Do you believe that morality is relative or absolute?

Question

Are there certain things that are always wrong or right, despite the circumstances, or is morality always relative to situational factors?

Answer 1

Different human societies have always defined their own specific behaviour codes, that evolve over time, and are based largely on the consensus of opinion among members of that society about what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour ..."right" and "wrong" if you will. In our own Western Societies, look how the "code of acceptability" has changed over the centuries... more specifically how it has dramatically changed since the early 19th Century.

Much, if not most, of that "code of behaviour" (I find this fascinating) is directly or indirectly linked to our animal sexuality..... with, even to this present time.... most of the "reprehension" being directed at the female of the species. For just one example, when a man is highly sexually active... when he's young, he's just "sowing his wild oats"; when he's a little older.... he's a "lad" a "boyo" nudge nudge, wink wink. But if a female of identical age decides to express her sexuality, whoa there! She's a s l u t, a whore, a loose woman, trash. For centuries (and in parts of Europe still) if a man could afford to support a respectable family, and also a mistress on the side, he's a "lucky sonofagun" and somewhat admired - respected even. But just let a married woman take a lover and ohhh my, you can cut the moral outrage with a knife.

I think it has generally been considered, down through the centuries, that it's pretty much of a general No-No if you go around killing other people for no good reason...... and of course, to take their property, or gain a self-rewarding advantage of them is d efinitely not considered any "good reason" Depending upon what period you lived in, as long as you kill the other guy in honorable, and mutually agreed contest (duelling as an example), it was considered the business of the two guys involved, and may the best one be left standing (or at least alive, lol). These days, of course, Society has decreed that duelling to the death is unacceptable, and only by due legal process do we determine the eligibility of a person to be executed for certain offences against society. Nowadays, t here are people who are attempting to disallow even "justifiable execution"

All definitions of "right" and "wrong" are man-created. But later, when our early ancestors came up with the idea of attributing everything t o the existence of a Mysterious Invisible Superbeing" the priests taught people that "God" determined what was, or was not appropriate, or permissible. They realised one very significant thing.... if you tell people that a reeeeeally fearful and fiersome superbeing was setting the rules, and pulling the puppet strings, you could probably get folks to toe the line a lot better because the punishments generated by a punitive god were not to be taken lightly.

The "priests" of our present time continue to threaten us with "godly retribution" for going against the laws of "right and wrong". But what those laws actually are, vary quite a bit depending upon what particular religious affiliation you were born into, or you have later adopted. So there you have it once again....... Right and Wrong depend heavily on what deck of cards you are playing with.

I have always believed that whoever originally coined the saying, said it best and said it most concisely........."Don't do unto anybody else, whatever you would just hate to have somebody else do to you". I think that says all that needs to be said, and everything else is just commentarial blather.

Answer 2

Here's what it comes down to.

If you believe in God, than morality can be measured objectively.

If you don't; then who can say how it is measured? What basis would there be to say that any person's idea about morality is any more valid than another person's? Ghandi's and Hitlers. Mother Theresa's and Al Quaeda's.

Even the utilitarian argument -- that whether an action is moral or not depends on the amount of benefit it brings in relation to the amount of detriment it brings -- note that reasonable people can still disagree with what is a "benefit" and what is a "detriment" (or differ regarding the magnitude of said benefits and detriments) with respect to a given action.

In response to the "morality is symmetric" argument above -- that's only your idea. Not everyone believes in egalitarianism; some people believe that it is okay for me to do X, but not okay for others. Because I was born superior to others. Such as, for example, the caste system in India, where only certain castes are allowed to eat meat. Or those born of "royal blood" etc. This is not hypocrisy... but note that some may even believe that hypocrisy is moral and justifiable in certain situations.

Also, if one person believes "it's moral for me to rape this 6 year old -- because if I were six, and they were my age, I would be willing to let them rape me?"

Is that line of reasoning moral, just because it has that quality of symmetry?

Answer 3

I believe they are all relative to situational factors! Everything is Gray, that is just human nature.

I can tell you for certain that there are things I think are right and wrong. But I am only one person. There are billions out there that have had different experiences and different lifestyles.

For me to say that what i think is right and wrong is what should be right and wrong for everyone would make me nuts. I don't understand how people feel that just because it is what they disagree with means it is wrong.

Answer 4

It's absolutely relative. (always related to situational factors)
We, mankind, define morality, and everything you know could be just as quickly considered the opposite (killing is moral, stealing is moral, etc) if all of our attitudes changed

Answer 5

Morality is relative. That's an absolute statement.

Answer 6

Morality is absolute. Men is relative. Right is right and wrong is wrong and it will never change but men is always trying to find a way to do and to try to prove the opposite. Are they trying to convince themselves? I would say yes, but anyway, morality will never change.

Answer 7

The way to tell if something is absolute is whether or not you mind it happening to you.

For instance, do you want your stuff stolen? Then it's wrong for YOU to steal.

Do you want others to lie to you? Then it's wrong for YOU to lie.

If you have ever told a lie, but you don't like it when others lie to you; or if you have ever taken anything but you don't want others to steal from you, then that is a double-standard, in other words, hypocracy.

Is hypocrasy ever OK?
Is it ever OK to stab your friend in the back?
Is it ever OK to hate someone who has done you no wrong?

I'm not talking about "situational ethics" here. I'm talking every day life.

If you think it's ok to sexually force yourself on another person, then at the same time, you're saying it's ok for someone else to sexually force him or herself on you.

If you think it's OK for you to show disrespect to your authorities, then you're also saying that it's ok for people under YOUR authority (that you are responsible for) to disrespect and rebel against you, too.

I believe morality is absolute, otherwise, you have chaos, and everybody is making up whatever they want that is convenient for them, personally, without regards to how it affects other people.

For instance, "Well, I think raping someone is ok, just don't rape ME!" is hypocritical to the nth degree! Or "I can rob you blind, because YOU may say it's wrong, but it's not wrong for ME" but when he is robbed, watch him yell for the police!

You see what I'm getting at by these two examples? Without absolutes in morality, there is only hypocrasy, which I already pointed out, is NEVER acceptable!

Answer 8

Oh yes, Morality is definately relative as well as subjective.

Answer 9

I think it's generally relative. Though there are some things that I think are wrong in all cases like genocide (genocide might be relative, but I can't imagine a case in which it would be justifiable).

Answer 10

Relative. To believe there's a correct code of practice which applies to every conceivable scenario is a little naive.