RELATIVE MORALITY:

Quoted Text

In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect universal moral truths (neither objective nor subjective). Instead, moral relativism makes claims relative to social, cultural, or historical circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Relativistic positions often see moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries (cultural relativism) or in the context of individual preferences (individualist ethical subjectivism). An extreme relativist position might suggest that judging the moral or ethical judgments or acts of another person or group has no meaning, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory. In moral relativism there are no absolute, concrete rights and wrongs. Rather, intrinsic ethical judgments exist as abstracta, differing for each perception of an ethical outlook.

Some moral relativists — for example, the existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre — hold that a personal and subjective moral core lies or ought to lie at the base of individuals' moral acts. In this view public morality reflects social convention, and only personal, subjective morality expresses true authenticity. (i.e. "Following one's conscience".)

Moral relativism differs from value pluralism — which acknowledges the co-existence of opposing ideas and practices, but accepts limits to differences, such as when vital human needs are violated. Moral relativism, in contrast, grants the possibility of moral judgments that do not accept such limits. As well, moral relativism should not be taken as the more extreme stance of moral nihilism, which completely denies the existence of any objective morality.............>>>>...................>>>>.................http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_Morality

OBJECTIVE MORALITY:

Quoted Text

Moral objectivismis the position that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion.

Models of objective morality may be atheistic, monotheistic (in the case of the Abrahamic religion s), or pantheistic (in the case of Hinduism ). The moral codes may stem from reason , from the divine , or from a combination of the two. These various systems differ as to the nature of the objective morality, but agree on its existence. It is this diversity between codes of objective morality, and the seemingly endless debates between people over irreconcilably different claims to objectivemorality that lead many to reject the concept entirely, in favor of subjectivemorality...................>>>>..................>>>>....................
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/1149572.xml&style

I believe Plato has a dialog with  Socrates in the book Theatetaus proving there needs to be unchanging sets of values which all else is judged against-  Everything is not relative- ( Philosophy 1A 1969 )

Quoted Text

Main Entry: rel·a·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈre-lə-ti-ˌvi-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1865
1 a : a theory that knowledge is relative to the limited nature of the mind and the conditions of knowing b : a view that ethical truths depend on the individuals and groups holding them
2 : relativity

Quoted Text

Main Entry: ob·jec·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: \əb-ˈjek-ti-ˌvi-zəm, äb-\
Function: noun
Date: 1854
1 : any of various theories asserting the validity of objective phenomena over subjective experience; especially : realism 2a
2 : an ethical theory that moral good is objectively real or that moral precepts are objectively valid
3 : a 20th century movement in poetry growing out of imagism and putting stress on form

Politicians/politics/government are all relative based on our objectivity, or the lack there of when voting.....

Well Ill need to look up some old homework ( not google ) Theatetus is essentially about epistemology - or the science of how we know things- I will still maintain that there are define requirements for a truth to be judged against-

Such as a red apple is no longer red if it is in a dark closet ( no light )-

I am no fan of  isms -

Quoted from Sombody

Well Ill need to look up some old homework ( not google ) Theatetus is essentially about epistemology - or the science of how we know things- I will still maintain that there are define requirements for a truth to be judged against-

Such as a red apple is no longer red if it is in a dark closet ( no light )-

I am no fan of  isms -

Good point.....it's like the next generation 'loosing' the value of actual money because now there
are just debit cards.....you cant see the stack getting smaller.....so whether we call them points/euros/
dollars or even if there is yellow/black gold involved is what?---irrelevant? or just new info?

It appears that comparing objective to relative morality, is comparing religious belief to secular beliefs. I, personally believe in objective morality. I believe in God and His absolutes. I 'try' to live by them, but fail more than not.

Relative morality, to me, is just that....everything is relative to each situation. And relative morality is decided by a society/culture as society/culture changes. Now the question is....is it the society/culture that influences relative morality....or is it relative morality that influences society/cultures?

Objective morality stays, or should stay consistent.