(July 4, 2010 at 2:52 pm)Purple Rabbit Wrote: Hmm, it seems to me that moral progress is only possible without moral absolutes in whatever dogma. So relative morality is needed for moral progress.
In a society where half of the people believe that euthanasia is right and half believe it's wrong, we should enable the ones that want euthanasia for themselves and protect the ones who don't want it against it. There is no simple right or wrong in moral to be found.
We should avoid conflating relativism and consequentialism. Consequentialism bases morality on the consequences of an action, and is hence free of moral absolutes (this I'm in favour of), whilst relativism says that morality is essentially just the preferences of the society or individual. So consequentialism is relative, but only to the situation, not to anything else. People's wellbeing (and that would include non-humans) is the best basis for moral judgement, IMO.
'We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.' H.L. Mencken
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
'False religion' is the ultimate tautology.
'It is just like man's vanity and impertinence to call an animal dumb because it is dumb to his dull perceptions.' Mark Twain
'I care not much for a man's religion whose dog and cat are not the better for it.' Abraham Lincoln
