Quote Originally Posted by Lweek View Post
I remember a speach on TED but I don't remember speaker. However he pointed something very interesting. The relativity of good and bad. Our behaviors and moral values are more or less defined by culture. Depends on our very personal intel what we will inherit from our surrounding and what own values we'll set for ourselves. Of course, this might affect our social interaction and put us into isolation or worse we could violate social rules and then take responsibility for it. For example I can't walk naked thru the city no matter I believe that human body is nothing to be ashamed of. Again, there are tribes where everybody walks naked and nobody is affected so there is only reason for dressing .. hygiene. There are oposite opinions from people who believe that even dogs should be dressed because naked animals are disgusting etc. I just used to resign to all this debates because people are usually damn blind. When I ask them to support their opinions by fact and describe reasons their even usually can't or referencing to non objective reasons. You can't change mind of this people because they have to learn thinking logically and consequentially first. Let say I'm tolerant to their opinions as long as it doesn't hurt somebody. But there are topics which are important. For example abortion. I can't see reason why prohibit abortion. There are many good reasons for abortion and all women who want abortion have to consult this with psychologists so if they lasts for abortion even after consultation then there is reason for it. There can be even health issues when medics recommend abortion etc. So if somebody say that God won't this because it is sin ... hello, try again.
Moral relativism is widely disregarded in modern philosophy because it is illogical (truly illogical, not just absurd) -- for more reasons than I can list. But I'll try to sum up one of the main problems, realizing that I'll probably butcher it a bit:

Relativism demands tolerance of opposing moral choices because there exists no right or wrong, just opinions on right and wrong. Tolerance is itself morally relevant (it is a moral choice), and therefore relativism cannot demand tolerance -- intolerance of opposing moral choices is just as relevant as tolerance of opposing moral choices. Relativism leads to either: admission that absolutely no ethics can exist, which is intellectually and morally apathetic, or it can state that tolerance actually is an objective moral right. If it takes the latter approach, it must demonstrate why tolerance should be an objective right above all other things that are only subjective -- proponents have yet to demonstrate this.

Cultural sensitivity does play a part in ethics. If one society buries their dead and one society burns their dead, that may not be a moral problem. Both societies intend to honor their dead in their own way, and no real harm is being done. If one society wears clothes and the other is naked, that is likely so morally benign that cultural sensitivity applies. Abortion, slavery, capital punishment, etc... do not fall under the umbrella of cultural sensitivity -- a person is potentially being harmed (that is the debate) and the moral dilemma is far too serious to write off as a cultural quirk. Where you draw the line can be fuzzy, but it does not allow for absurdity. Were this not the case, and society truly did set its own moral right and wrong, then all you would need to do is send out a Gallup poll on any moral dilemma. Is abortion wrong? If that society believes that abortion is wrong, then it is wrong. Is slavery acceptable? Well if the majority of society believes that slavery is right, then it is right.

Edit: Relativism is actually completely different from subjectivism, I know I confused Revo last time because I used these interchangeably. Fun fact: Divine Command Theory is the only major subjective moral authority that is also not some form of moral relativism. Modified Divine Command Theory helps a bit with the subjective part because of how it defines right and wrong (there are two definitions -- a God right and an absolute right). In practice, since God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, these two definitions always reach the same moral conclusion. In theory, and only in theory, if a g-d were to command someone to sin, and then it would still be wrong.