Re: Re: MD Is Morality Relative?

From: Steve Peterson (
Date: Thu Dec 02 2004 - 16:41:51 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Is Morality Relative?"

    Hi Platt, All

    Platt said:
    > A relative morality believes that whatever is right is whatever works in
    > society to assure inner harmony. Thus, one society should not judge the
    > ethical practices of another.

    Is this really what is meant by Moral Relativity?

    What is Moral Absolutism?

    Are there other types of morality?

    Does absolutism suggest that an act is either right or wrong in and of itself
    or are the results or intent important?

    Does relativity suggest that there really is no right or wrong or merely that
    right and wrong are context dependent?

    Does such a distinction have any meaning in practice since the MOQ suggests
    that all people behave based on a combination of physical laws, biological
    desires and aversions, tradition/authority/status-seeking, and reason?

    I think we need to agree on what is meant by the terms of discussion before
    deciding whether the MOQ supports one or the other or neither.

    Can anyone suggests definitions for the two sides of the debate?


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 02 2004 - 17:00:44 GMT