Moral Relativism or Moral absolutism

[droppy]

Hopefully I'm not necrobumping this but...
I say Moral Relativism
For example, cannibalistic societies clearly believe that killing another human being is morally acceptable. Otherwise their entire culture would be contradictory. However, obviously murder is heavily frowned upon in a majority of civilization.
Rather shitty example but I think that it proves by point :P

[Empire]

Hopefully I'm not necrobumping this but...
I say Moral Relativism
Otherwise their entire culture would be contradictory. \

:/ society is always hypocritical.

Murder may be acceptable, but in ethical terms what they are doing is still wrong. Just because they are another group of people, does not mean ethics doesn't apply.

[droppy]

:/ society is always hypocritical.

Murder may be acceptable, but in ethical terms what they are doing is still wrong. Just because they are another group of people, does not mean ethics doesn't apply.

But therein lies the problem. Because in relative morality, murder wouldn't be wrong based upon their ethics but obviously it is considered wrong in a majority of the world.

[Empire]

But therein lies the problem. Because in relative morality, murder wouldn't be wrong based upon their ethics but obviously it is considered wrong in a majority of the world.

their ethics

Ethics is not a subject where you just go "oh that's my opinion" and it's untouchable.

:/

There is no "their ethics", morality encompasses everyone.
----------------------------------------

You should think of ethics as a science, not an opinion.

[droppy]

Ethics is not a subject where you just go "oh that's my opinion" and it's untouchable.

:/

There is no "their ethics", morality encompasses everyone.
----------------------------------------

You should think of ethics as a science, not an opinion.

I disagree. The interpretation of a deed as either good or bad is dependent upon the culture and society that the person is a part of. Morality is a reflection of ethics, therefore ethics relative to the observer

[Empire]

I disagree. The interpretation of a deed as either good or bad is dependent upon the culture and society that the person is a part of. Morality is a reflection of ethics, therefore ethics relative to the observer

You've never taken an ethics class have you?

Edit: Simple answer: You are mistaking the process ethics takes for an opinion.
------------
Argument:

Person A murders person B
-Ethics tells us it's wrong.
--But what if society is ok with murder?
----Still wrong.

Just because people may accept a morally wrong thing, doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong.
-------------------------------

You need to explain why something is morally good or bad in ethics, not just say "well i think it's wrong". The argument of "because it is accepted by a society" is a very poor one.

[droppy]

You've never taken an ethics class have you?

Edit: Simple answer: You are mistaking the process ethics takes for an opinion.
------------
Argument:

Person A murders person B
-Ethics tells us it's wrong.
--But what if society is ok with murder?
----Still wrong.

Just because people may accept a morally wrong thing, doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong.
-------------------------------

You need to explain why something is morally good or bad in ethics, not just say "well i think it's wrong". The argument of "because it is accepted by a society" is a very poor one.

I actually have taken an ethics class.
<_< I'll give you this one Empire... I can't think of a rebuttal
Well played >_>

[Ferris Bueller]

You've never taken an ethics class have you?

Edit: Simple answer: You are mistaking the process ethics takes for an opinion.
------------
Argument:

Person A murders person B
-Ethics tells us it's wrong.
--But what if society is ok with murder?
----Still wrong.

Just because people may accept a morally wrong thing, doesn't change the fact that it is morally wrong.
-------------------------------

You need to explain why something is morally good or bad in ethics, not just say "well i think it's wrong". The argument of "because it is accepted by a society" is a very poor one.

You're looking at morals from a too tunnel-visioned point of view.

A better example than the cannibal example would be suicide.

In most religions and cultures, suicide is unacceptable and extremely frowned upon if not outlawed.

Does that mean that suicide should is wrong and whoever does it is immoral?

I'm not claiming anything, just putting that out there.

[Empire]

You're looking at morals from a too tunnel-visioned point of view.

A better example than the cannibal example would be suicide.

In most religions and cultures, suicide is unacceptable and extremely frowned upon if not outlawed.

Does that mean that suicide should is wrong and whoever does it is immoral?

I'm not claiming anything, just putting that out there.

You quoted me but didn't read what I posted.....


Again: Ethics/morality takes the systematic approach to things. Just because some religion/society disapproves does not mean it is wrong or right. This, just like science, is not determined by the beliefs of the majority.

Another case for belief =/= truth.

---------------
On the case of suicide: Well ethically I think it falls into the category of "self-harm", so it's immoral.

Depend upon the type of suicide and the circumstances of course, as there are many in the case of suicide.


Usually suicide is a thing you do by the case, not in-general for ethics because of the complications that can be.
--------------------------

[The Void Aroma]

Morals are tangible in thought only. They are human creations. Of course it's relativism!