Morality can be absolute without being universal. For instance, the same hypothetical action can be murdering a child and saving a small town. Each of these aspects can be argued to have an absolute value of good or evil, while people might still argue about whether the overall deed was good or evil. You'll get people shouting at each other, "But he's a child murderer!" and "But he saved all of us!"
There's no relativity here (at least not in the usual usage), because it doesn't necessitate that the value of each is arbitrarily defined by culture. What I'm saying is, examples of two opposed views being seen as perfectly moral doesn't actually rule out absolute morality, just universal absolute morality.[/my contribution to the derail]
Even that example is relative though; wiping out that town is morally reprehensible to us, but let's say we were part of a neighbouring village, that for the last 100 generations had been locked in bitter war with the town. Over the years, the people of that town have killed our families, raped our wives, and stolen our children to sell into slavery. Given that, their will people who will argue even over the... sign I guess, in a mathematical sense... of the morality of that action.
Anyway, with that said, this isn't the thread for this discussion. I'll be happy to continue it on in PMs though.
Edit;
I think an action's morality can be absolute in relation to it's own morality system.
Morality is certainly not objetive, though.
This. Damn you for boiling it down into 2 simple easy to digest sentences.
Though care does have to be taken in language; 'absolute in relation' is somewhat of an oxymoron.
Author
Topic: Occupying Wallstreet (Read 295111 times)