it or not, morals are relative."
to an extent; I've heard both sides argue yes and no (and morals are not
really what's at issue here - I'll get to that below). "Mores", or "social
mores", are definitely a term of relative measure - also defined as normative
within a particular culture or time.
however, can be defined as preferred actions taken based upon one's definition
of 'good', and this mostly revolves around issues of character. In other
words, morals are absolute at least in the sense that no one executes
an action they consider to be bad (whatever it may be) AND also calls it
there are certain specific acts, like violent rape or child molestation,
that are universally considered to be bad and, hence, immoral in
an absolute sense. Sexually molesting infants, for example, seems absolutely
immoral, an act that no one is successfully arguing to the contrary.
it possible someone out there perceives child molestation as a good thing,
and hence is moral relative to them? Yes, but in such a case I would argue
that extremely uncommon person's perceptions to be distorted and abnormal;
certainly not a case on which I'd stake the acceptance of moral relativity
or more notoriously moral equivalency.)
another sense, I can also accept that morals are relative. Morals
are relative in the sense that my perception of good may be different than
yours, and our resulting preferred actions, or morals, would then be different.
But this just transfers the discussion to the definition of good. And THAT
is the real issue.
there exist an absolute sense of good and bad, or good and evil? I would
argue they definitely do. It is a clear biblical theme, and I would personally
argue along the lines of C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. I'll elaborate
on that another day.
What is truth?
What does my lifestyle have to do
with loving God?