RE: "Who am I to say rape and slavery are wrong?"
May 15, 2012 at 12:10 am
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2012 at 12:11 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:Morality, for me, seems to have come from great philosophers such as Socrates who had examined society
A bit too complex for me.Morality apparently existed in some in form from neolithic times, and has even been observed in chimps.
If there one reason for morality it is pragmatism; it has survival value,but is always subjective. If morality was objective with an external authority,it would be universal,absolute and unchanging, but it is none of those things.This position is called moral relativism.
0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Quote:Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.
Not all descriptive relativists adopt meta-ethical relativism, and moreover, not all meta-ethical relativists adopt normative relativism. Richard Rorty, for example, argued that relativist philosophers believe "that the grounds for choosing between such opinions is less algorithmic than had been thought," but not that any belief is equally as valid as any other.[1]
Moral relativism has been espoused, criticized, and debated for thousands of years, from ancient Greece and India down to the present day, in diverse fields including philosophy, science, and religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
