Are morals relative?

Question

If so is it right for a society to have a criminal justice system designed to punish an individual for stepping beyond the bounds of their rules.

Answer 1

People who believe that morals are relative oversimplify the question about the nature of morals. I am not a moral relativist, and I will tell you why.

Moral relativists fail to recognize that our morals can be true or false, eventhough our morals are influenced by external, social factors. The question about whether our moral beliefs are true is separate from the question about whether our morals are influenced by external factors. Moral relativists treat those questions as if they are the same, and as if the same answer applies to both. Moral relativists are confused. Just because our social and life experiences influence the morals that we subjectively hold does not mean that our morals cannot be objectively true.

Moral relativists point to the fact that on Earth there are diverse moral codes and that societies vary on the moral codes that they accept. Moral relativists point to the fact that social institutions such as religion and the legal system influence the morals of people. Moral relativists rely on the fact that when morals are examined at a causal level, they are found to be socially relative in that they vary from one society to another. Morals are a function of cognition and society. Society, culture, and politics influence the morals that persons have. Morals are qualities of the human mind that can be affected by social experiences.

However, morals can be ethically correct or ethically mistaken. All of our beliefs are influenced by external factors, but we rationally recognize that nature exists and that some claims about it are true, while others are false. Similarly, human nature exists. We recognize that there are many facts about human nature. For example, that it is capable of both wisdom and foolishness and that it can create societies. The wise learn to distinguish between good and harmful human conduct. Fools deny that conduct can be harmful, and thus they make themselves susceptible to harm. The wise would not create a society that takes moral relativist claims seriously, since the conduct of the society that tolerates its member's harmful conduct is itself unethical. The legal and criminal system will always be necessary as long as there are fools prepared to harm others.

There are certain ethical principles that rational persons accept, for example, that it is ethically wrong to kill human life. There are other ethical principles that society does not yet recognize but that it should. Denial of ethical truth is unethical.

Answer 2

nothing is going to please everyone but the first question is are we better off in anarchy or under the law? Next morality is of the highest importance but varies from place to place . the most basic premise to distinguish right from wrong is does it go against life or not . this is a sweeping basis for most morality that nearly every one agrees even if it not yet a pure science it has much consistency and in the us we have the right to contest and dissent . Now the problem seems to be logistics for organizing for or against laws that are considered good or bad . yes some morals are disputably relative or subjective but contingent upon broadly accepted
notions suited to the reasonable man they can be improved upon and sometimes work for the individual as well .
Even with the best systems to protect the innocent mistakes happen however they are far and few between in comparison to the alternative. so rather than scraping the system we should work to improve it.

Answer 3

yes they are relative and yes its right for a society to have a criminal justice system designed to punish an individual for stepping beyond the bounds of their rules.
otherwise, why have rules?
it is important for society to have rules in order to function economically, and to survive.
without morals and rules there is no society, just indigenous nomads each with their own set of possibly contradicting rules and morals.

Answer 4

by definition of relative then most definatly they are. otherwise all cultures across history would have the same moral standards. I believe what makes a society is how it defines said standard there for it is right for it to have a justice system to uphold them. believeit or not we all have the choice in to which society we belong. most though never utilize that option and look around for one that best fits their standard, though some fight tomake a society change. womens movement and civil rights movements being to prime examples over last hundred years here in america. now for haveing a choice even here in america depending where in the country u choose to live u can see different morals held to higher standard then other and as u get out of the country u see them change drasticly. raiseing the recent arguement of forceing our culture (read morals) on others. internally speaking ideally the majority is the voice that sets the standard yet we all know world wide that isnt the case some cultures put a emthisis on the enlightened few.

Answer 5

We could debate this for a long time, but that is the purpose of a society and civilization. Without rules and punishment, there is "chaos," or undesirable things. And possibly certain groups would rise to dominance, which ends up looking like the society of which you speak anyway. It seems to be the natural order of things.

Answer 6

they cannot be punished if their crime is not acknowladged. people get away with treating people with contempt then refuse to take responsibility when the person either defends themselves from attack or loses their temper and kills them. as to morals maybe they are or were but somewhere along the line they lost them and people who could ignore them came along actually i am not sure it would work i think people are becoming worse. as to punishment it should not be about that but more about confining people to keep the rest safe . it should be about justice dostoyevskywrote a society could be judged by it's prisons well there you are

Answer 7

Some are relative, some are not. If we did not have a system to punish offenders we would have anarchy and our society would collapse.

Answer 8

morals are relative given the environment. what is right or wrong in one country may not be right or wrong in another.every country has its own history and standards that should be respected and understand.

it is imperative that consequences exist for those who violate any social standards.

Answer 9

Absolutely
The person can leave if they are unhappy with the rules. Or they can work to change the rules.

Answer 10

no, but sometimes you must choose the lesser of two evils