Reply #40: How is morality 'absoloute' if it prohibits killing,

[dave123williams]

except sometimes? Which times is it ok? Does everybody agree on that? Might your ideas on when it's ok differ from mine? How about if we lived in different societies? At different points in history?

Once again; YOU think that the society that allows for human sacrifice is immoral. THEY thought they were perfectly moral for performing human sacrifice, and honoring their gods in their traditional roles as priests.

AMERICAN jurisprudence thinks the jury's still out on capital punishment of the retarted, that it could be morally just. SWEEDS think we're totally amoral for executing anybody whatsoever.

The people doing the lynching thought they were protecting their way of life, and were therefore morally right. Personally, I find it detestable, but then I wasn't raised in the Klan, now was I. Their moral structure obviously allows for lynching, or they couldn't do it and then feel good about having done it.

Understandings of morality differ, see? You now have three solid examples to use in reflection on the idea that there's no absoloute right or wrong. That those 'absoloutes' truths we cling to are dependent largely on our point of view should be obvious.

Morals are relative to how you see the world, how you were indoctrinated by your own particular society.

Morals are therefore relative, and not absoloute. QED.