Slimebeast said:
highwaystar101 said:
Slimebeast said:
On what grounds would you condemn them?
|
In that l believe that murder and cannibalism are immoral acts, I would protest against them doing that. So it would be based on my personal feelings, feelings that most likely reflect the morals of my society.
They never saw murder and cannibalism as an immoral act. In their eyes it was completely acceptable to do these things.
But my personal feelings are irrelevant to mine or your point.
What matters is that these two societies have completely separate sets of morals, to the point that one of the most heinous crime in western society (killing and eating another human) is actually encouraged in the other society.
I ask, how can two societies be so radically different in their moral code, and yet their morals be absolute? It's actually impossible.
|
Because the cannibals are wrong of course. Duh.
|
But in their eyes murder and cannibalism was a perfectly fine thing to do. To them cannibals weren't wrong, and I've made that fact pretty clear. In fact they probably saw us as wrong for being so against cannibalism.
The fact of the matter is that the most heinous crimes in one culture can be accepted in another, and that in itself proves moral relativism. I don't see how morals can even be remotely considered absolute when that is the case.
I ask again, how can morals be absolute when morals can vary so much between two societies?
