Morality Is a Relative Concept
Morality is a relative concept
Morality is hardly ever talked in all by itself. People tend to address it as rather the Christian morality, Islamic Morality, Nazi Morality, the Greeks morality etc. But what is it in itself? A dictionary would give a descriptive explanation of the important features of its referents. Morals vary from culture to culture, society to society and even individual to individual. However, there still remain some moral values that are universal and are deemed in the same light, for example, heinous crimes as murder, arson, genocide etc., are considered wrong all over the globe and are strongly condemned in every society.
The real questions still remain, and that of the relativity of morality. It is not as easy as it may seem at first because, indeed, if one was to agree with the statement it could be summed up to a point that there remains no objective right or wrong. And to disagree could be taken to an extent of being intolerant to other societal morals and values. I believe that morality should be bordered with relativity but only enough to make the judgments which do more right than wrong.
If Hitler is to be condemned for the genocide and the period of holocaust then a rapist should be equally shunned in every society for they are both no more different than each other; the strong taking advantage of the weak. But if the same criteria were to be adopted in every situation then a lot of confusion would be created. To ask whether aborting a fetus is wrong, then of course, the situation ‘must’ be taken into consideration. To do the ‘morally’ right thing would be to think of those affected by the decision and the outcomes of the circumstances the people were engulfed in. Also, if someone was to claim that they have taken a life of a human being, they would be shunned for committing an atrocious crime, but what if it was in an act of euthanasia or self defense rather than a serial killer or someone who killed just for fun? Obviously,
Morality is hardly ever talked in all by itself. People tend to address it as rather the Christian morality, Islamic Morality, Nazi Morality, the Greeks morality etc. But what is it in itself? A dictionary would give a descriptive explanation of the important features of its referents. Morals vary from culture to culture, society to society and even individual to individual. However, there still remain some moral values that are universal and are deemed in the same light, for example, heinous crimes as murder, arson, genocide etc., are considered wrong all over the globe and are strongly condemned in every society.
The real questions still remain, and that of the relativity of morality. It is not as easy as it may seem at first because, indeed, if one was to agree with the statement it could be summed up to a point that there remains no objective right or wrong. And to disagree could be taken to an extent of being intolerant to other societal morals and values. I believe that morality should be bordered with relativity but only enough to make the judgments which do more right than wrong.
If Hitler is to be condemned for the genocide and the period of holocaust then a rapist should be equally shunned in every society for they are both no more different than each other; the strong taking advantage of the weak. But if the same criteria were to be adopted in every situation then a lot of confusion would be created. To ask whether aborting a fetus is wrong, then of course, the situation ‘must’ be taken into consideration. To do the ‘morally’ right thing would be to think of those affected by the decision and the outcomes of the circumstances the people were engulfed in. Also, if someone was to claim that they have taken a life of a human being, they would be shunned for committing an atrocious crime, but what if it was in an act of euthanasia or self defense rather than a serial killer or someone who killed just for fun? Obviously,