Slimebeast said:
You don't seem to get it. How hard can it be? It doesn't matter if the cannibals thought murder and cannibalism was a perfectly fine thing to do because they did wrong! |
I almost started off my last post by saying you don't get it. Because you genuinely can't see it when it's right there in front of you.
Look, seriously. Wrong by whose standards? Your standards? My standards? Their standards?
Their standards are different to your standards, you can't just arbitrarily say my morals are the same as everyone else's, when clearly they aren't.
I don't agree with their moral standards, you don't agree with their morals standards, yet their moral standards exist and are vastly different from ours. Hence they are relative.
Even so, saying that your moral standards are the same as everyone else's, but the acknowledging that another group has a different set of moral standards, even if you think they are wrong, is pretty much acknowledging moral relativism anyway.
...
How about something a little more ambiguous from person to person and society to society? How about abortion?
Many people think abortion is an abhorrent act, totally immoral; where as many others think that abortion is morally acceptable and that the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the foetus. How can moral absolution be right when some people believe terminating a pregnancy should be punishable, and others believe it to be an acceptable right?
The morals aren't absolute by any means. The morals are relative, from society to society, even from person to person. You can't just say "abortion is wrong, and there is a clear defined line and everyone sits on the one side", when it is blindingly obvious that this isn't the case. There really is no defined right or wrong answer that is agreed on by everyone.
