Results 1 to 1 of 1
Thread: Morality is not Relative (was A
10-09-1998, 11:16 AM #1Tim NuttingGuest
Morality is not Relative (was A
| How on earth can someone be "wrong about morality" - morality can't be
| divided into right and wrong except on a totally individual basis. You may
| find another person's actions to be morally wrong, but that is in no way an
| absolute - it is simply your moral view. And while I accept that there are
| some things (eg. murder) that most people will agree are morally "wrong", it
| is still only a relative view - relative to the societal (I think that's the
| word I want!) average if you will.
Morals are not free for individual decision. Morals are a function of
societies, and when a person does not fit with a society's mores, that person
is a sociopathic.
Right and Wrong are defined by a society. That society sets laws that punish
those who do wrong. Further, the society itself establishes a common ground of
acceptable behavior. When that behavior is violated, penalties occur.
Morality is defined by religion and philosophy. In the West it was represented
by the message of Christianity, in the Near East it began as the Code of
Hammurabi, in the East it began as Dharma (or "right living" the predecessor to
Morals and Ethics will teach a person what is good and what is evil. Good and
Evil are absolute, my friends. Contrary to what the liberals would have us
believe, Justice, Honor, Truth, and all the rest of it still mean something.
Well, that's it for now.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By James Ruhland in forum MPGN Mailinglist archive 1996-1999Replies: 0Last Post: 01-13-1998, 09:10 PM