in geometry for mathematics majors, you will find no drawings. It is all algebra. I understand the point: proper ethical conduct in society depends on a correct morality of self-interest. khalling just wrote those one-liners offhand or off the top her head. I have been at this for almost 90 minutes because her question merited a considered reply. As for the analogy to geometry and algebra, having re-read ITOE, I just started George Boole's "Law of Thought" and I had a similar observation: reading Boole after Rand was like finding the algebra in geometry.

Morality is absolute. Ethics is not. Ethics is objective.

Is morality absolute? What a thought. "Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code." (Wikipedia)

For myself, I remove the words good and bad since they come too close to altruistic rationalizing justifications. I use right and wrong as derived from Objectivist Philosophy.

The simple answer is NO, it's contextual to an individual and circumstantial basis, but properly derived from an objectivist point of view,
1. meaning to understand the definitions of the words and names and actions applied
2. that actual observations of those things involved are made
3. that the reasoning ability of the individual is applied with rational logic to the abstracts and concepts generated eliminating contradictions
4. that a certain truth is identified
5. actions are taken based on that truth
then that morality is consistent within that philosophy for that individual for that set.

Within Objectivist Philosophy there is one unitary principle: “This is John Galt Speaking” in Atlas Shrugged:
"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man my(sic) initiate—do you hear me? No man may start—the use of physical force against others." But there is also another, that being that the individual decide and act for his/her self interest.

My first Zen Master gave me a similar unitary principle, appropriately Westernized: "It's OK to be a human being and make all the mistakes a human makes, as long as you never intentionally harm another, more particularly yourself."

But I've found myself, against my choice and intention, to be placed in situations where it was my job and necessity to initiate fatal force against others. That was at an age before my Objectivist Philosophy had cured and set to such a point that I could resist or refuse the force that placed me in that situation in the first place. And I've had a 40 +/- year battle within my self ever since, which is what led me to my Zen Master in the first place. The battle lines have swung back and forth and probably will until I die.

There's going to be a lot of disagreement with the above, but I believe that we can reach consensus if we first start with the definitions, the philosophy, and the contexts.

Do you mean absolute in the sense that if something is moral it is always moral with no exceptions?

Or do you mean that morality is an absolute in the sense that there is only one true morality and people who differ from it are wrong?

I choose to be amoral as morality derives from religion. Ethics seems to derive from philosophy so I like to consider myself very ethical.

Philosophy is individual because we all have self-will and self-determination. We determine our own morality or code of ethics (to me, they are identical). The bigger question is HOW we determine our own moral code: do we trailblaze and attempt to derive our own moral code or do we adopt a moral code laid down by someone else? Whichever way we go, we must also take a look at the motivations which drive us in our decision, as those motivations are the core of our morality.

"Do no harm." This simple statement implies that I can differentiate one person from another and that I have self-awareness: I can differentiate myself and my limits from my environment and I can recognize the presence and boundaries of other self-aware entities. On top of that, I accept that just as I value my own self-awareness and self-determination, others may come to the same conclusion. My own actions and boundaries are delimited when they have an effect on others.

The problem with the statement "do no harm" is that it is also highly nebulous and subject to several nullifying conditions. "Harm" indicates damage or an adverse effect, which I may or may not be able to properly perceive with respect to the other person. Unless that other person shares my same level of knowledge and morality, what I may interpret as "harm" may not equate to theirs. Further, what if in order to remove an injured victim from a burning building I must move them and risk exacerbating the existing injury? I will do harm either way. Therefore I find this statement to be too dependent on subjective rationalization to be useful as a moral code.

The second realization is that we are not individual creatures: we can not survive on our own. Humankind requires society for economics, procreation, etc. So in our personal search for a moral code, we must also search for a moral code that best fits not only for ourselves, but also fits others. Thus is derived the push for evangelicalism - the attempt to harmonize the moral codes of society on a single base. Out of this grows society itself.

Since we have derived that man must individually choose morality, but that society must agree on a joint morality in order to function, it is reasonable for our cooperative moral code to than apply to everyone the same way - or to be absolute. Those who violate society's moral codes are then cast out or confined. So I would argue that morality is absolute first in the social context of the social contract.

Second, we must also evaluate that if each individual is seeking their own betterment, but that we are bound together as a society, then the aggregate result is that society - as a function of individual self-determination - is also seeking for betterment. In this way, we are also seeking for a unifying set of principles that enables all the full rights of self-expression while lifting society as a whole. This sought-for societal morality will also be absolute - even if it is conceptual.

So yes, morality is absolute - from either an individual or a societal standpoint - but we individually have the self-determination to either adopt and practice that absolute morality or not.

"Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter’s stomach, is an absolute."-Galt
Morality meets the test of an absolute. The Law of Identity