wilbjammin

If individuals can operate on their own in the macro-scale, then I'm failing to understand the difference between the micro-scale and the macro-scale.

It all sounds rather Hegelian to me, as though we're on a path then to a <i>perfectable</i> history in that the moralities that emerge in the end are strongest for humankind because they've won out. As a sort of morality-Darwinism:

I'm having great difficulty with this concept because of how abstract the individual becomes. People fighting against some moral issue and wanting change are "wallowing in immorality" until they create a significant macro-change and then they are normal agents of a non-static morality system? I find that our society has confusing and contradictory morals as well (individualism and consumerism vs. social security and charity). I guess you'd say that it is irrevelant how those work against each other and with each other, because as we can see on a macro-level how these work relatively to other cultures.

But, if individuals can affect change within a macro-culture by standing up against mores and creating a consciousness shift, then moral relativism by individuals within a culture isn't a sign of deficiency, but rather, is totally natural and healthy regardless of what the change is (esp. given that the inherent relative worth of a macro-level morality is null). The Civil Rights movement started off very small and with a lot of resistance with outright claims of injustice and immorality... the people involved at the beginning went through a lot of troubling times, even against people within their own culture (imagine going through lunch lines being told "how dare you" by a fellow black woman whose rights you are trying to help expand). Change is caused by individuals; individuals choose for themselves what is "right" and "wrong" or "good" and "bad" (or "evil). The only downside to this is that crimes (as socially defined) happen, ultimate safety is never reached, and the threat of reverting to the state of nature remains constant, always, everywhere in the world.

What is right for one culture can be wrong for another, and wars break out over it (for instance, the practice of expansionism, colonialism, religious differences, etc). What is right for one individual can be wrong for another, and conflict can break out over it within a culture or between cultures. There are, indeed, pressures put upon people to abide by whatever Social Contract they're under, and that pressure creates cognitive dissonance when someone can't agree to something that everyone else says they're supposed to. When I see people committing "crimes" against moral standards in either direction (things I agree with or disagree with) I'm understanding of it, I expect it to happen more than just occassionally. When this creates misanthropes, I find it perfectly understandable and it doesn't bother me. This may threaten a Hobbesian ideal of the fundamental goal of a governed society to provide safety, but safety is truly illusory. And for all of my cognitive energy, I can't find order and protection to be a universal ideal for everyone, and, as such, I can't agree with moral relativism to be a sign of deficiency when present between individuals .

Moral relativism between individuals is the key towards diversity and making existence meaningful on a personal level. I do understand the limitations of freedom of thinking on the macro-level, because the culture we live in provides us with context... but from that context we still choose, and agree or disagree, and are willing or unwilling to act against the "system". Finding values for oneself is a journey we all make... either in deference and submission or in resistance and rebellion. The only thing that I can imagine that prevents moral relativism for being true and good for individuals is a fear that disorder and violence will dominate the culture.

What do you think of people who break rules they disagree with not to create change, but just because they don't agree with those rules?

Do you desire order and a functioning society?

What if the systems of justice in your society fail you? What is your next recourse?

Is it possible for anyone to opt-out of a society they are born in if they do not like the Social Contract system and moral structure of their culture without moving into away and into another system?

What happens when something happens that you don't like and there are no social institutions to help you obtain justice? Would you ever violate the Social Contract for a sense of personal justice?

And what exactly is the deficiency you speak of? What makes it deficient?