Do explain why you think so as well :)

now days it is relative you won't survive in this life with an absolute morality, everybody does something immoral on time or several times just to make his life easier or to survive.

So you are saying that there is no common ground where all religions can agree that there exists certain moralities that are applicable to all?

An example, "do not kill" is one of the most basic morality. Isn't this absolute?

Nope, morality is a form of a stable equilibrium achieved over many iterations and as such it is prone to change as the parameters of the environment (environment being us:)) change. We can discuss and theorize about what is moral and whats not, develop formal systems of morality or even find a seemingly 'better' moral code than 'common' but its main characteristics will be its unsustainable over generations and does not allow for normal functioning of society...

"Do not kill" is standard 'common' morality that cannot be achieved

Achievable or not is irrelevant. If every religions or persons agree to a certain code of conduct as morality then it is absolute... whether they can achieve it or not is irrelevant.

An analogy, it is accepted that if you have over 100 million dollars then you are called a billionair... not everyone is a billionair in the world, but that is the accepted standard.

I asked if "do not kill" is an absolute morality because I want to know if there are times when killing is not immoral eg. self defense.

Hmm... guess I have to define absolute and relative truths.

There are two kinds of truths in this world: absolute and relative.

"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, and unalterable facts.
Example: 1+1=2

"Relative truth" is defined as realities that are based on specific frame of reference; ie: it is truth only when certain criterias are met.

Then, in your words, 'common morality' is a set of relative truths, heuristics of society.

To what extent one's own morality can be absolute is open to discussion, it can certainly be perceived as such if unchallenged

I do think that most moralities are relative, but I also believe that if you factor them out, then you can find certain morality that is absolute.

This is were you usually give examples to back up your claims, thats how this 'discussion' thing works :)

I alreadyd did give an example... "do not kill"... translate to... "do not harm or hurt others"

That is one morality that is absolute.

no... is not absolute

for example: Some firkin monster man kills your wife and two kids after he raped them. One week later you find him and you have the advantage and could kill him or take him to the police and give him a fair trial. Which option you'll chose ?
1. Absolute morality and take him to police
2. Relative morality he deserves to die so no other ppl could get hurt ever

If you pick #2, then you are immoral... hence it is still absolute.

so the death penalties are immoral ?

You are a soldier in war and you are ordered to kill people whom you do not want, are you immoral ?

A surgeon that tries to save your life but in the process kills you not willingly or paralyzes you for life is immoral ?

You can't say Don't kill or Do not harm and expect it to be absolute

Don't mistake intentional vs unintentional.

If a surgen's intention is to save someone but unintentionally he killed the patient, it is not immoral.

A soldier in war taking a life is immoral; War itself is immoral.

Death penalty is immoral that is why more civilized parts of the world have abolished capital punishment.

This is related to my new poll... which actions matter most...

Perhaps that should be addressed first.

Competition does not equate to harm.

Haven't heard of healthy competition?

Yes it does. Work it out yourself if you must i don't feel up to the task of explaining.

Healthy competition means that HARM makes participants act in a certain way which is ultimately beneficial even to the losers through benefit to the society as a whole or directly to the losers as experience. It still harms.

Nope, if there's harms in way, then it is no longer healthy competition.

An example of healthy competitions: tennis tournament (if no dirty tricks involved).

Don't confuse yourself between harming and loss.

A loss does not mean harm.

loss means harm. no reward pathway activation = harm. Damaged sense of self-worth, realization of being inferior... its harm. One point of it is that harm is not inherently bad, we are alive because we hurt when we don't jump through the hoops to stay alive. Discomfort is our cue, when we miss it, our ruthless master that is our body whips us with pain, anxiety, sense of urgency... our mind on the other hand perceives harm as interesting stimuli, works around it, learns to cope with it, eventually learns to use it as means of actuation upon the environment... we perceive other people as environment...

Then you really have a fuqed up definition of harm :)

A loss is only a harm or hurt if it actually belongs to you.

If you lost something that you owned (because of a thief) then it is a harmful loss.

But a loss over something that is not yours yet. It is only yours if you win. How is that harm?

Distinguish between something belonging to you and something that can belong to you.

Those two are separate things. The later one proves no harm to you if you didn't get.

If you are indeed hurt because you didn't receive what you could get, then it is you who are hurting yourself from being greedy. Noone else is responsible for that.

Loss is harm, not material loss you have it all wrong, but failure to achieve goals set by 'self' that controls you, material loss is just a more obvious form of it, when your motivation hits failure you get hurt, period. You take mental harm from it, no matter how good of a rationalization mechanism you develop, and that is good, otherwise you would roll in your own filth and not care. Every aspect of life is a competition, every time you lose you hurt, every time you win, you hurt someone. Its supposed to happen. Its conditioning for success, you me and everyone else that doesn't suffer from severe mental disorders are created upon that principle, the very species we belong to thrives in time of competition, you can no more stop doing harm than you can stop eating...

Nah.... If you set a goal of something but cannot achieve it. You haven't lost anything... you just haven't GAINED it yet.

See the difference?

You can't lose something you don't have :)