quote:
The implication is always that absolutist morality (i.e. killing another is always wrong) is in some way better than relativistic morality (i.e. killing another is sometimes wrong and sometimes right, depending on the situation).
Hmm. Maybe I'm just confused, but I've always had a different definition of absolute and relative morality than it seems most people here at EvC have.
You see, an absolute morality, to me, is one that exists beyond human influence. It is not created by humans, even though humans are subject to its rules. It is a morality that exists forever and always, doesn't change, and affects all people the same (e.g. 'judgement' after death).
A relativist, then, says that morality
does change, that each society defines its own morality. It really has nothing to do with the nuances of the rule. An absolutist can say that killing isn't
always wrong, but that no matter how nuanced the rule is, it always applies. I mean, look at all the Christians who oppose abortion but support the death penalty. I certainly wouldn't call them relativists.
On that same notion, a relativist can say that killing is always wrong, according to his society's current prevailing notion of morality.
I think people get confused when talking about morality. Absolute vs. relative really has nothing to do with what a particular rule actually
says but with the nature of that rule, how it's applied, who it affects, etc.
Just my two cents.