Moral Relativity

[Justinian]

It is common to hear, when making a values judgment about another culture or people in a different time period, that "you are judging them through a 21st century perspective", or "it was another time -- they didn't know better" or "their morality differs from you; it's just their culture". This has been used to explain away all matter of practices ranging from the inane to the bizarre to the barbaric; though ironically, the perspective that we need to view other cultures through their perspective and not our own is a 21st century one, as for better or for worse (almost always for worse) we didn't stop to think about that in the past.

My problem with this is that I do not believe in any kind of moral relativity -- I find it to be an illogical and inconsistent concept which devalues a key aspect of humanity. This discussion came up on another website and I think it took an interesting turn, so I'd like to repost it here and hopefully spur more debate on the topic because it is one I feel is very important. The context of discussion is how rape was considered to be not wrong in many different cultures in the past, so that should hopefully explain any passing references to it. So this is what I wrote on the subject of moral relativity:

(in response to: "Well you're looking at "wrong" through a 21st century humanist perspective.")
I hear this a lot. It's a difficult thing to tackle, because on the one hand, yes of course it's true, I view things from a 21st century perspective because that is my perspective; the question is whether that in any way invalidates my claim to right and wrong -- that is, does the time in which one makes a moral observation have any bearing on the legitimacy of the observation? This is not true of any more finite observation, so why should it be true of morality? Consider the scientific -- whether you are stating the Earth is (near) spherical and not flat in the 21st century or the 2nd, you are no less right. The difference is in what tools were available to people to affirm their observation, not in the truth of the observation itself. Or take gravity -- people have always known that things fall to the ground, because you can see it happen, but it took 4,000 years of human development to figure out what force causes it. Had Ahamahet the Egyptian formulated Isaac Newton's theory in the 10th century BC, he would have been just as right as Isaac Newton. So the time in which one makes an observation about the general way that things work logically has no bearing on how true it is. What makes morality any different from this?

If a 12th century knight had said "you know what, rape is wrong because it violates the personal rights of the victim, shows a lack of respect and restraint for our fellow humans, and is a base and animal act", would he have been wrong to say so because the prevailing view in his time was the opposite? Does the opinion of the masses effect the truth of a statement? Does the fact that 90% of people in modern Western society would agree with my moral views make mine true and the Sudanese female circumciser's false?

Of course the problem is that unlike the scientific, morality cannot be measured and proven to be "correct" or "incorrect", "right" or "wrong". The only thing we can PROVE about morality is that the concept exists, and has existed for recorded history, which would suggest it is as innately and uniquely human a concept as something like love or philosophy -- which gives it some power both as a force in our lives.

Another problem my viewpoint encounters is that the only way it is possible to make a factual moral statement is within the framework of one's own morality. Something is wrong because I feel it is wrong, because that is the innate moral sense that I have and many share.

This all is if and only if if I accept and we all accept the concept that morality is relative and not finite. And I think there is less for me to prove by saying that morality is not relative -- simply the concept was less developed in the past, like gravity or the perceived shape of the earth, which means that the majority of people held the wrong opinion but if someone had surfaced with the "right" opinion centuries early, he would have been right. That morality has progressed in a mostly linear way with fluctuations. There is more for you to prove that morality IS relative -- superficially it's an easier argument to make (people believe different things, murder and rape are acceptable in some places and not others, etc), but you then have to ask the 'why' which is the question that drives human knowledge. And I believe closer examination makes the argument for moral relativity disintegrate.

If morality IS relative, then all morality is worthless; an idea is meaningless if it is true in some situations and not in others. It is illogical to even accept it as an idea, which would make the only thing holding you back from doing as you please and satisfying your purely animal urges the fear of retribution from society, and what does that make you? If morality IS relative it creates a situation in which morality is true in EVERY situation, which is a paradox -- if morality is relative and thus always true whenever anyone has a concept of morality, that morality is ALWAYS wrong whenever anyone has a concept of morality, because my morality and Papua New Guinea tribesmen's moralities are incompatible, in much the same way that all religions cannot be simultaneously right (because being simultaneously right would make them simultaneously wrong). It's like the philosophical equivalent of dividing by zero, you have to do all kinds of complex things to get around the roadblock you've created, whereas I can just say 'that's undefined and I don't need to learn more complex math, so let's just move on'.

The only consistent way to say morality is relative is to say that it is neither right or wrong ... but since 'rightness' and 'wrongness' are the key concepts OF morality, doing this once again makes it worthless.

So the only way in which morality is worth a damn thing at all is to say that it is constant, and the only way to have any moral feelings -- it is wrong to murder and rape children, for example -- without being a hypocrite is to accept morality as not being relative. If morality is relative then you must accept it is a worthless concept and that there is no reason to feel things are wrong or right, which would surely entail some amount of self-examination.

Either a concept that seems to be deeply ingrained in the human mind on a level deeper than social construction for millenia is absolutely worthless, or there is some kind of quantifiable truth to it ... which is an uncomfortable view for an atheist like me to hold because of the questions it raises.

So what do you think?

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I think that guy is quite right. The "moral relativism" idea is illogical and absurd. If morals are relative, then they are nothing more than your opinion. Not a standard of how you should live your life, regardless of where or when you live(d).

[Justinian]

That guy is me, I wrote that.

It's just so common to hear "it's another culture" and I find this to be such a mind-boggling concept for exactly the reasons you said. It devalues a concept that is, like it or not, a core part of being human.

[wilpuri]

That guy is me, I wrote that.

It's just so common to hear "it's another culture" and I find this to be such a mind-boggling concept for exactly the reasons you said. It devalues a concept that is, like it or not, a core part of being human.

What, that people think differently in other cultures? You don't have to agree with their morals, its a matter of live and let live.

[Justinian]

What, that people think differently in other cultures? You don't have to agree with their morals, its a matter of live and let live.

Except that in specific cases I'm talking about (ie, turning a blind eye to cultures where it's okay to kill or mutilate others for no reason) it isn't live and let live, it's (as the famous song goes) live and let die, or at least suffer.

Morality is an animalistic urge, like a lioness that brings food to a sick lion, or a hyena adopting a cub that lost its mother, or a dolphin risking its life to rescue drowning sailors from sharks. They're animals just like us, we're no better or worse.

I see no shred of evidence that animals possess any kind of morality. A dog that has grown attached to its master will fight to protect its master -- but with no such attachment, is just as likely to try to bite his face off. It is common to see animals eating corpses because they're there. Is this wrong? For an animal, no -- because they're animals. A hyena may adopt a cub out of simple maternal instinct which requires no higher thought or moral reason -- what sets morality apart is that it is not the belief that you shouldn't do something (or should), it's the feeling you should/shouldn't do something BECAUSE of some underlying cause.

To equate humans with animals on all levels is nonsensical. Physically we are animals and we have animal instincts, but to ignore the fact that we have higher cognitive thought (which is the only reason we're talking about this in the first place) -- and that animals do not -- is ignoring arguably the most important difference between humans and animals. An animal might help out another animal out of pack instinct, but it would not help out an enemy and probably would not try to save a member of a different species. It all started with evolution, but we evolved minds which want to create a higher purpose from our lives and animals did not.

If they did, I'd feel rather guilty about eating their delicious meat. But I don't, because they're animals, and we operate on a higher plane than they do. And if an animal demonstrates higher thought I would become a vegetarian.

Before we can look at morality we must look to the human species and what has become of us. If as some would assert, it is only a matter of self-survival, then morality would only apply in the sense that you might be offended by the action of others, whereas your own actions, for you, would be natural. Then you would live by no morals or scruples to survive.

This is assuming that humans are so stupid we think we can do what we want and still expect good treatment from others rather than reciprocation. If you kill and steal, you wouldn't be surprised to be stolen from or killed. Which is probably part of the reason we stopped doing that to eachother in the first place, so everyone could coexist. In my mind, morality is not about self-survival, it's about a society's survival. Humans are social animals.

But, from the other point that we are all here for a purpose, we lost what was the ultimate in morality by the fall of man wherein it was said that none could do that which was right. Our fallen nature has taken us into a situation that has not changed unto this day. Man is still the same. We want to do right but we can't. Within that context, we were given laws, that if by the doing we would be changed nature wise, but none ever aspired to manage that.

Sorry, you lost me here. I get the basic gist of what you're saying but the last sentence doesn't make any sense. But the appeal to religion isn't what I was looking for -- I'd rather keep the argument within the quantifiable realms of reason and logic. Not to say religions are wrong, as my personal opinion of them is as irrelevant as they are to this discussion, IMO.

Morality transcends religion, religion does not transcend morality (you think Christians/Jews were the first people to think it was wrong to kill?)

So in response we invented our own laws to cover the society in which we found ourselves but laws are not for the moral but the immoral or ammoral. We don't keep them, from the smallest to the largest we can't and so no matter what these are we find ourselves as humanity quite incapable to be as moral as the laws we make. And we build on that by introducing new ones as if these will improve our situation. We know they don't.

I agree that laws are based off morals. But not all laws. Some laws exist for pure logic only (like adverse possession, for example ... there isn't anything inherently moral about that law).

In the old days a man could brandish a weapon to get what he wanted. Today a man clothed in the best of suiting can pull out the same weapon to get what he wants and today, unlike those of old, he probably has most things that he needs, but by his nature enough is never enough. Yesteryear he would be off pillaging and raping in the lands of others, today he pillages and rapes his nearest neighbours. No, man is no different today than he was thousands of years ago.

I think the fact that fewer people literally pillage and rape is a bit of a step up, don't you?

[MaximiIian]

I agree with moral relativism only up to the point that it would ignore the ethic of reciprocity.
And, personally, I do view ancient cultures from a modern point of view; the modern POV isn't just different, it's better. Example: the Romans were dicks; yeah, their dickery is explained by their culture...but it is not excused by it.

[Romanman]

i'd answer you questions with questions of my own

1. where do you get your morality.
A higher power? well im agnostic, and what would you say to other religions that supported human saccrifice.
Maybe you don't have a theistic belief? then where does your sense of morality come from "if there is no god anything is permitted"

For me i don't believe anything is IN-ITSELF good or evil like in christianity for instance certain things are described as good or evil. however i think society puts values on actions (good/evil) depending on a persons or society in generals beliefs/values. Thats why we have different religions, political parties, wars, alliances, philosophy. If everyone knew what the standard of good and evil was there would be no arguement.

so what motivates people:
a belief in freedom
what would god do?
what do I want?

It all goes back to Aristotle who said that everyone does the stuff they do because they think it will make them happy the difference is what they think will make them happy.

I think you'll find that what you believe is wrong is usually what you've been told is wrong since you were a child, look at the children in cults and listen to what they say and how they feel.

If we don't have moral relativism what do we have? Moral Absolutism????? how do you compensate for the millions of people who have been killed for the GREATER GOOD. Human sacrifices, crusades, would you steal to save your life, would you kill to save your own life, the collective health vs individual freesom. How do you compensate all this with moral absolutism?

[Justinian]

1. where do you get your morality.
A higher power? well im agnostic, and what would you say to other religions that supported human saccrifice.
Maybe you don't have a theistic belief? then where does your sense of morality come from "if there is no god anything is permitted"

Well that's the question isn't it? As I'm not religious, my best guess would be evolution and the formation of human society -- a society cannot function if its members are continuously locked in discord with one another, and humans developed over time into social animals. As such we have ingrained notions of 'right' or 'wrong' whose goal is to protect societal cohesion and make it possible for humans to function together. I think this is the origin of morals but they grew on their own in the minds of people who evaluated life; what was initially a tool for survival which did not prevent people from murdering and killing enemies developed through philosophy into something all humans should subscribe to.

The reasoning for this -- the 'why' of morality -- is simple and does not rely on religion. This is all there is; there is nothing else, no heaven or hell to go to after we die. As such, it should be our chief goal to make the best of what time we have: to learn the most, to do the most, et cetera. This has been called many things but I like enlightenment. And since this is all we have, there is no commodity more precious or valuable than human life, and humans owe it to eachother not to steal and abuse the most valuable commodity of all.

For me i don't believe anything is IN-ITSELF good or evil like in christianity for instance certain things are described as good or evil. however i think society puts values on actions (good/evil) depending on a persons or society in generals beliefs/values. Thats why we have different religions, political parties, wars, alliances, philosophy. If everyone knew what the standard of good and evil was there would be no arguement.

so what motivates people:
a belief in freedom
what would god do?
what do I want?

Morality is something that operates on both levels of human thinking -- the philosophical and analytical, and the 'gut' feeling. I can analyze why the rape and murder of a child is wrong, but I also know it's wrong on a more base level. Social conditioning? Sure, I won't argue that it's not. But these feelings had to have come from somewhere for some reason -- everything starts somewhere, and it would be nonsensical to assume that mores don't exist for a reason. I truly believe that the development of our morality and empathy for other human beings is a step on the path of evolution and human enlightenment.

If we don't have moral relativism what do we have? Moral Absolutism????? how do you compensate for the millions of people who have been killed for the GREATER GOOD. Human sacrifices, crusades, would you steal to save your life, would you kill to save your own life, the collective health vs individual freesom. How do you compensate all this with moral absolutism?

I don't understand what you're getting at here, I never said that everything that happens is good (it's nearly the opposite, most things that happen are bad). People killed for the "greater good" usually should never have died in the first place. All those things you are describing are things that moral relativists would say we should not interfere with because just because we think they're wrong, someone else thinks they're right and their view should be "respected". Yet no one was saying "it's just their culture" when the Holocaust was going on so why is it an excuse to sit idly by and do nothing while atrocities are commited?

I wouldn't call it moral absolutism, though it's a definition that fits. That seems like a totalitarian word to me But the question is not how it's possible to reconcile what happens in the world with moral absolutism, it's how do you reconcile what happens in the world with moral relativism? I know that people everywhere have some concept of right and wrong and consciously choose to do wrong anyway -- or delude themselves into thinking what's wrong is right. But I think it's very important to consider that most people need to convince themselves what's wrong is right before they are willing to do it -- they are not comfortable with doing things that are wrong with the knowledge they are wrong. Enemies must be dehumanized before they are killed.

This speaks to the innate nature of morality -- killing another human always seems wrong and as such, in cultures where murder is acceptable (small tribes on I think New Guinea are an example) it is only acceptable if the victim is of another tribe and thus 'not really human'. It isn't just "murder is okay because human life is worthless".

@Monarchist: I definitely agree with you. I am a very liberal guy, I'm an atheist, yet I find the concept of moral relativism both illogical (that's my higher thinking talking) and repulsive (my gut thinking talking). It isn't a concept that makes any sense at all and I don't know why moral relativism became intwined with liberalism.

No, we shouldn't interfere in other people's cultures -- as long as no one is being harmed on a large scale in social injustice. Then it is our duty as humans to do something. You cannot say 'we shouldn't have tried to stop the genocide in Rwanda because genocide is just in their culture' or 'the Nazis culture was just to murder innocents so we shouldn't have stopped them' or 'we shouldn't try to help Darfur because it's just their culture'. It's a cowardly cop out. Nothing is more valuable than human life, clearly there is something special about us -- we are the only animals with morality, with higher thought. So why should we seek to emulate that which is under us and accept things we know on some level are wrong?

Think of it this way -- a man and his wife travel from a country where honor killing is legal to a country where it is not (say the US). He kills his wife because he thinks she cheated on him, and is tried and convicted and sent to jail for life for murder. His defense is "in my culture, this is what we do". This defense is rejected because it's undeniably wrong according to the law of the land.

Are you moral relativists out there telling me that somehow a few thousand miles have altered the fundamental concepts of right and wrong? I am not talking the legality of this action, I am talking the morality of it. If so, please explain how this a logical position to take. I wasn't aware there was a relationship between distance and morality.

Morality is relative to its society, they can only be decided by a concensus.

My whole post was arguing against this line of reasoning, I think I provided multiple reasons why it's illogical so I'm a little puzzle you simply restated what I was trying to refute. If morality is relative to whatever society it occurs in, all morality is simultaneously right, which is impossible.

[CtrlAltDe1337]

And, personally, I do view ancient cultures from a modern point of view; the modern POV isn't just different, it's better. Example: the Romans were dicks; yeah, their dickery is explained by their culture...but it is not excused by it.

That is indeed true up to a certain point. You can't rip historical events out of context, but you also can't say "well their values were just as valid as ours," even though they include obviously immoral actions.

i'd answer you questions with questions of my own

1. where do you get your morality.
A higher power? well im agnostic, and what would you say to other religions that supported human saccrifice.
Maybe you don't have a theistic belief? then where does your sense of morality come from "if there is no god anything is permitted"

Well, I would strongly affirm that morals come from God, but they are clearly evident through nature, regardless of your religious belief (although I think that lends support to the idea of God, since it would be strange for those values to come from nowhere, but thats another topic). I think a person can be an atheist yet still see the reality that concrete morals exist.

In addition to nature, your conscience tells you what is right and wrong (unless you ignore it, then it starts to stop bothering you over time).

If we don't have moral relativism what do we have? Moral Absolutism????? how do you compensate for the millions of people who have been killed for the GREATER GOOD. Human sacrifices, crusades, would you steal to save your life, would you kill to save your own life, the collective health vs individual freesom. How do you compensate all this with moral absolutism?

"Moral absolutism" as you are using it is not the same thing as believing in proper morals. Its quite opposite actually, since I could do an immoral act for "the greater good," that its still immoral. For example, if I could go back in time and murder Hitler when he was a child, it would definitely be for the greater good, but then I would be as rotten as Hitler, since I'm doing the same thing as he did (murder). I hope that makes sense

Unlike the fact that the earth is more or less spherical, morality does change. You say that morality is "true" but that's the whole point: it isn't. Morality can be one thing in this century, and a completely different thing in the next. Unless you believe that God gave us morality, in which case the discussion ends.

Someone said that if morality is relative, then it is redundant and nothing more than your oppinion. And that is true, because morality is nothing more than your (or a collectives) oppinion on how to live your life.

I disagree. Our perception of what is moral can change, but what is good and bad does not. Murder is not right one century or in one country and wrong in another. Stealing or human sacrifices are not right one century and wrong in another, even though people's perception of what is right and wrong may change. I may be convinced that I can murder my daughter if she marries outside my religion and it be moral (like honor killings in some Muslim countries), but does it make it moral? I think its moral, but thinking something is moral does not make it moral. I can think the earth is a flat disc, but does that make the earth a flat disc? Of course not.

In short, our understanding of the absolute moral code may change, but the code itself doesn't change.

[Denny Crane!]

Hmm I'll give a longer reply when I'm not sitting with 20 posts I want to look at.

If morality is relative then it renders the concept of morality rather redundant. Away from the idea that this is a fundamental valuative way of judging the principles and actions of ones life to a comparative tool of one set of social values to another. I've never truly seen the rationality of moral nihilism. If there is preffered behaviour in a society, if there are common values that we all surely must live by to remain socially cohesive then morality exists as a fundamental part of human nature and is objective not relative to time or place. If that makes any sense.

[Monarchist]

This is precisely the sort of logical thought and moral absolutism which is required in the modern world. C.S. Lewis inspired me most of all writers in this subject, as he was particularly annoyed by this subject. The man often wrote many words on moral relativism in the 'modern' world (to him, 1944, but basically anything post-Victorian), and how destructive it is. I realize that this thread is about different cultures, but I think that two individual human beings are equally different 'cultures' unto themselves!

Take, for example, the common occurrence of a man standing in line at a grocery store. He is talking to his friend, who is also getting his shopping done, and is extolling the virtues of moral relativism, cultural equality, and other such modernist values to him. He says that no one thing is really all that true, and that we must be sure to respect every opinion of everyone else. We cannot talk about moral absolutes, he says, but that all cultures and people are different, so each morality must be respected with the full force of tolerance and sensitivity. The man's friend then agrees with him, pushes him aside, and takes his spot in the line waiting at the grocery checkout. The man asks "Why did you just push in front of me in line? That was my spot!" His friend answers: "Well, I wanted to get out of the store more quickly. Since there are no social mores which are absolute, and since nothing can be wrong because everyone is right, then you must respect my butting ahead. It is the only proper thing." The man complains endlessly about this egregious breach of etiquette and morality.

Likewise, if there were no true moral absolutes, why do 'liberal democrats', the people most likely to extol the virtues (an irony; how can anything be 'virtuous' if all morals are equally true?) of moral relativism, speak of peace treaties and alliances with other nations? If no moral side is really true and all is nothing but human posturing, why should peace treaties be stuck to, or why should loyalty be kept in an alliance? After all, if nothing is truly wrong and nothing is truly right, anyone can break any alliance or back-stab his friend at any time. This view perplexes me, and I cannot understand where relativism comes from, let alone how it has become accepted amongst so many people.

Mao Tse Tung was just from a different culture, you see. He was a fine man!

EDIT: I think that, God or not, there is a natural foundation for human rights. It can be simply explained by one word: body. When a person is born into this world, and as the mind develops, that person can objectively be said to own his body. Even the greatest moral relativist must accept this, or else he can justify removing any mind from its body; i.e., murder. However, if the human mind can be said to own its body as 'territory', if you will, or as 'property', then, by extension, it is theft to take the body away from the mind. Murder/homicide does just that, and only evil people believe that the act of murder is justified. The only way one can reject this notion of human rights based on the idea of the body as property is if one does not believe in the soul. In this case, of course, anyone might murder the 'owner' of the body, because after all it was just a bunch of neurons.

Moral relativism is often harmless in the modern western hippie mode, but at its core it is a rejection of the possibility of good. Once that precedence is established, say hello to our friend genocide.

[Arch-hereticK]

Morality is relative to its society, they can only be decided by a concensus.

[Monarchist]

Yes, yes, and yes! I think that the best argument against moral relativism between cultures is the short one. A person who fervently believes that all morality is relative believes that moral relativism is a moral absolute. Aren't I a stinker?

[Nimthill]

Unlike the fact that the earth is more or less spherical, morality does change. You say that morality is "true" but that's the whole point: it isn't. Morality can be one thing in this century, and a completely different thing in the next. Unless you believe that God gave us morality, in which case the discussion ends.

Someone said that if morality is relative, then it is redundant and nothing more than your oppinion. And that is true, because morality is nothing more than your (or a collectives) oppinion on how to live your life.

[MaximiIian]

Saying that moral relativism "reduces morality to mere opinions" devalues the notion of opinions moreso than it devalues the notion of morality. Why are opinions seen as such a bad thing? After all, it is one's opinions that constitute one's point of view.

[Nimthill]

Saying that moral relativism "reduces morality to mere opinions" devalues the notion of opinions moreso than it devalues the notion of morality. Why are opinions seen as such a bad thing? After all, it is one's opinions that constitute one's point of view.

They constitute your point of view, yes, but not that of others. And its the same with morality. However, the OP seems to be implying that his morality (or our morality as westerners) applies to all people, in all ages. It simply doesn't, because it has changed since then.


To use the newtonian laws of gravity; if aristotle had discovered these he would have been correct. But if gravity changed after that, they no longer hold true.

[MaximiIian]

They constitute your point of view, yes, but not that of others.

That would be a valid dissuasion, if I were not an egotist.
But I am, so it's not.

To use the newtonian laws of gravity; if aristotle had discovered these he would have been correct. But if gravity changed after that, they no longer hold true.

With your Pragmatism, you sound more American than Dutch.

[Justinian]

They constitute your point of view, yes, but not that of others. And its the same with morality. However, the OP seems to be implying that his morality (or our morality as westerners) applies to all people, in all ages. It simply doesn't, because it has changed since then.


To use the newtonian laws of gravity; if aristotle had discovered these he would have been correct. But if gravity changed after that, they no longer hold true.

Ah but this is exactly my point; morality does not shift with the winds as it were, it remains constant (like the speed of time) no matter who or where the observer is. The only thing that changes is how people perceive right and wrong. The basic concepts of what is right and wrong have not changed much over the centuries; what's changed is how willing people are to rationalize something they know is wrong so that they can do it anyway.

There has always been a concept of right and wrong throughout written history. So that is as concrete as a human idea can be. The only thing that has changed is what people consider to be right or wrong -- and why is there any reason to think that our current consideration of this is an imperfect but superior one to those of centuries ago? Besides, I'd bet you money that there damn well were people in the Middle Ages saying "hey, guys, wait a second, rape is wrong" or "maybe we shouldn't kill these people". Columbus for example wanted to convert all the Native Americans to Christianity -- not slaughter them.

[Yaga Shu Ra]

Ah but this is exactly my point; morality does not shift with the winds as it were, it remains constant (like the speed of time) no matter who or where the observer is. The only thing that changes is how people perceive right and wrong. The basic concepts of what is right and wrong have not changed much over the centuries; what's changed is how willing people are to rationalize something they know is wrong so that they can do it anyway.

There has always been a concept of right and wrong throughout written history. So that is as concrete as a human idea can be. The only thing that has changed is what people consider to be right or wrong (*)

What we consider right and wrong could be regarded as a code of conduct; an ideal image defining that wich is forbidden (immoral) and that wich is allowed (moral).
If a specific rendering of such an image is susceptible to change in composition, it cannot be unmovable... right?

(*) Quote taken from post #16

[Arch-hereticK]

"Are you moral relativists out there telling me that somehow a few thousand miles have altered the fundamental concepts of right and wrong? I am not talking the legality of this action, I am talking the morality of it. If so, please explain how this a logical position to take. I wasn't aware there was a relationship between distance and morality."

No, morality has nothing to do with distance. I said it has to do with society, morality can only be viewed from whatever society you're from. Right and wrong are relative, you say honour killing is wrong, in a society where it's ok they'd say it's right.

I think it's wrong to kill, but in Texas they think it's ok to kill criminals, which is supported by a concensus, who's more moral?

It's not about right and wrong, it's about how our "morality" profits our society; the greater the need the more flexible morality becomes. That is obvious from history and animals: for instance there are bees; they would not profit from a large number of breeding females. If an egg is found by "searcher" drones (similar to police) the egg would be investigated and the scent would be traced to the criminal mother to be punished. There is a "moral" system at work here just the same as ours.