Are morals relative? (Please read on first...)?

Question

I dont think I agree that they are. The common response to this is that "morals vary from society to society".

But is that so? Are not the prisons full? Also if morality is determined by societies how could we ever say a society has morally improved, if the standard is set by that society?

Finally, wouldnt that mean people like Martin Luther King Jr, who advocated social change, would by defintion of that society be evil because they opposed the societies moral laws?

Sorry I know its 3-fold but 10 points to the best answer...

Answer 1

Well, there's Mala Per Se and Mala Prohibita. Mala Per Se are things that are inherently wrong, and Mala Prohibita is things that are wrong by law(by code), but not necessarily wrong ethically.
It's the details of particular actions that are disputed. It's the difference of how people interpret specific situations that cause debate. (e.g. Abortion---Pro-lifers consider it murder, but Pro-Choicers consider it to be a fetus and not a human which makes it not murder------no one is disputing whether murder is wrong or right, but the determing factor is whether or not Abortion constitutes murder or not).

Answer 2

I agree with you. If you believe in god, then your morals must come from dogmatic principals for god being the idea of perfection, and morality. I like Sartre's take on this. He says there is no god, and therefore no real morality. he also says because of this no one can ever choose evil, because when anyone makes a decision, it is always a good thing for them when they choose it. So that would negate the argument about Martin Luther King Jr. because he made a choice, and it was a good choice for him, and i believe ultimately for society. As far as prisons go, people choose to break the law, not morality. they do it because they hope to get away from it and they see some benefit, good, in it if they do. i think you will find society in general, when the opportunity reveals its self does the same. Look at the genocides in other countries. Look at the death penalty for murders. The heard mentality can justify about anything if you can convince the heard it is for their own good. The holocaust is a good example. weather you believe they are objective, real, set in ston truths, or merely subjective will really determine your answer to this question.

Answer 3

Almost everything in life can be measured from both relative and absolute terms. If you walk into a room full of tall people you may find you are the shortest person. But I am sure you realize that you have not shrunk. So the first error I see people make is to either deny absolute moral measure while defending relative measure or to deny relative measure while defending absolute measure. This may be why this controversy lives perpetually because at some level both parties realize there is an error.

So I will go so far as to say both have some utility. But every time I see anyone apply relative measure to a moral situation is goes sour. This is beautifully illustrated in this quote I found in an old (1848) Channing Memoir. Notice that he compares relative measure with absolute measure.

"A wise man seeks to shine in himself; a fool to outshine others. The former is humbled by a sense of his infirmities; the latter is lifted up by the discovery of the faults of others. The wise man considers what he wants; the fool, what he abounds in. The wise man is happy in his own approbation; the fool, in the applause of his fellows."

--William Ellery Channing

Answer 4

morals are relative despite all the bad in the world. Many morals do not vary from society to society such as cheating and stealing. To live morally is a personal choice. Each person may define their morality different but the basics are pretty much the same. The only people that would oppose MLK jr teachings are people that didn't have a strong ethical view on equality. MLK didn't preach immorally, but justice. A society can grow morally. Not ever person or society is perfect, it is when we are put on the spot, and see the errors of our ways, that moral growth can occur

Answer 5

Morals are individual code of behavior that can ensure the smooth functioning of the society as also the maximization of the collective wellbeing.

How good a society is, would depend on its ways and goals and how they keep pace with the changing environment and aspirations. The changes in the ways and goals of the society would determine if it is getting better or worse. The morals would simply need to keep pace with the changing society, for better or worse.... the morals can only be either suitable or unsuitable for the society and can thus only determine if the society is going to be successful or not in its goals.

If the society is pursuing wrong goals, as is perhaps the case right now, the change in morals can only facilitate or even accelerate the process of decline... in such a situation, therefore, a rigidity in the morals may become a boon in disguise, but the downside of that is what we are observing today... the society would be turbulent rather than smooth because of the constant friction between the rigid old values and dynamic new aims or goals. It is collective wisdom that can give the right direction to society ensuring the right goals are set and pursued..... the morals can not and are not meant to play that role.
Well that is my view because I am not a committed Believer and I see morals as social norms rather than either religious or spiritual requisites. Those who see morals as part of religion or spirituality would tend to consider them as fixed and an inevitable basis for ultimate reunion with God or conformity with God's will. This may work well enough if the society consists primarily of spiritual and religious people who are keen to pursue spiritual and religious goals in preference to materialistic or social objectives.

Trust you would find this meaningful opposite the KEY question you have posed.

Answer 6

It you look at publicly perceived morals as being formed by the general conscience of a specific group of people as a guideline for what is socially acceptable and strived for (kindness, honesty, fairness, doing public service, etc) then. of course, our prisons are full.

But our prisons being full only suggests that many chose to steal, kill and hurt others without moral conscience. It is never the fault of a specific society that many chose to be immoral.

There are certain aspects of moral codes of conduct that are pretty much embraced, at least by those with moral fiber, as universal and as such don't change from society to society, from culture to culture.

Examples: Adultery. Incest. Unjustified killing. Rape. Theft. All of these are universally considered evil.

Sets of moral standards that differ from culture to culture still seem to have a universal base core of beliefs.

Societies can either morally 'improve' or lose much of their moral fiber and regress as a society. The history of the world affords us many examples of both scenarios.

Martin Luther King Jr. would only be seen as evil by those who DID NOT or DO NOT embrace the original set of moral standards that our country was founded on.

You really can't fairly judge a society by the sub-cultures that break away from the general conscience. There is a major difference between the selective, inclusive, immoral mind set of a bigoted sub-culture and the standard sets of morals the society they broke away from embraces.

King was aiming his efforts at those that did not embrace the general conscience, a minority of bigots from a section of America. During his time all of the Northeast, Midwest and West were already segregated. Even in Dallas where I grew up I went to school with and had as neighbors black kids and families during King's marches through the South.

Answer 7

Prisons are full because of the crimes committed, not because of moral transgressions. Morals do differ from society to society even if you refuse to acknowledge that. Divorce is relatively common in western societies but is still frowned upon in India because we take our marriage vows seriously. Societies change and so does its values/morals/ethos. What remains constant is the urge to formulate codes which are for the good of humanity at large...

Answer 8

Morals are abstract ideas, they are not written down like laws and noone is forced to abide by them. Morals are relative, not only by society, by individuals as well. Japan is all about politeness, Middle Eastern countries value religion, America values civil rights and equality. A person does not have to have the exact morals of their society but they are influenced by them.
The prisons being full has nothing to do with the way morals vary from society to society. It is about personal morals. It's human nature, humans will do bad things. A person can know that something is wrong and do it anyway. If a person puts his/her wants above the good of society (i.e. robbing a store to get money for drugs, child/spouse abuse, sex crimes, homicide etc.) they would be slightly more concerned about laws than morals anyway.

I don't think you could say morals are determined by society because countries don't hold big meetings to decide what morals it wants to have- again morals are abstract. They are ideas passed down through history about the way things should be, not necesarily about the way things are.
It is very hard to measure abstract things but I think there are some things that most people could say are better than they used to be such as the fact that more and more people are caring about the environment and poverty in third world countries.
There will always be societies with opposite morals, such as western culture and middle eastern culture when it comes to women's rights. Each society has reasons to back up what they beleive in.

Martin Luther King Jr. could not be seen in this light because his society would be the African American community, who's morals include social change such as equal rights. He would be a hero for bringing his people closer to their morals.

The thing to remember is that morals are abstract and are not enforced, only taught, being passed down from one generation to another through ones society and parents. Morals are constantly changing and evolving as we learn more about ourselves (human nature) and the world we live in.

Answer 9

We see the Golden Rule in some form appear in many different cultures. If we followed the Golden Rule, would we not love justice and love mercy also? Cannot all of morality be contained under justice and mercy?

But the problem is our human capacity for self deception, self justifications, and for rationalizations. We see what we want to see and disregard the rest. Two hundred years ago, we saw slavery as being good for the slaves. Today, we see the poor as "bringing it on themselves".

What moral obligation do we have to honestly and faithfully follow the Golden Rule? None, unless we believe that God commanded us to do so.

Answer 10

The only moral premise that is not "relative" is the non-initiation of force. Scream all you want at me; don't hit me or burn down my house--or kill me. Within the parameters of the non-initiation of force, all other morals must be within the context of the needs and the reason of those who must live by them. That context is primarily individualistic, and individuals who agree with each other come to comprise a civilization.