Very Interesting. So, say a serial killer were about to kill you, you would not fight back unless you could stop them without killing them? How about if someone were vegetised but still concious and you were givin the option of shooting them or leaving them imprisoned in their own body? I have but one thing left to say: Moeru H.=Rorschach

Wow!! Strong essay!!

I agree with EVERY word you said!

The world needs to be changed a little.

Relevitism is stupid.

Seriously, I strongly agree with your point. I think the primary problem with the world is a lack of morality.

You haven't given any evidence to back up the importance of moral absolutes, so this was pretty much worthless drivel. Well written, though.

I find the idea of moral laws or absolutes laughable.

Go non-cognitivism go!

"Only a law that is outside of human intellect can be called an absolute."

I'm not so sure I agree with you here. For instance, where do you draw the line between what is within and outside of the human mind? You could conceivably call "do the maximum good to the maximum number of people" an absolute moral -- it is an objective criteria for the goodness of any action, and in this sense lies outside any individual human mind. But it need not come from any place "higher" than the human mind -- since it will benefit humanity overall, it is a logical moral to adopt.

Now there might be differing interpretations of how to do good to people, which may lead to situations where normally "immoral" actions such as killing another human being become "moral" (i.e. a lunatic is about to machine-gun a crowd of people and you happen to be up on a rooftop overlooking him with a sniper rifle, even though he is posing no direct threat to you). In this case the actions themselves change morality with the circumstances -- is this what you mean by moral relativism, as stated in your title? If so, this same situation still occurs with most divinely-inspired morals. There are instances when killing is ok, instances when it is not; instances where other actions change in moral value based on the situation.

I don't see why moral principles *can't* arise out of the human mind, and why they would not be as valid as divine principles. Can you expand upon this?

"For a person who doesn’t believe in a higher power, that is, something/one beyond human, everything absolute comes down to a drain for him/her."

I disagree, based on my statements above. I don't see how God and absolute morality *must* be tied together, though often people speak as though they are.

"There’s no such thing as an absolute for someone who thinks that mankind can bend and twist anything as long as he sees it fit for his personal advantage."

I'm sure there are *some* people like that. However, this is a straw-man argument for those who lack belief in divinely-inspired moral principles, and it is also attaching motivations to those people that may or may not hold true.

"This person accepts that fairness and justice are terms invented by men to satisfy their desires."

In a nutshell, yes. More precisely, it seems reasonable to me that a society of social creatures (aka humans) would be more likely to survive if the group adopted a set of customs which helped the group as a whole, and the individuals in the group, survive. Is that "satisfying desires?"

"Fairness and justice are bound to change when circumstance expects them to."

As they do in most common moral codes today, including the religious ones. See above.

"Everything is the creation of the human mind such that the sense of right and wrong changes if it serves no purpose for the caprice of men."

I would anchor our sense of right and wrong more in the principles we've developed which have allowed us to maximize group and individual success, not in people's momentary whims. Most people I've run into who, like me, lack beleif in divinely-inspired morals, ascribe morality to this same source and purpose. You're using a straw man argument again, unfortunately, unless you can show us where you've found a person using the argument you describe.

**

Now that I've blabbed on for a bit, let me blab on some more :)

I myself am a nihilist in that I don't believe there is any overall moral structure, nor any purpose, to the universe or to human existence. We simply exist, for whatever reason or (most likely) no reason at all.

That being said, I do see the need for humans to invent moral codes which will keep society relatively stable -- and in the sense that the overall purpose of morality is to keep society and individuals in existence, while creating the best society for all members of society, this could be seen as an absolute morality. Could be. As it does take on several different forms, however, and there are different interpretations of how to create that better society, the "absoluteness" is not all that helpful in that it does not prescribe individual behaviors. I would, however, like to point out that this view is not indicative of the view of other atheist/agnostic/secularist/naturalist/"moral relativist" people. There are arguments for an absolute morality without God out there.

I'm a firm believer that their are absolutes to human morality. But you have to realize that even though things such as murder are considered absolute wrongs, that could one day change, hence the saying; "there is no such thing as right and wrong, just popular opinion."

I find it vaguely offensive to insist that there are absolutes.

I'm actually not joking when I say that you're on the right track. "This person accepts that fairness and justice are terms invented by men to satisfy their desires." That's where you go a bit awry, but all is well, it has to do with evolution. My only suggestion for your writing is to not rely on questions to display the "power" of your ideas; well-worded statements will do that for you and will do it ten times more efficiently.