There are many conflicting contentions and claims about the rightness and wrongness of suicide, abortions, divorce, mercy killing, etc. Does this not show that morality is relative, not absolute?
2006-08-01 01:35:30 · 12 answers · asked by cpl. markuss 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
First, I find it interesting that you lump divorce in with 3 forms of bodily death. :)
Anyway, since morality is so often associated with religion, (for whatever reason), I suppose since religious zealots are usually self proclaimed authorities on what is moral, (and who is not), let me first make a biblical correction to the well known commandment, "Though shalt not kill.".
The original biblical text correctly translated is actually, "Though shalt not murder."
In my opinion, there is a huge difference between murder and killing. IMHO, murder is the taking of life without cause. So assuming there are times when killing, (such as in self defense or for mercy sakes), is appropriate, then there certainly can be an absolute morality revolved around killing, (ie..rightful killing vs. immoral murder).
It seems to be the interpretation of that morality which comes in to question.
Questions of morality might be indicative of cause/effect rationales. Lets say, just for example, that TV stations within a certain society, constantly broadcast hardcore violence. As a result, (since a huge portion of the humane race has yet developed past 'monkey see, monkey do'), the number of violent crimes sky rockets, and a link between TV programming and violent crimes can be proven. Morality would dictate that the broadcasters change their content to be less violent, as their actions would be clearly affecting the overall well being of that society. However, if the broadcasts have no effect on that society at all, there really is no morality issue. Just a question of taste, which is relative.
On a smaller scale, where the actions of an individual has a profound negative impact on the life of another, that too could be indicative of absolute morality.
2006-08-01 02:29:05 · answer #1 · answered by Gonzo 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
After reading your question I can see that they key word is morality. In light of that, I would say that the conflicting contentions and claims about suicide, abortions, divorce, mercy killings, and so forth does show that morality is relative.
The Mayans thought nothing of slaughtering thousands of people for their rites, so to them it wasn't immoral. Would it be considered moral today?
Henry VIII had his wives killed as a means of justifying his behavior. Would that be considered immoral today?
A woman is told you either have an abortion or you will die in childbirth. She aborts. Is she immoral? Would everyone agree?
Morals are relative. They are tied to your beliefs. Not everyone believes the same. So again the answer to your question is yes, morality is relative.
2006-08-01 02:48:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd say no to that kind of generalizations. It's true that the morality that we know is relative, but that does not mean there is no absolute morality, or a sort of moral progression towards an absolute morality.
What I mean to say is, that some morals are required for the progression of people, with out them we would still be in the stone ages, if we did not have morals in property for example, or if our morals were backwards to property, then people would be spending most of their time stealing from each other and watching their backs from theives, and less time spent pondering reality and doing scientific experiments. Those morals were not invented so much as being created in the image of natural human behaviors in reguards to theivery.
2006-08-01 05:29:23 · answer #3 · answered by humean9 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion everybody is free to think what they please. But nothing can stand against the evidences. Why is it wrong in every culture of the world: murders, abuses (of every nature), betrayals, thefts, lies, etc and etc? Why do you know you have done or are doing something wrong when you do it, even if you have never seen anyone do it or have never even heard about it? Even children (not babies, of course) know when they are wrong. According to the theory that says morality is relative, maybe someone taught everybody in the world what it means. Really, I don't think that is possible. The only explanation left? Every human being in this world is born with a sense of what is right or wrong, no matter where the person is born. Why was it wrong for Hitler to murder all those people then? 'All is realative'... Friend, think a little bit about this.
2006-08-01 11:30:42 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. It only shows that we mere mortals cannot agree on what is "Absolute Morality". Just because we don't agree doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Also, even if we do agree that doesn't mean that we've agreed on the correct "Morality".
Your question should be "Can we, through reason, create an Absolute Morality?"
2006-08-01 01:55:03 · answer #5 · answered by Buck B 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
absolutely, morality depends on the situation to which it is applied. a 14 yr old rape victim having an abortion faces a whole different moral playground than a 30yr old , happily married lady doing the same thing, for example
2006-08-01 01:56:59 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethics is another form of control, like religion or government. Supposedly, it should tell you what is right and what is wrong for you to do, like every religion and every law. Humans have not yet come to understand that justice is beyond them: they don't live to judge each other; there is a universal consciousness that has its own justice, and that's the only one that is real. So religions, governments and ethics are all virtual methods of control, in order to maintain people stuck in this chaotic realm.
2006-08-01 01:46:09 · answer #7 · answered by Gilgethan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hehe - Morality is born under pressure of keeping some kind of unwriten Lawness.
( sometime it's writen ... anyway )
It's close in ration with development of society.
Anyway - Sometime is NECESSARY to be taken not marality right DECISION , and we shall not blame at first sign everyone tooken such a descision...
First we shall deeply understand the case !
Anyway - it's Moralitiy is INVENTED as LAWs is invented ...
And we taken then for TRUE ... which usualy means RIGHT to MASSES , But there are many cases that THIS TRUE is COMPLETELY FALSE.
2006-08-01 02:00:54 · answer #8 · answered by Sun Sonic 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I believe that morality is absolute. There are absolute wrongs and rights.
2006-08-01 01:41:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
morality is relative to the case at hand....for instance I believe in capital punishment...
2006-08-01 01:43:20 · answer #10 · answered by george 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋