ScreamingEagle
Gold Member
- Jul 5, 2004
- 13,399
- 1,707
- 245
Relative to what?I would be wrong if I were to claim that no absolutes exist. I already acknowledged that. I'm claiming that morality is relative.
Since morality is based on absolutes, at the core it is not a human "invention".Diuretic said:Point me to anything that has been invented (not discovered) by humans that is in any way an absolute and you'll have me on the mat and I'll cry "uncle".
Conscience is what you feel when your actions do not match up with your morals.Diuretic said:Conscience is a result of good socialisation and proper brain function. Sociopaths exist in society, most of them are functional and not criminal but they simply have no conscience for some reason or the other. If a higher power had given us conscience then why would that higher power have failed to give a conscience to a significant minority of the population?
Stealing is only a problem where a society had invented the concept of individual property rights. In societies where there was no concept of individual property rights (eg Australian aboriginal societies) there was (is) no conception of stealing.
Killing the innocent is a qualification. Killing is the physical action of taking the life of another sentient being. As such it's an example of relative morals. Killing an enemy in war is morally acceptable, killing an innocent is not morally acceptable. To know the moral nature of "killing" we have to identify the subject being killed and the context in which the action of killing is taking place.
Morals are made by humans so we can get along with each other. Morals are not the same throughout history and in various locations, they are invented in situ by communities, therefore they are relative, they are not constant across time and space and they are not absolute because they are human inventions and no human invented anything that was an absolute.
Moral relativity means one does not have a standard to go by because there is no belief in absolute good or evil. Therefore your conscience is only dependent on what morals you believe in at the moment...or does it? Seems that if morals are only relative, your conscience would only be relative too...and not really even matter much…since it would never really be in serious conflict with your morals since your morals could change momentarily.
So what is it that originally told us that some things "should be" a certain way? That something is wrong with suffering, stealing, starvation, rape, pain, and evil? That love, generosity, compassion, and peace are right? Where did that "inner knowledge" come from? If morals are only relative, there cannot be a right or wrong….so why is it people feel things to be right or wrong in the first place?