Should morals be relative?

Question

If they are relative to a person then what good are they?

Answer 1

At least, your relatives should be moral.

(When people speak of relative morals, they most often mean relative to the situation: for instance, though one might think stealing is wrong, a relativist would see a difference in a man who steals to feed his family (see Les Miserables) and a man who steals millions from the pension funds of his employee (see Enron.).

Answer 2

It seems that many morals are relative, as in they depend on outside influence to define what they are, but without the influence it would be hard to compare and contrast between right and wrong. So relativity is an important aspect, and If someone has morals for any reason that really doesn't mean that they won't partake of something any way.

Answer 3

Your question assumes they are relative...so should they be? And the answer, of course, is absolutely.

Morals continually shift through time and, thankfully, better education. What was morally acceptable in 2nd Century Europe is clearly not coincident with present-day Kansas.

Even morals dictated throughout the Old Testament (Leviticus through Deuderonomy, for example) have changed substantially over the past four to six thousand years! Instead, morals provide a framework from which our laws, customs and societal approval are derived. As we grow, learn and adapt to an ever-changing world, so our morals must adapt or, as Bush likes to chime, they become irrelevant.

Answer 4

If you think about it, everyone pretty much generates their own version of even commonly agreed upon moral ideas. Take killing other people, for example. Almost everyone has their own idea of when this is a moral thing to do, and you can see from the broad spectrum of opinions on the matter that these ideas are about as unique as the people who produced them: some would do so only in a war, some only in some kinds of war, some for crimes, some only for certain races, some depending on each individual case, and some just not at all.

The point being that most people have given the idea some thought and come to a conclusion. They have thought about what is appropriate and moral to do and developed a standard that they want to try and live by (some more successfully than others). This is a pretty removed layer of thinking - you're thinking not just about hypothetical actions, but about the overall value and effect of hypothetical actions.

So what use are they? Let's turn that question around - if they were of no use, why would making such decisions be so common (as they seem to be) in spite of their inherent difficulty? The answer, I think, lies wrapped into part of the general idea of 'good' and 'evil' that can be found in society. And sometimes a way to get purified cultural ideas is to examine mythology and fantasy.

These things, after all, are meant to explain events and to entertain in a socially agreeable way. And though different societies and different mythologies have different pictures of what, exactly, qualifies someone as evil in these stories (more evidence of moral relativity), their mythological fate is usually the same - to be overcome and destroyed by the good, preferably as soon as possible. If these are the ideas of a society, then perhaps this is what morals are good for: being able to live with other people.

A typical thesaurus will support this view: amoral and antisocial are considered synonyms. But there is other evidence to be found as well. Though few (and tragic), there are examples of individuals who have been raised completely isolated from any society whatsoever. For example, by being locked in a closet for a decade by abusive parents. If our theory were true - that morals are developed in large part to help people get along in society - we would expect such individuals to largely have no morals to speak of when they are finally freed of their atrocious condition. And in fact, feral children are very difficult to integrate into society for that very reason (evidentiary links below).

So I believe that morals are good for living with other people. This also goes a long way also to explaining why people so strongly separate themselves into groups with similar morals, and often react with prejudice and violence toward those would different ones. Now, if we could all only agree on more or less the SAME morality...

Answer 5

Morals are relative to the norm of a collections of people (religion, nation etc) at a given time. This is why Laws change from place to place and over time as they reflect the norm of the morals in time and place.

There are fundamental morals like do not kill, rape, steal etc. which appear to be almost universally applied to Laws everywhere.

There is a tendency for the sanctions for moral disharmony to be inversely harsh to the the degree of application of the law.

Other morals are effected by tradition or common sense.
E.G. It has been found in court that it is legal for a woman to walk bare breasted down the road in Ontario Canada, but it is only done when someone wants to make a point so to speak. In southern France it is legal to be bare breasted on the beach and many do.

The difference? About sixty degrees F. in winter and existent values in society.

So, small changes in morals are relative to individuals e.g. pre marital sex, intoxicant use and vulgar language. Large changes in morals can be relative to different large groups (a nation or religion for example).

Universal negative morals which are contrary to survival of the group are usually condemned in law but may exist in practise in remote or unsophisticated and inert religions or societies.

Answer 6

They are, it's not a matter of whether they should be. What good are they? Well, think about it. Right now in the world, morals are relative. Humans have existed for a few hundred thousand years like this. So obviously they are working.

Answer 7

Since the true basis of morality is fear, morals are based upon the situation that is at hand at the particular moment in time. This thought holds thru no matter what the anthropology of the peoples being discussed (including religious)

Answer 8

I like to think of myself as rule-based, but there are times when I would feel compelled to throw out the rules and deal with the situation to produce what I think is a just result.

I guess that means morals are "good" the majority of the time, and hopefully my sense of right and wrong in knowing where to break my rules is "good" the rest of the time.

Answer 9

They are not relative to a person but to a situation as viewed from a standard of conduct.

Answer 10

ok, so enable's pass with this for a 2nd. Morals are relative. the only component this is sweet is what aids on your survival as a individual (hassle-loose evolutionary perception). So homicide is large because of the fact individual may be hindering your progression. ok, so this makes the government immoral, a minimum of, in accordance to you. There may be no penal complex. everybody might have the skill to do in spite of they needed/necessary to do because of the fact they might all be staggering. ok. There may be no order, no government. Oh wait, yet there is order and government! ok, we are able to artwork with this. there is order and government because of the fact maximum folk agree that homicide, rape, or maybe something like mendacity or fraud is erroneous. yet how did all of us come to this contract? after all, homicide, rape, mendacity, and fraud might desire to be very effective and create many wealthy human beings. the respond, there is absolute actuality. It grow to be given to us by way of God. ask your self why homicide, adultery, mendacity, and stealing are all incorrect? God reported so. yet that could meant that morals are not relative, does no longer it? Sorry, there went your finished concept.