Objective morality Vs Relative morality.
IMHO - false dichotomy.
Humanity appears to have evolved to develop as a social creature. In order for that to work we have inherited a few tendencies that are probably instinctive.
These would include empathy, reciprocation and a basic sense of fairness.
Armed with those fundamental properties we develop morality in societies.
This provides for wide-scale similarities and marked differences.
I know of no society that condones murder or extreme violence amongst it societal members, nor one that encourages stealing of property.
All societies have provision for exceptional circumstances to the above, of course, usually during times of war but rarely relating to members of its own society except, possibly, during civil war.
When it comes down to other issues, possibly less fundamental, then relative values kick in. Society's response to things such as slavery, women's rights, treatment of minorities, homosexuality and so on and so forth vary widely.
The main tool throughout history for undermining morality has been religion. Its primary method is either to "define in stone" certain rules as coming from its deity, and/or ostracising groups that do not conform to its rules (which are not moral any more than any other religion).
Morality, it appears, pre-dates religion by about a million years in our own branch of evolution.
Morality (or possibly some kind of proto-morality) also appears to exist in other species.
In conclusion, therefore, my take is that morality is relative but built upon inherited tendencies that lead to certain aspects of it being pretty much absolute.
IMHO - false dichotomy.
Humanity appears to have evolved to develop as a social creature. In order for that to work we have inherited a few tendencies that are probably instinctive.
These would include empathy, reciprocation and a basic sense of fairness.
Armed with those fundamental properties we develop morality in societies.
This provides for wide-scale similarities and marked differences.
I know of no society that condones murder or extreme violence amongst it societal members, nor one that encourages stealing of property.
All societies have provision for exceptional circumstances to the above, of course, usually during times of war but rarely relating to members of its own society except, possibly, during civil war.
When it comes down to other issues, possibly less fundamental, then relative values kick in. Society's response to things such as slavery, women's rights, treatment of minorities, homosexuality and so on and so forth vary widely.
The main tool throughout history for undermining morality has been religion. Its primary method is either to "define in stone" certain rules as coming from its deity, and/or ostracising groups that do not conform to its rules (which are not moral any more than any other religion).
Morality, it appears, pre-dates religion by about a million years in our own branch of evolution.
Morality (or possibly some kind of proto-morality) also appears to exist in other species.
In conclusion, therefore, my take is that morality is relative but built upon inherited tendencies that lead to certain aspects of it being pretty much absolute.
Kuusi palaa, ja on viimeinen kerta kun annan vaimoni laittaa jouluvalot!
