2007-03-22 09:20:29 · 26 answers · asked by John 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Relative - dependent on your culture, beliefs, upbringing, knowledge, and continual learning.
2007-03-22 09:23:42 · answer #1 · answered by Carol C 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would say that morals are relative. For instance, we can all agree that rape is wrong, no matter what, right? It's immoral and just plain despicable. Well, what if (big IF here, I know) the continuation of mankind was dependent upon procreation by a single man and a single woman. What then if the woman refused to engage in sex with the man? Some people might say in this instance it's okay for the man to rape her because its the lesser of two evils - end of humankind vs. rape! Some people might still say it's wrong, but for those that would find it necessary, their morals are relative to extenuating and external forces.
Again, take for instance to the commandment "thou shall not kill". Well, we know that killing is bad, and then some states give the death penalty. Others argue that the literal translation is "murder". Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. So, in states where the death penalty isn't allowed wouldn't implementing the death penalty be immoral, because then it would go against this commandment/moral law (it would be unlawful). But in other states it's allowed, thus it's lawful and doesn't not constitute murder. Again, it's an example of relative morals.
2007-03-22 16:35:00 · answer #2 · answered by eastchic2001 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That was a good question, one can argue on either sides. Let me take one side ...Morals are relative. They have been derived out of experience and watching several examples. The experience and the examples which were used to set the morals are based on the living conditions of respective times. However, one could consider some as absolute for the fact that few situations remained same through many centuries. I presume you know about epics of India.
Consider the Great Indian epics - Ramayana and Mahabharata. Both of them have series of morals which would be quoted and followed by many. At the same time, if you read between lines, few of them that were derived from these epics contradict each other. And when you do little more research into these....Ramayana (Treta yug) was believed to have occurred prior to Mahabharata And so the morals derived out of Mahabharata (Dwapar yug) are little different. One such morals from Dwapar yug is like "Do good to yourself before doing good to others". This is many times true till today.
In today's times, Darwin's theory of life - "struggle for existence" and the "survival of fittest" holds good in many cases. And so, today's morals are different and are mostly closer to the immediate times before this
.....Interesting...argument... is n't it ! !
2007-03-22 18:13:24 · answer #3 · answered by Die_hard 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Relative. If they were absolute, there would have to be a God that established it as universal law. But since everyone perceives things differently, morals are relative to the person
2007-03-22 16:24:05 · answer #4 · answered by TheMadLith 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They are relative to the world in which we live and the knowledge we have. Once it was considered moral to own slaves, as blacks were believed to be inferior to whites. Today we are horrified by this lack of morality. However, we still own pets, eat animals and pollute our environment. It seems possible that several hundred years in the future our descendants might look at us as being terribly immoral for these things.
2007-03-22 16:25:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
relative, this is clear and all you have to do is look around you, absolute may refer more to some other cultures, but throw in any degree of human weekness which is absolute and it is relative to choose or not to choose to lead a moral life.
2007-03-22 16:25:03 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Relative. Everyones morals are at least a little different.
2007-03-22 16:23:51 · answer #7 · answered by Pervtor of Pervatia 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This depends on who you are speaking of and what world view they follow.
Humanism for example is a world view that determines the dignity and worth of all people, based mostly on rationalism and basically determining right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities. Humanism searches for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests and endorses universal morality based on the commonality of human nature. This suggests that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be found by religion or faith.
This is only one of many examples. Different societies and cultures determine their morality based on a number of rituals and/or religious beliefs.
Researching this subject is very interesting and I encourage you to do just that.
2007-03-22 16:43:59 · answer #8 · answered by redflite 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Morality is absolute. It is divine law. Laws and ethics are relative. They are a function of culture, which doesn't necessarily fall in line with the reality of absolute Divinity.
2007-03-22 16:23:44 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Morals are absolute.
Principles are relative.
There are certain morals which we quite frankly cannot ignore. Not cheating someone, Not killing someone etc etc . . .
However the Principles one decides to adopt and follow are relative and molded by ones society environment etc etc . .
2007-03-23 01:55:57 · answer #10 · answered by blogman 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If science is absolute and not relative why should 'morals' be relative....you can't have it both ways.
2007-03-22 16:27:34 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋