|
BBtB, you said that your two things (murder and restrictions) were *always* wrong in *all* societies.
I showed you that murder isn't always wrong, which you dismissed by saying that even though society may accept it, it is still wrong. That doesn't matter: the society accepts it, thus you have been proven wrong in saying that murder is always (seen as) wrong. If you didn't mean that, please explain what you mean.
I showed you that the restrictions on religion and stuff is not always (seen as) wrong by societies, particularly extreme ones with extreme political systems. Again, this goes against your statement that it's always wrong.
Now, I might agree with you that (to me) murder and restrictions on religion are wrong, but not every society agrees. That is precisely where moral relativism comes in: they don't see something as wrong, and in their society/culture it *isn't* wrong.
I have the following suggestions:
1) Humans need to have certain (moral) rules to live together.
2) Without rules, one would have anarchy, precluding growth of a culture/society.
3) Thus, In order to have a viable society, one needs fixed moral rules.
4) Morality, like culture, is a human invention. It is a system of rules that slowly grows and evolves.
5) Some moral systems result in successful societies, others do not. Our western system seems successful, whereas others (Aztecs) were not.
Now, perhaps it would be possible to proof that our system of morality is the "best" system for creating our culture and society; if so, it is reasonable to assume that we're on the right track. That does *not* mean, however, that this moral system is anything but an invention. It is there to facilitate human interaction,
|