By changing many laws that were once considered right / wrong does that mean its a reletivistic socety?
2007-09-25 06:25:40 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
It may seem so, but remember the U.S. is a relatively young nation when compared to nations of hundreds of century old that still exist. The changes are mostly confirming the present need for guidance through newer concepts in the laws/ideas used at present. It is easier to change paper laws than physical morals.
Spartawo...
2007-09-25 06:36:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
i went and tried everything and now i know it's wrong and i don't do it because it's bad for me and my happiness. But now i don't judge others for the state they're in. I realize that we're all people and christian, buddhist, whatever is just a label you stick on your own forehead, maybe for social reasons, family etc. but in the end doesn't make you any closer to God than you would be without it. I also realized that to preach to people is pointless. People react to love no matter what the words are. It's only through cultivating the love and wellbeing of yourself and letting it overflow to others that we make some difference in the world. All the sermonizing about morality, accepting Jesus etc. is artificial. What is needed in this world is true openness and support of each other. But even if you take that as an idea it becomes stupid because people start thinking you have to accept murderers and child molesters. What i'm trying to say is that the problem was that religion is in everybodies heads. It's this abstract thing that governs us, but the world is not bounded by these ideas. They don't fit. The world is too complicated and amazing to fit into a book. We have to be masters of ourselves and stop hiding from life. Sacred texts are there to help us, not rule us. Oh yeah sorry, i shouldn't really be answering this because i'm not an atheist. Only a 'former christian'.
2016-04-06 00:38:45 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Moral or ethical relativism exist. Laws are legal measures, but most laws are founded in morals. But remember, all moral laws are legal, but all legal are not necessarily moral. For example capital punishment.
Ethical relativism is on the practice. All moral concepts are the same. for example hospitality. In other countries, a female member of a family is offered to a male guest as a hospitable gesture. For others, this is immoral.
2007-09-25 06:34:41 · answer #3 · answered by BONG C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Laws are -always- a reflection of the moral and ethical values of a society. When this country was first founded, many of the Colonies considered it a crime to -not- attend Church (not any specific Church, but just -a- Church)
Doug
2007-09-25 06:39:59 · answer #4 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we were truly relativistic than we wouldn't need to change the rules because no rules would be any more or less correct than the previous, since the rules get changed it sayd there is moral change NEEDED, if there is moral change needed than all morality isn't relative.
2007-09-25 06:40:38 · answer #5 · answered by sunscour 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is relative whether or not the U.S. thinks it is... because absolute morality does not exist.
Just like the NT ditched the OT (aka the Christian writers transformed Judaism)
2007-09-25 07:58:57 · answer #6 · answered by vérité 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No it just means that no law is ever perfect and improving them is a slow process.
2007-09-25 06:32:17 · answer #7 · answered by megalomaniac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It really depends...most of the time it's simply because we've learned more/gained more information and found a better way of doing things.
2007-09-25 06:34:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you can demonstrate that laws are about ethics. I think they, and politics in general, are about economics.
2007-09-25 09:35:56 · answer #9 · answered by neil s 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋