What is moral relativity?

Question

My ideas have been described as 'moral relativity' by religious people who are obviously scared by the concept....could someone please tell me what it is?

Answer 1

The theory that morals are not absolute, but instead dictated entirely by circumstance. If there are no absolute morals, there can be no giver of absolute morals (i.e. God).

Answer 2

we moral relativists don't see any universal, objective moral standards. No official source dictates what is morally true. Morals are a value system that are, in the end, just opinions. They are based on biology, culture, and personal experience and thought. But there is no one absolutely correct set of morals.
And just to annoy those who don't understand the utility of wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativity

Edit: There are those who say that moral relativity means that you think that there is no universal truth. This is not accurate. The speed of light, gravity, the author of War and Peace- these are objective facts. To believe that moral viewpoints are not objectively true or false does not mean that you believe that nothing is objectively true or false.

Answer 3

It means you pick and choose which morals you adopt. Just like I might choose to believe that being gay is *not* immoral, but I choose to believe that stoning women *is* immoral.

This being the case, they will accuse me of being a moral relativist becuse I don't follow the word of god/allah/santa, while they are following the quran or whatever else book.

In this I believe everyone picks and chooses which morals they follow. Admittedly, an extreme moral relativist might have no moral compass other than nihilism, in much the same way that an extreme religionist might have only their scripture, both examples ignoring universal/customary/secular morals/laws/observances.


I don't think I made an elegant point, it's difficult...


*Update:

An answer states:

"In time, when truth is revealed, there is one truth."

How is that? I don't see any evidence for it. In the future there may be many common truths/morals/ethics, or there may be a monocultural norm, but where is the evidence that time reveals truth?

Answer 4

Moral relativity is me and my kind accept this while you and your kind don't.

Some don't consider it morally right to eat meat or wear animal furs.

In Pakistan areas it is morally accpetable for a full grown man to marry a 5 year old girl.

In India it's still considered highly moral to make arrangement marriages.

In India the girl's family often runs credit checks on the husband to be, which would be considered taboo in the West by many people!

Answer 5

As a Mormon we don't use the term ethical relativity. although, we understand that not all rules are eternal rules. It replaced into ok for the Hebrews to kill each and every of the inhabitants of the promised land even nevertheless they simply won a commandment that Thou shalt not kill. The Lord commanded the killing by using a miles better regulation. We now can serve interior the protection rigidity and are not to blame for the killing we are informed to do by using those in authority over us (they might not have it so reliable). the ten commandments have been the 2nd commandments given to the Hebrews as Moses destroyed the 1st while he got here back to the golden calf. The regulation of Moses is a preparatory regulation through fact they weren't waiting for the better regulation. The lessor regulation replaced into not achieved away yet replaced into fulfilled by using Christ at Gethsemane. i'm undecided Christians could be lecturing you on something yet while there's a God, it would be important imformation so you might have and if their is a real Church of Jusus Christ accessible someplace, set up by using the potential and authority of God, it would in simple terms be neighborly to bypass that suggestion directly to you which ones we do on the fee of sending out over 50,000 missionaries consistent with annum. make the worry to talk to a minimum of one or maybe you realize a member. you are able to understand the actuality of all issues by using the potential of the Holy Ghost. and much less lectures.

Answer 6

Yep, Windom Earle .. summed it up nicely ...

And morals should be subjective to the circumstances.

For instance "The Donner Party", crossing over the States was forced into cannibalism, and yet were not charged because of the circumstances.

But yet, we know by the bible, that this is a "sin" .. so by having moral relativity, this allows us to forgive this people, and their transgressions. Which sounds much better, than damning them to hell doesn't it?

Answer 7

people usually mean by this statement that you do not see "one absolute truth"...in other words, you may say (of the different world religions for instance), what is true for you may not be true for someone else. To put some perspective on this, however, consider using that same statement a thousand years ago regarding a group of individuals discussing their beliefs on the shape of the earth. In time, when truth is revealed, there is one truth. Moral relativity often ultimately assumes there really is no truth, there is no right or wrong answer...

Answer 8

Here's how to answer that. Ask them about the Old Testament laws covering slavery, and even cases where the Israelis were told by god to take prisoners as slaves. Ask them about the prohibition of pork and shellfish, and clothes of mixed fabric.
They will answer that things were very different then, and that the law has changed because of the sacrifice of Jesus, etc.

That is moral relativism.

-----
Sapere - I'm afraid I'm going to have to contradict you on the idea of cannibalism being a sin in the Bible. There are two ways in which cannibalism is mentioned, when God forces people into it, and when it is merely reported with no position taken. At no point is it declared a sin.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/cannibalism.html

Answer 9

Moral relativism is the rejection of absolute truth, and therefore absolute moral right and wrong. It is the false notion that "what is right for you may not be right for me", as opposed to the fact that "what God has forbidden is objectively morally wrong for everyone". It rejects the reality of an objective authority against which moral decisions must be judged, and sets up each individual as the only judge of what is morally right or wrong.

Answer 10

I'm Atheist. I understand it to mean the 'the acceptance of what is considered moral or imoral within the society in which you live'.