Morality -- Relative or Absolute?
Since the first philosophers, there has been an argument that has not necessarily been settled, even to this day - the argument between relativism vs. absolutism on the topic of morality. In my opinion, such a thing has to be relative. If it weren’t relative, history would have come to a moral standstill a long time ago and no one would have evolved beyond the times before the Greeks when morals began to matter. For the sake of this argument, I am going to set two cultures - cultures one and two. Culture one is a somewhat civilized culture. They have the ability to determine and diagnose medical illnesses and are able to build buildings that can withstand gale force winds with little more than materials found in the nearby jungle, however, they are a cannibalistic people. Culture two uses stone to build impregnable fortresses and have gunpowder, guns, and have very advanced medicine. They, however, are not cannibalistic.
Cannibalism, something that is taboo and widely considered to be immoral, is but an act. Culture one eats the deceased and fallen enemies as a way of honoring them and not letting the bodies go to waste. Morals in this sense are based widely on the views of the culture at large. Honoring the bodies in a way that most of us would consider desecration is perfectly moral to culture one, as their religion mandates such practices. When culture two pays a little visit to culture one on an expedition, they deem culture one as a lot of godless heathens whom are unfit to live because of the practice of cannibalism. In culture two, the deceased are honored by lighting a pyre underneath the body so that they may rise with the smoke to the heavens.
If I were to add a third culture, which I won’t, that believed in burial, it would get all the more complex. Granted, the example that I have set forth deals only with the disposition of the deceased, which is only one morality. Morals that are not quite so large, like hitting someone being immoral, are also one hundred percent relative. I have heard argued that if someone punches you in the face, that you have to consider it moral. My counterargument has always been that you don’t have to find it moral, the person who hit you either had to have felt it moral, or simply have a moral lapse. What I am getting at is that morals should be based by one’s own beliefs and that a person shouldn’t give a damn about what others think about your actions. Granted, you want to be careful. If murdering is moral to you, it would be wise to consider the legal repercussions and such. I will not get into the argument of laws here, but that is their main purpose. They keep people from expressing their morality in a way that is overall negative to the populace. I find the laws against murder quite moral, as I find murder rather immoral.
I understand why many claim that morality (remember, I said many not all) is absolute - religion. I feel as though people may say the morality as a mask instead of having to say, “My God says that this is right and that’s wrong.” Viewing the term as a mask for this, people of varying religions have varied moral standards. Culture one ate the dead because their religion demanded it, and culture two burned the dead because their religion demanded it. Christians tend to abide by the Ten Commandments because their religion demands it and Buddhists abide by the eight fold path, as their beliefs call for it. Granted, many morals to recur throughout history and through religions all across the world, which seems to be the only evidence for any type of universal morals that people may claim to hold to.
According to truthnet.org, many things that were considered immoral are now moral today. They open up with saying that (and these quotes do not necessarily reflect my own beliefs) that, “Gay rights are now being equated civil rights; those proclaiming Homosexuality is a sin are called homophobic. Has Christianity become outdated in its views? At one time, homosexuality was immoral.” Now first off, I don’t necessarily know where these people get their facts from, but they do not claim any one branch of Christianity. I am not assuming that these people share the beliefs of all Christians, but this website seems to be pretty good in updating, so I am going by what these people say, though they are only a small percent of Christians. I don’t really know that homosexuality was ever immoral. I am not homosexual, yet I am not homophopic either. Homosexuality has been held as a crime in many cultures in the past, namely because theocratic leaders have deemed it a sin and an abomination, thusly deeming it immoral.
The next thing that caught my attention was this: “A Moral claim is what society ought to do. A preference claim is what somebody likes to do. Someone might believe it is morally wrong to steal, but choose to (Prefer) to steal. The distinction between a moral claim and a preference claim is often confused. A moral claim is applies to all people, while a preference claim applies to personal choices. The abortion debate illustrates the problem.” A little before this, they said that a problem was that people confuse preference claims with moral claims. It looks like they just did. They simply say that a moral claim must apply to all people without supporting that half of the argument. If I am not mistaken, the original intent of the webpage was to prove why moral relativity is not real. Morals do not have to apply to each and every person, which is why a universal moral cannot exist. There is going to be at least one person who thinks that killing people for fun, raping, drug dealing, and robbing are all moral. Good for him. I may not find it moral, but he does. I am not supporting any of those things, as I find them all immoral.
I can agree with the website on a few things - the debate may never be settled. To be entirely honest, I couldn’t give a damn if you believe differently about this than I do. That’s your choice. After reading the website, I became a little perturbed at the end with the dialogue. It was either made up, copied horribly, or simply not proofread after being typed. Any of the three would piss me off. I enjoyed reading the website and getting some insight from the other side. As GI-Joe once told me, “Now you know - and knowing is half the battle.” After reading the information that they had provided, I felt a little more enlightened, as I then knew why they believe what they do when it comes to morality. Granted, they may not have given my side as much genuine information as I would have liked, I most likely didn’t give their side as much information as they would like.
This is how I live and will continue to live. What some call the golden moral, or the golden rule, should be cast out. It is a positive way to teach youngsters to think, mostly if not to keep them out of trouble, but it has a major flaw in it. If I punched someone in the face because I felt they deserved it and found it moral, I don’t want them to punch me back. Does anyone really follow this rule? When we nuked Japan, did we want them to nuke us back? I think not. If the figure heads of this land refuse to abide by what they preach, why should we? Morals are relative. Make your own and don’t worry about society or “culture.” You are you, so don’t be morality’s marionette.
Website used: Apologetics: Is Morality Relative?