absolute and timeless truth vs. flexibility and adaptations

Declining timeless ideals and contrastin opinions

While we may converge about the ideal and actual concept of morality, I see one difference between the absolute and timeless truth of the ideal morality and the act of balancing with flexibility and adaptations.

Once human reason and experience reach a distinction between a good action and a bad action, until this distinction is proven false, flexibility and adaptations should not change our reasoning about that good and that bad before acting; in case they can influence ex-post (after the fact) judgement for responsibility in a guilt, but with no ex-ante (before a fact) compromise that might allow any bad.

Gemini-Bard's reply:

Your perspective highlights an important distinction between the ideal and actual aspects of morality.

While we may strive for absolute and timeless moral principles, the reality of human experience often requires flexibility and adaptation. However, as you rightly point out, certain actions can be definitively categorized as good or bad, regardless of changing circumstances.

Here's a summary of your points:

Ideal vs. Actual: While the ideal morality may be absolute and timeless, the actual practice of morality often requires flexibility and adaptation.
Good and Bad Actions: Some actions can be definitively categorized as good or bad, regardless of changing circumstances.
Ex-post Judgments: Flexibility and adaptation may be necessary for ex-post (after the fact) judgments of responsibility and guilt, but they should not compromise our understanding of fundamental moral principles.

I agree with your assessment. It's essential to maintain a distinction between the absolute and timeless nature of certain moral principles and the need for flexibility and adaptation in specific circumstances.