As I walk into my first lecture for my business ethics course, my professor (a particularly passionate PhD in philosophy) dedicated the first half-hour of the lecture to tearing down the concept of moral relativity, ensuring it wouldn't be made an important issue in further class discussions.
I, being somewhat a proponent of moral relativity, was a bit affronted by this, though I'll try to dissect his argument...
QUOTE First off, morals are different from culture to culture. If there is no basis (moral laws) to make one culture's morals superior to another's, then what authority would we have to stop any other culture from acting as they please? For example, should morals be completely relativistic, then on what grounds did we interfere with the Holocaust? What moral basis could we have in stopping any genocide if each culture is just as moral as the other?
The question I had in response was, "On what grounds shouldn't we interfere with genocide? By what authority can't we interfere with such crimes against humanity, even if the enemy has an entirely different moral compass?" Just because having such moral laws pervading the universe would be nice, and would further our sense of righteousness, it does NOT make it so! To me, that line of argument boils down to "I think there are absolute moral laws in the universe, because I want there to be moral laws in the universe." I definitely understand this sentiment, and lived by it for most of my life, but I've long since ceased to give weight to arguments simply because they raise me and/or mankind on a pedestal.
What do you think? Are there any absolute moral laws governing this universe? Would any moral laws necessitate the existence of a God? Do such laws need to exist in order for society to be morally upright?
I, being somewhat a proponent of moral relativity, was a bit affronted by this, though I'll try to dissect his argument...
QUOTE First off, morals are different from culture to culture. If there is no basis (moral laws) to make one culture's morals superior to another's, then what authority would we have to stop any other culture from acting as they please? For example, should morals be completely relativistic, then on what grounds did we interfere with the Holocaust? What moral basis could we have in stopping any genocide if each culture is just as moral as the other?
The question I had in response was, "On what grounds shouldn't we interfere with genocide? By what authority can't we interfere with such crimes against humanity, even if the enemy has an entirely different moral compass?" Just because having such moral laws pervading the universe would be nice, and would further our sense of righteousness, it does NOT make it so! To me, that line of argument boils down to "I think there are absolute moral laws in the universe, because I want there to be moral laws in the universe." I definitely understand this sentiment, and lived by it for most of my life, but I've long since ceased to give weight to arguments simply because they raise me and/or mankind on a pedestal.
What do you think? Are there any absolute moral laws governing this universe? Would any moral laws necessitate the existence of a God? Do such laws need to exist in order for society to be morally upright?