Do you view Morality as Universal or Relative?

Do you view morality as Universal or Relative?

(I view it as Universal, I believe nobody "owns" morality but I understand many disagree)

 

Morality is universal because what people currently and commonly known as morality, are the codified laws of action and reaction. Everything in Creation or as some refer to as: Existence is based on cause and effect / action and reaction; this is the basis of everything from people to single-celled amoeba.

 

All anyone needs to do is look at religions to KNOW morality is relative.

 

I disagree with both positions. I don't see any evidence for either universal and relative morality and believe in something more in Ayn Rand's philosophy of self-interest.

 

Of course morality is relative, otherwise we would have a rated R movie because Angelina Jolie showed her ankles.

 

Had to not vote as morality is situational, as displayed in life and especially in politics.

To some, whatever they do is moral and just, to others what they do is never either one.

 

I think part of the problem with the whole debate is that people equate relative morality with subjective morality, and they aren't the same thing. All subjective moral theories are relative, but not all relativistic moral theories are subjective.

I always like to use time as an example of the distinction. Thanks to physics, we know time is relative. It dilates. The closer you are to a massive object or the faster you are travelling compared to other objects, the slower time will pass for you. Time is relative. It depends on certain physical factors. But it isn't necessarily subjective, because it doesn't depend on my personal tastes or opinions. I may feel like time is passing by slowly, but it doesn't actually affect the ticking of my watch the way that my acceleration or proximity to massive objects does.

 

That is an excellent position to have. I feel that morality is likely subjective, of course, even if I am wrong it is unlikely to change my ideals. I believe in something of a collective interest of individuals with the same opinions. Opinions the same as my own, of course. Though for now it only seems to truly be self-interest as I have not found others like me.

 

Relative, of course.

For example, in Saudi Arabia it is immoral for a woman to show her face on the street and in the West it is perfectly normal (morally acceptable) and vice versa.

If you are so interested in the topic, perhaps you could give this podcast a listen - http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-science-of-morality-part-1-2-1.2913298

 

Relative...

... it often depends on which side...

... of the moral fence one is on.

 

Universal. There are fundamental basics for harmonious existence among self-reflective (and less self-reflective) species. Minutia such as women covering their heads or whether a person can used mind-altering substances is local in nature, more relative.

 

There are certain universal morals....being against things like rape, murder, etc....

However, most moral views depend on the believes and ideals of each person.

 

So everyone has there own morality in your world. No right or wrong....things just are. Shades of grey. Works really well doesn't it?

 

Yes, Germany legalized necrophilia....it's whatever blows your dress up!

 

Opinions are like belly buttons....everyone has one. What is the glue that holds society together?

 

I said nothing even remotely similar to the words you placed in my mouth. I pointed out that Islam has a different morality than Christianity and a Hindu believes differently than a Jew. Your words taste foul.

 

Within all of those faiths, there is a constant of "right and wrong". Morality is not relative...it is a constant. It is not derived by "feelings". If you have a foul taste, it is because you are eating the wrong things.

 

I suppose if we generalize morality into a simple term rather than use the actual meaning behind it, you might have a point. My commentary however was directed at the details of morality, which is clearly individualized and defined by everyone who experiences it. This "Constant of Right and Wrong" you say is there is certainly not constant when One religion condones killing and another is against it....that is called opposition.

 

Do you view Morality as Universal or Relative?

Both, depending on what specific aspect of morality you're discussing.

 

I would say being against necrophilia is a universal moral because of the fact that it endangers more than the person doing it because it spreads disease.

I would link object morality to the same rules that drive libertarianism. If it only effects you, believe, no one can tell you you are wrong. However, if it harms others, you have no right to do it.
I

 

Immorality of any sort has it's effects. It does not return void. It is like the tiniest pebble tossed into a calm lake. The ripples reach all sides. Some say I can inject heroin in the confines of my home. I hurt no one but myself....that is until I require public assistance in the form of medical aid.
I can think of many additional reasons why necrophilia is immoral. The spread of disease has not stopped the gay bath houses.

 

When I say effects others, I mean directly prevents them from living their own lives.

By your logic, it's immoral to eat unhealthy foods, or to drink or smoke because you could end could up needing medical care later on.

or to refuse to receive a vaccine because it could end with you getting a disease and needing medical aid.

 

Eating IS something everyone has to do in order to live.

 

But junk food, such as candy and fast food has little or no nutritional value. and it causes you to be unhealthy later on and need medical care. So it's it immoral for the same reason that you say using drugs is?

 

" You can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality". Ayn Rand.

I agreed with Rand on some things.