i always thought morals were unchangeable, non-negotiable rules of how to behave. if so, how can they be relative? you may say that a certain rule doesn%26#039;t apply in a certain situation, but to say that you can change the rules is basically saying the rule doesn%26#039;t exist, as rules only exist when they are able to force people to follow them.|||Where morals are unchangeable and non- negotiable, that is called absolute morality, and like you said, the rules never change.
Relative morality is where a certain rule can be changed depending on your own feelings of right or wrong, so instead of blindly following the rules of, say, the Bible, you trust your conscience.For example, would you kill someone, if you had the chance, if they were going to go on and murder and torture millions? If you say yes, then you are disregarding %26#039;do not kill%26#039;, so it is not a case of absolute morality, but relative to the situation.|||When you have relatives in high places that help you up the ladder .|||ALL morality is relative...
even though there is no morality...|||Well that%26#039;s simple-- you thought wrong. Morality has never been unchanging.
Morality changes from culture to culture, society to society, age to age.
Morality came about from people who wanted to live together as a society, realizing it was beneficial, but realizing there needed to be %26quot;ground rules.%26quot;
As societies change and adapt and transition, so do many morals.|||I was brought up to believe that morals were %26quot;unchangeable, non-negotiable rules of how to behave%26quot;. However, I later realised that in the history of my religion, there had been dozens of differing versions, or differing interpretations. There had actually been many wars fought over it - even though %26#039;Thou shalt not kill%26quot; was supposed to be one of the most basic rules!
In theory there was a strange thing called a conscience which was supposed to help. I think the version of the religion I received was so corrupt that almost trace of this survived. We were told not to use our intelligence to try and work out if the religion made sense. But surely our intelligence was supposed to come from God?
When I declared my self a non believer, I was able to start to try and work out something that made sense. Some would say that I was developing a real conscience. I think that the idea that morals are relative is a massive advance on the idea that we should blindly obey whatever version of morality we happen to have been handed by chance of upbringing. Most of the atheists I know are more moral that the monks who once taught me!
And I can see now that some religions must have started with a core which was not corrupt.|||i know of moral athiests who are so good who dont steal lie cheat or anything. but then i know of people who admire god and go to church who kill people for fun.
whats your answer to that?
