Moral relativism

[CitizenDerCosmos]

Whatever you tried to say,- Morals ARE "relative". Let me clarify What was acceptable a few centuries ago, might be totally immoral and unacceptable today. An example could be slavery,- sure Islam does tell us to be kind towards slaves etc, but the Qur'an doesn't have a problem with the the phenomenom of slavery. Ofcourse, because it was widespread practice back then 14 centuries ago, while ,no matter how good a slave could be treated, it is absolutely wrong today.
Another example could be clothing Some primitive tribes in the jungle are found not wearing any clothing(or just very little). However, they have a quite stable society in which the men don't really seem to get all horny by "boobs" of the opposite gender. It is just "normal" there, but unaccaptable here.

[loxbox13]

I understand what u said about boobs, but i didn't understand when u say the quran has no problem with slavery !!!! how come? the quran authorised slavery ? or abolished it ? no one has the right to possess another man or woman, now or in the past, didn't god say we honored the sons of adam ? what is the honor of beign a possession of someone else ?

[Mushu]

Whatever you tried to say,- Morals ARE "relative". Let me clarify What was acceptable a few centuries ago, might be totally immoral and unacceptable today.

I addressed this in my post, and explained the inherent problems of holding such a position. Did you read what I said?

An example could be slavery,- sure Islam does tell us to be kind towards slaves etc, but the Qur'an doesn't have a problem with the the phenomenom of slavery.

Slavery in quran covers two broad areas social law and moral standards. The social laws covered how slaves should be treated, but the moral standard given by the quran is to free the slaves. Can you see the distinction? The one who has a slave and does not free him/her is not acting according to the moral standard of the quran. And this is true today, as there are more people in slavery now then there has ever been in human history.

Of course, because it was widespread practice back then 14 centuries ago, while ,no matter how good a slave could be treated, it is absolutely wrong today.

Sure, but you seem to be suggesting that slavery being morally wrong is not taught in the quran. The kitab gives you the moral principle of freeing the slave, thus not freeing the slave or acquiring a new one puts you at odds with quranic morality.

Another example could be clothing Some primitive tribes in the jungle are found not wearing any clothing(or just very little). However, they have a quite stable society in which the men don't really seem to get all horny by "boobs" of the opposite gender. It is just "normal" there, but unaccaptable here.

Again, I addressed this argument in my post. I'm all for debate and discussion, just without the redundancy. handshake

[savage_carrot]

Salam Mushu,

Some comments

Even at its core, individual relativism fails to give us what it claims to the ability to define our own morality. It is impossible to create new or alternative fundamental moral values, such as making murder morally acceptable, or making charity morally reprehensible. You can not arbitrarily create values and then feel morally obliged to adhere to them an individual could not make a moral obligation to watch 2 hours of television everyday and then produce the feeling of guilt if they one day neglected this duty. No matter how hard one tries, one can not feel a moral obligation to adhere to an individual, arbitrarily defined moral value the way one would feel a moral obligation to help a blind person cross a street.
I get the gist of your post but for clarification it is possible to have a society which makes charity for example morally reprehensible, improbable perhaps but still possible. People make moral values/obligations for themselves everyday in my observation, it's just not as simple to get to the layers of how they managed that with a cursory observation.

Obviously, individual relativism is not a moral theory, it in fact denies moral theories entirely. It does not provide any moral framework and has no explanatory value, in that it doesn't explain what we should or shouldn't do. It can be argued that individual relativism is the poor man's moral nihilism ? it does away with moral standards but doesn't go far enough and abandon the concept of morality completely.
I've heard it argued that the best "morally relativistic" theory is "do unto others as you would like done unto you"...it does fail a bit when we talk about a masochist for example.

The more common type of moral relativism is that of cultural relativism. What is immoral in one culture is not so in another culture and vice versa, therefore morals are relative. The first problem with this theory is that there is some question-begging, smuggled in via a hidden premise moral correctness is determined by cultural values. This is assuming the very moral relativism it is trying to prove, thus begging the question. Who says that moral rightness comes from obeying the culture? It is important to distinguish between objective moral values and subjective value opinions. If a culture believes X to be moral, it does not follow that X is, in fact, moral. All cultures place values on different moral opinions, but that doesn't make following them a determining factor in ones morality. A poignant example is that of abhorrent practises such as culturally accepted genocide e.g. Jewish holocaust. The moral relativist has no choice but to accept this type of behaviour as morally acceptable, as long as the culture committing the genocide accepts it as moral.
Cultural morals such as "we always serve our guests tea" for example has no bearing to it actually being good or bad in a neutral sense but obviously some part of it makes someone feel good for having done it or having it done for them...leading back to the "good" feeling etc as the moral metre and thus cultural values having some basis (begged/borrowed/stolen?) in morality whether random or designed. I always consider taking such cultural values etc and viewing them on a blank slate and then making connections...it then clarifies the layers and ambiguities surrounding it. I agree with you. At the same time, if we are coming from a neutral state if you will, one would separate the layers of emotion and reason etc and then consider each practise on it's own terms AND if one didn't have any biases (a true blank canvas) it might get very interesting. We could see whether something is hardwired or a product of the external environment etc to begin with.

What's more, cultural relativism cannot allow for moral progress, nor can cultural relativism account for moral reformers cultural relativism could not, for example, claim that Martin Luther King or Gandhi's moral reforms were good or bad.
To someone who might not view moral progress as progress or reform as needed it wouldn't matter.

A deeper problem for cultural relativism is that of defining culture in the first place. Any attempt at defining a culture will inevitably slip into individual relativism, which, as stated earlier, is not a moral theory at all. If cultural relativism is the sum of individual relativism, then it is no more a moral theory than the latter.
I've met a few cultural relativists, and they don't consider it a moral theory. They just go along with it because that's just what people around them do. Doesn't really matter since we've established that just because a culture dictates that serving tea to all guests is necessary, it doesn't mean it's good. It can be? Since it's an extension of being good mannered n nice n pleasant n hostly thus connecting it back to wishing those who wish peace upon you and so on?

The relativist may argue that absolute morals are unworkable and that different contexts and situations demand redefining normal moral values. It is moral to steal some bread to feed your starving family, or it is moral kill a tyrant to free a nation etc. The argument is that situations are relative and morality is only of any use in the context of a given situation, therefore morality is relative. It's important to note here that the relativist presupposes the validity of certain principles even within the framework of relativity they concede that there is indeed a good thing and a bad thing to do in a given situation. Absolute principles do not need to be applied absolutely in all situations. They are flexible, but not to the extent that they lose all objective value, otherwise they cease to be a standard. A standard or principle, by definition, must be rigid. To do good, is an objective, moral principle that should be applied in all situations. The principle itself is not relative, the application may well be.
The way it's worded here is a bit of a mish mash but I get what you mean. To do good is what is defined by good which is further amended by the context/situation/other factors? I'm not a relativist as such btw, I like having my lines drawn but at the same time, I see the benefits of using a pencil to draw them.

I've always wondered what it would be like from a neutral perspective of someone seeing not bad or good but just events occurring. It's also surprising to see when something we consider out of the blue thriving and succeeding can actually be linked back/connected to basic universal things; a moral order if you will of sorts. Then again, many such things are also bitten in the bud and broken before they can bloom. Thus springs the eternal "why do bad things happen to good people" type groan (which itself is dependent on many factors). So what is good? Self sacrifice? Selflessness? Pulling together for benefits? How is helping that blind person making me feel good? What if it doesn't make me feel good but something else does? Is it just something I'm hardwired with? Good is supposed to be it's own reward but what is that reward? Is it material/spiritual? Is it time based/immediate? It's kinda a big discussion and a very interesting one personally and just not as cut and dried as it seems to be imo.

That which goes against quranic morality must be condemned as immoral. There is no room for relativity for a muslim, such that he cannot concede that seizing the wealth of an orphan may be considered moral in certain societies, or that forcing the woman to remain indoors her entire life is okay etc. This should not be confused with intolerance muslims can tolerate the lifestyle choices of others within the framework of social law, but cannot endorse unquranic value opinions as morally acceptable. That is not to say that muslims have all the answers, or will consistently be at the forefront or moral reform, rather it is to say that we have the yardstick for morality and we shouldn't abandon it. The fact that the quran is more about moral principles and less about legislative social law, allows us to come to common terms with all people who act within the moral framework of the quran, regardless of their religion. And it is no coincidence that almost all functional societies believe in very similar moral principles, such as helping the needy, caring for children and elderly, condemning tyranny and murder etc.
Agreed to some extent. Once again, our issue would be with (and we cannot get away from this) relative interpretation. We need reasoning and tolerance (legal/personal) and most issues cannot help but be resolved. The quran puts forth universal concepts that have been needlessly obfuscated and branded as belonging to a certain clique. Not true.

(I think the quotes got messed up and it's late so just sharing what comes to mind reading stuff...)

[Mushu]

Salam Mushu,

Salaam savage carrot,

I'll respond to a few points you've raised.

I get the gist of your post but for clarification it is possible to have a society which makes charity for example morally reprehensible, improbable perhaps but still possible. People make moral values/obligations for themselves everyday in my observation, it's just not as simple to get to the layers of how they managed that with a cursory observation.

I would argue that in normal societies, it would be impossible to get people to feel revulsion at someone giving to charity, bar some kind of mass brainwashing. The altruistic tendency of humans is innate. Corrupting this would take a huge effort on a mass scale. But, I do understand what you're saying it is possible to condition people to believe that an opinion value is in fact a moral truth. The point I was making about individual relativism is that it isn't an ethical theory. Just because I've concocted x as moral, it doesn't follow that x is in fact a moral thing to do. For instance, I may insist that stabbing someone with a knife is moral because it makes me feel good. But that is not a moral thing to do. That's the problem with individual relativism, there is no objective standard.

Cultural morals such as "we always serve our guests tea" for example has no bearing to it actually being good or bad in a neutral sense but obviously some part of it makes someone feel good for having done it or having it done for them...leading back to the "good" feeling etc as the moral metre and thus cultural values having some basis (begged/borrowed/stolen?) in morality whether random or designed. I always consider taking such cultural values etc and viewing them on a blank slate and then making connections...it then clarifies the layers and ambiguities surrounding it. I agree with you. At the same time, if we are coming from a neutral state if you will, one would separate the layers of emotion and reason etc and then consider each practise on it's own terms AND if one didn't have any biases (a true blank canvas) it might get very interesting. We could see whether something is hardwired or a product of the external environment etc to begin with.

I wouldn't say serving your guests tea is a 'cultural moral' but perhaps a cultural expression of the moral 'being a good host'. That's the moral being expressed. What beverage you serve will vary from culture to culture, but the moral will be the same treat your guests well. The difference between an absolutist and a relativist is that the former would maintain that it is a moral principle for humans to treat their guests well whereas the latter can make no such claim, and must be indifferent to societies who treat their guests badly. Only the absolutist can speak out against people who harm their guests, and call them to a better moral standard, whereas the relativist must keep his mouth firmly shut.

I've met a few cultural relativists, and they don't consider it a moral theory. They just go along with it because that's just what people around them do. Doesn't really matter since we've established that just because a culture dictates that serving tea to all guests is necessary, it doesn't mean it's good. It can be? Since it's an extension of being good mannered n nice n pleasant n hostly thus connecting it back to wishing those who wish peace upon you and so on?

Cultural relativism is a philosophy of sorts, but not an ethical theory, as conceded by the few that you've met. Why does it matter? The relativist cannot hold the moral high ground because he doesn't submit to a standard.

Moral relativist "Yo Mushu, those primitive Africans who chop off the genitals of girls need to be stopped, what they're doing is morally reprehensible!"

Mushu "Shutup, you're a relativist."

I've always wondered what it would be like from a neutral perspective of someone seeing not bad or good but just events occurring. It's also surprising to see when something we consider out of the blue thriving and succeeding can actually be linked back/connected to basic universal things; a moral order if you will of sorts. Then again, many such things are also bitten in the bud and broken before they can bloom. Thus springs the eternal "why do bad things happen to good people" type groan (which itself is dependent on many factors). So what is good? Self sacrifice? Selflessness? Pulling together for benefits? How is helping that blind person making me feel good? What if it doesn't make me feel good but something else does? Is it just something I'm hardwired with? Good is supposed to be it's own reward but what is that reward? Is it material/spiritual? Is it time based/immediate? It's kinda a big discussion and a very interesting one personally and just not as cut and dried as it seems to be imo.

Interesting thoughts. My opinion is that there is no neutrality, there is undoubtedly innate concepts we hold, particularly altruism. I find this to be intuitive, which is confirmed by the moral instructions I find in the kitab. Also, it is an unfounded premise that says 'how we feel' should determine what is morally acceptable. In fact, I would argue the opposite, in that it is moral standards that make us feel. You cannot feel guilty unless you've violated a moral standard you yourself believe in the moral precedes the emotion.

(I think the quotes got messed up and it's late so just sharing what comes to mind reading stuff...)

Thanks for your input, you've made some very interesting points.

I might actually write this up again, as I've noticed that in some places it's not very clear what I'm trying to say. I wrote this up on the fly whilst I was at work. Perhaps later on in the week if I have some time.

[savage_carrot]

Pax Mushu,

I would argue that in normal societies, it would be impossible to get people to feel revulsion at someone giving to charity, bar some kind of mass brainwashing. The altruistic tendency of humans is innate. Corrupting this would take a huge effort on a mass scale. But, I do understand what you're saying it is possible to condition people to believe that an opinion value is in fact a moral truth. The point I was making about individual relativism is that it isn't an ethical theory. Just because I've concocted x as moral, it doesn't follow that x is in fact a moral thing to do. For instance, I may insist that stabbing someone with a knife is moral because it makes me feel good. But that is not a moral thing to do. That's the problem with individual relativism, there is no objective standard.
I would argue about the altruistic tendency of humans being innate. I'm curious as to why you would think so? It doesn't take much to choose between a choice of self service/survival for example contrasted with selflessness? Fewer people would go out of their way to save someone in a burning building or perhaps just help a broken down car on the side of the road. One would argue that's a sign of the times but I could counter with people's "innate" laziness/sluggishness towards a going out of their way momentum?

I wouldn't say serving your guests tea is a 'cultural moral' but perhaps a cultural expression of the moral 'being a good host'. That's the moral being expressed. What beverage you serve will vary from culture to culture, but the moral will be the same treat your guests well.
Yeah sorry it wasn't clear but yes that is what it relates to as I explain later also the relativists that don't consider it a theory.

Cultural relativism is a philosophy of sorts, but not an ethical theory, as conceded by the few that you've met. Why does it matter? The relativist cannot hold the moral high ground because he doesn't submit to a standard.

Moral relativist "Yo Mushu, those primitive Africans who chop off the genitals of girls need to be stopped, what they're doing is morally reprehensible!"

Mushu "Shutup, you're a relativist."
I would agree with you. There is this one person I knew, who actually didn't give a damn about anything much let alone morals...he just floated with the world in a state of zen. I found that fascinating. And I also couldn't argue with him, he'd just smile to the point that I felt it was my moral obligation to punch his nose in.

Interesting thoughts. My opinion is that there is no neutrality, there is undoubtedly innate concepts we hold, particularly altruism. I find this to be intuitive, which is confirmed by the moral instructions I find in the kitab. Also, it is an unfounded premise that says 'how we feel' should determine what is morally acceptable. In fact, I would argue the opposite, in that it is moral standards that make us feel. You cannot feel guilty unless you've violated a moral standard you yourself believe in the moral precedes the emotion.
I completely agree with the "how we feel" crap. I was curious about how we can categorise what is innate though as I mention. If we don't for a minute bring in confirmation from the book, would your observations about such innate tendencies be enough to prove to yourself that such is the case?

[Mushu]

Peace sc

I would argue about the altruistic tendency of humans being innate. I'm curious as to why you would think so? It doesn't take much to choose between a choice of self service/survival for example contrasted with selflessness? Fewer people would go out of their way to save someone in a burning building or perhaps just help a broken down car on the side of the road. One would argue that's a sign of the times but I could counter with people's "innate" laziness/sluggishness towards a going out of their way momentum?

Self service/survival are also innate, so your counter has validity, as far as I'm concerned. However, I maintain that so is altruism.

When you ask 'why would you think so?' I'm assuming you mean other than quran? I take it we can agree that humans have the ability to act morally, and have a concept of morality?

Your question is how can we know that altruistic tendencies are innate. The word innate is sometimes confused to mean hardwired through genetics, but genetic factors are not the only thing that makes a characteristic innate. Social factors during psychological development bring about characteristics just as ineluctable as genetic make-up. So regardless if we are genetically inclined to be altruistic, or whether we learn these traits as social creatures during our psychological development, the net result is the same we are altruistic creatures. Your point regarding the thin line between selfishness and selflessness is true, but not relevant to the point I was making about moral feelings. We may choose to drive past an unfortunate motorist who has broken down, but that doesn't mean we don't feel a pang of guilt when we do so, or at least a feeling of sympathy. We have an ability to empathise with others due to our innate altruistic tendencies. And even if a person did drive past someone who had broken down and felt nothing whatsoever, that doesn't show that empathy is not innate, it could mean that that particular person is less sensitive or receptive to other peoples' suffering. And the absence of guilt or empathy doesn't imply that driving past a broken down motorist is moral, no it is immoral.

I was curious about how we can categorise what is innate though as I mention. If we don't for a minute bring in confirmation from the book, would your observations about such innate tendencies be enough to prove to yourself that such is the case?

Evolutionary biologists confirm that reciprocal altruism is fact amongst animals and would have no doubt been a evolutionary trait amongst human ancestors. This explains, on a genetic level, why humans show altruistic traits, which on the face of it seems to contradict the 'survival of the fittest' theory of evolution. So I see empirical and scientific evidence of innate moral considerations in humans.

I hope I'm clear in that I don't believe we are all innately gifted with acting moral all the time, merely that we have the innate characteristic of being moral, just like we have the innate characteristic of self service and survival. Some of us are more selfish than others, not because we have a natural handicap in our moral nature, but because we choose to allow our selfish nature take precedence. The more we practise upright behaviour, the stronger the tendency it is to be moral. This is true of all human characteristics.

There is this one person I knew, who actually didn't give a damn about anything much let alone morals...he just floated with the world in a state of zen. I found that fascinating. And I also couldn't argue with him, he'd just smile to the point that I felt it was my moral obligation to punch his nose in.

laugh

Given that your 'zen friend' would be indifferent to you punching him in the nose (after all, he is in a state of zen), there may be an argument that there are no moral considerations for the well-being of his nose, and therefore nothing morally wrong with punching him...

[huruf]

I think there are moral values that are innate, but it is when values are weighted against other values that we come in conflict. It is praiseworthy to attempt to save somebody who is burning, but if you have children to feed at home and risk loosing job or income because you get maimed, you do have a conflict. It is this possibility of conflicting moral obligations that gives a cover to the seepage of relativism in men's attitudes, so that even when no moral conflict arises we still think relatively, because it offers a cover for our failings or suspected failings.

Salaam

[savage_carrot]

Peace all,

Self service/survival are also innate, so your counter has validity, as far as I'm concerned. However, I maintain that so is altruism.

When you ask 'why would you think so?' I'm assuming you mean other than quran? I take it we can agree that humans have the ability to act morally, and have a concept of morality?

Your question is how can we know that altruistic tendencies are innate. The word innate is sometimes confused to mean hardwired through genetics, but genetic factors are not the only thing that makes a characteristic innate. Social factors during psychological development bring about characteristics just as ineluctable as genetic make-up. So regardless if we are genetically inclined to be altruistic, or whether we learn these traits as social creatures during our psychological development, the net result is the same we are altruistic creatures. Your point regarding the thin line between selfishness and selflessness is true, but not relevant to the point I was making about moral feelings. We may choose to drive past an unfortunate motorist who has broken down, but that doesn't mean we don't feel a pang of guilt when we do so, or at least a feeling of sympathy. We have an ability to empathise with others due to our innate altruistic tendencies. And even if a person did drive past someone who had broken down and felt nothing whatsoever, that doesn't show that empathy is not innate, it could mean that that particular person is less sensitive or receptive to other peoples' suffering. And the absence of guilt or empathy doesn't imply that driving past a broken down motorist is moral, no it is immoral.
Thank you for explaining. I agree with you, that it's simultaneously valid which brings up huruf's point in the post. I guess I was trying to drive the discussion towards that somehow, I apologise D

I hope I'm clear in that I don't believe we are all innately gifted with acting moral all the time, merely that we have the innate characteristic of being moral, just like we have the innate characteristic of self service and survival. Some of us are more selfish than others, not because we have a natural handicap in our moral nature, but because we choose to allow our selfish nature take precedence. The more we practise upright behaviour, the stronger the tendency it is to be moral. This is true of all human characteristics.
Agreed of course.

Given that your 'zen friend' would be indifferent to you punching him in the nose (after all, he is in a state of zen), there may be an argument that there are no moral considerations for the well-being of his nose, and therefore nothing morally wrong with punching him...
Believe me, I tried to moonlight as a relativist just to get moral satisfaction. My conscience got the better of me that one time, sadly.

I think there are moral values that are innate, but it is when values are weighted against other values that we come in conflict. It is praiseworthy to attempt to save somebody who is burning, but if you have children to feed at home and risk loosing job or income because you get maimed, you do have a conflict.
Exactly, but I would amend that to bring in Mushu's wording of being moral.

It is this possibility of conflicting moral obligations that gives a cover to the seepage of relativism in men's attitudes, so that even when no moral conflict arises we still think relatively, because it offers a cover for our failings or suspected failings.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here but will take a go at responding to what I think it means (please clarify if needed) I think you might be saying that continual conflicting moral obligations run the risk of it being a danger in the sense of us deliberately (or not based on habitual usage; subconsciously e.g.) using that as a "get out" card in situations where we don't need to. In which case, interesting and I would agree def. The other way it sounds is like you might mean that conflicting moral obligations is a bad thing somehow/ in our control so to say? and should be avoided or that there is a way to avoid it at all? I don't think that makes sense so I'd go with the former.

[Mushu]

I think you might be saying that continual conflicting moral obligations run the risk of it being a danger in the sense of us deliberately (or not based on habitual usage; subconsciously e.g.) using that as a "get out" card in situations where we don't need to. In which case, interesting and I would agree def.

I agree with this point as well. handshake

[huruf]

Salaam, Savage carrot. You understood it right. Human weakness is always present and we may draw on legitimate reasons to cover the impulse to act in a way that we consciously or unconsciously know it is not legitimate. It is a way of lying to ourselves.

On the other hand, legitimate conflict is rather common. There are times when we honestly do not know which is best. For instance, bringing up children, particularly difficult children, puts us in a spot some times for years, where we do not know whether we are too lenient for lack of courage or whether we are so because we legitimately fear that lack of leniency may be worse. Just for the conflict and the crucifying it means, I think we should get some forgiveness for other errors.

Salaam

[savage_carrot]

Thank you for the clarification )

[SarahY]

Peace

I didn't read all the posts so excuse me for skipping anything

so what is the opposite of moral relativism?

Do you not believe individuals have different morals? I think it?s immoral to go on doing intimate sexual scenes as a tv actor (my opinion) another person believes no harm in it. we have different morals of what is lewd and what is acceptable? is this not morals?

anyway i think with ?moral relativism? there is some sort of societal benchmark that refrains people from doing things i.e. If a person believes X to be moral, it is moral in their mind however due to social construct and it?s unacceptability it is deemed immoral.

i'm a lil confused what is the difference between individual relativism and morals? Are you claiming morals are universal we all have the same backbone?

It is natural to assume that the opposite of moral relativism is moral absolutism, yet this is not necessarily true. The quran can be considered the yardstick for morality, yet it is not absolute in its moral instruction. The message of the quran can be considered to advocate moral universalism, with elements of moral absolutism. For example, the quran tells us to use the phases of the moon to determine months, yet one cannot be considered immoral if he determines the months through some other method. That person may well be missing out on profound wisdom of the quran, but his morality would not necessarily be up for questioning.

that's a weird example P because moon/months aren't exactly a moral issue?

Yet the quran also tells us that there is morality that is universal, and has remained silent on its application. Does that mean that where the quran has remained silent, it allows us humans to concoct our own concepts of morality? We see examples of this in traditional Islam, where moral obligations are conjured out of thin air, then attributed to Allah. The only coherent position is that morality must encompass everything we do, and the opinion values we attribute as morality must be guided by quranic principles, which is the yardstick for mankind.

we mustn't be blind, even people who follow Quran only do this (concoct our own concepts of morality).

[Mushu]

Peace Sarah

I didn't read all the posts so excuse me for skipping anything

so what is the opposite of moral relativism?

Moral absolutism.

Do you not believe individuals have different morals?

There's a difference between objective moral values and subjective value opinions. People have different subjective value opinions about what they consider is moral. Many people are wrong i.e. they behave immorally yet claim they are behaving morally.

I think it?s immoral to go on doing intimate sexual scenes as a tv actor (my opinion) another person believes no harm in it. we have different morals of what is lewd and what is acceptable? is this not morals?

This is an example of two different subjective value opinions. The point I'm making is that for the moral relativist, both opinions have validity. However, as an ethical theory, this is bunk. There is a moral thing to do for an actor on screen, and I'm arguing that this is objective. Just because two people hold two differing opinions about what is moral, it doesn't follow that both of them are right, or even that both of them have validity of any sort. There is always a moral way to behave, and the aim of the upright human being is to ascertain what it is.

anyway i think with ?moral relativism? there is some sort of societal benchmark that refrains people from doing things i.e. If a person believes X to be moral, it is moral in their mind however due to social construct and it?s unacceptability it is deemed immoral.

Agreed.

i'm a lil confused what is the difference between individual relativism and morals? Are you claiming morals are universal we all have the same backbone?

Yes, that is what I am claiming. That is the only ethical theory that has any coherence. Otherwise, you're left with the problematic position that suggests some people can behave immorally simply because they don't feel it is immoral e.g. some societies can cut off little girls' genitals because they think it is moral. If you are a moral relativist, you have no right to protest against such vulgar acts. What moral high ground can you hold, if you believe morals are relative? No, moral uprightness is universal, and only the one who accepts this can speak out against immoral behaviour.

Individual relativism is a theory that suggests something is moral as long as the person thinks it is moral. So, in fact, it isn't an ethical theory at all, because ethics tell us how we should behave. So the difference with morals is that morals are, by definition, a standard which must have at least some rigidity. Individual relativism has no such rigidity because it accepts the subjective value opinions of the individual as completely valid.

that's a weird example Tongue because moon/months aren't exactly a moral issue?

Yea, that was my point that the quran is not exclusively about moral instruction, it contains social laws as well. My point was that someone who doesn't use the quranic calendar can't be considered immoral, because it wasn't a moral instruction in the first place.

we mustn't be blind, even people who follow Quran only do this (concoct our own concepts of morality).

Agreed.

[huruf]

do not think morals are different for different people or from different points of view. It is the actual implmentation of morals which raises problems and differences. In mny, most situations, it is not a simple matter of applying one principle, but the complese matter of applying several principles. Even with the best of morals, persons are not God and cannot do everything and be good at the same time with everybody. One has to choose what comes first, second and last. That is where moral agony comes from. Should one attend to one's parents who are old and cannot move, or to ones children who are struggling with a hep of problems and near colapse, anc who on top of it live very very far from ones parents so that you cannot pendle that easily even if you have the strength or the possibility to do so?

Salaam