Some thoughts on moral relatisism.

Moral relativism is a fact in the world we live in.  Each person inevitably constructs his own set of morals, his own system for judging what is "good" and "bad", "right" and "wrong".  Even if one were to believe that morality was not relative, that there was "objective morality" of a divine presence, he would not know what those"objective morals" were.  He would not be able to definitively state what acts were "objectively good" or "objectively bad" since we have no way of divining god's morals.  This leaves us in a world of moral relativism even if we believe there is a divine moral standard. 


Each person creates their own sense of morality.  There are a few base propositions upon which larger moral structures can be erected.  Ideas like ultilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number is the most desirable), master-morality (as opposed to slave-morality, Nietzscheian morality), nihilism, or hedonism define what is most valuable in this world, and are ideas around which a larger sense of morality can be constructed.  Religions also provide such core ideas; belief in the god of the bible or the Koran, or belief in any god who was good enough to author a book, provides a person with something more concrete, though undoubtedly also man made, on which to base moral principles.  Whether a person sees god, mankind, or himself as the most important thing in the universe, his sense of morality will shape itself to protect the thing most valued.  When we act in a way that we recognize as detrimental to us individually, but we still think is "right", it is because we are placing ourselves below something we value more.  Though these values might be somewhat abstract, they produce in us a sense that we are not more important than others, that our wants and needs are not supreme.  

Does this mean that one person cann't say that anothers acts are "right" or "wrong" since their morals are subjective?  I say no.  A person can say acts are "good" or "bad" since they consider how the acts will affect something, hopefully something other than themselves, that is not subjective.  An act can be bad for humanity or "bad" because it creates unnecessary sorrow in the world.  Our reasoning for why such an act is morally "wrong" is solid as long as what is considered valuable is shared.  Someone who values something else more, say themselves or even their country or religion, might view such a morally questionable action as "right".  Everyone values something (nihilists excluded), so everyone will have an opinion on moral issues.  People who value the same thing will agree on most issues.  Our evolution as social animals has left us with most people agreeing on most issues, especially the major ones (murder, rape, theft, ect.).

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

People who engage in fat-shaming tend to score high in this personality trait

A new study explores how certain personality traits affect individuals' attitudes on obesity in others.

Pixabay
Mind & Brain
  • The study compared personality traits and obesity views among more than 3,000 mothers.
  • The results showed that the personality traits neuroticism and extraversion are linked to more negative views and behaviors related to obesity.
  • People who scored high in conscientiousness are more likely to experience "fat phobia.
Keep reading Show less

The most culturally chauvinist people in Europe? Greeks, new research suggests

Meanwhile, Spaniards are the least likely to say their culture is superior to others.

Image: Pew Research Center
Strange Maps
  • Survey by Pew Research Center shows great variation in chauvinism across Europe.
  • Eight most chauvinist countries are in the east, and include Russia.
  • British much more likely than French (and slightly more likely than Germans) to say their culture is "superior" to others.
Keep reading Show less

Reigning in brutality - how one man's outrage led to the Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions

The history of the Geneva Conventions tells us how the international community draws the line on brutality.

Napoleon III at the Battle of Solferino. Painting by Adolphe Yvon. 1861.
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Henry Dunant's work led to the Red Cross and conventions on treating prisoners humanely.
  • Four Geneva Conventions defined the rules for prisoners of war, torture, naval and medical personnel and more.
  • Amendments to the agreements reflect the modern world but have not been ratified by all countries.
Keep reading Show less