@Fil Albuquerque,
Take any deed deemed immoral. Spend enough time investigating and contemplating the circumstances around said deed and you can make a plausible argument for why it was understandable, if not justified, and that the perpetrator of the deed was, in some way, as much a victim as his or her victims.
Most abusive pedophiles were abused as children.
>>Why do you say most? How do you know?
Many violent crimes are perpetrated by people who, themselves, were the long time victims of violence.
>>Are you sure about that? If so explain.
If you and your family are starving, is it immoral to steal bread?
>>I'd believe so. Homeless shelters exist.
If someone is convincingly threatening the lives of your family, is it immoral to proactively resolve the threat by killing the person you legitimately fear?
>>I feel it depends on who you are. I personally don't have it in me to kill. Feel the love I have dominates that part of the brain.
Anyone with any intelligence appreciates that not-with-standing our desire for a black and white world, reality is represented in shades of grey.
>>I think I'm confused with this statement.
Fortunately or unfortunately (depending upon your point of view) Society cannot exist under the tenants of moral relativism.
>>Debatable.
With thousands and millions of people living with one another, Society cannot afford to surrender to grey. There must be hard and fast rules.
>>You lost me.
Accepting that any behavior can be right is asserting that no behavior can be wrong.
>>I feel the want to disagree. One must know the difference between right and wrong. If not, ask.
This mindset is in direct contrast to the concepts of society.
>>I don't know.
In a certain way, moral relativism is akin to quantum physics and, indeed, it was this theoretical breakthrough that contributed to post-modernist thought.
Reality is dependent upon the observer.
>>Possibly.
If this is the case, then the opinions of any particular observer are as valid as any other (even for a nano-second) in determining what reality might be.
>>I don't know.
There is a (currently) unfathomable paradox between Quantum Physics and General Relativity Physics. Clearly, this doesn't mean that one cannot be so, but it does challenge us who must operate in the "real" world rather than the "theoretical" world to attempt to reconcile what we can perceive with our senses and what we can imagine with our minds. The Holy Grail of a TOE still eludes us.
In building a bridge, developing computers, or putting a man on the moon, we have given, predominately, our collective nod to the physics of Newton and Einstein rather than Bohrs and Heisenberg.
There are actually solid, as opposed to simply theoretical, reasons to believe the latter, but for 99.9% of the earth's population, the former rules, in practice, over the latter, and yet we appreciate that Quantum Physics represents "truth" too.
Eventually there may be a TOE we can comprehend, and eventually there may be a reconciliation between moral-relativism and societal imperatives, but both are mighty challenges we may not solve for decades if not centuries to come, and in any case we will have to be wiser as well as smarter to do so.
>>I may need help.
In the mean-time, we must live within the framework of what actually works, not what should work.
>>We try.
Moral relativism is a great topic for discussion but it doesn't work in the currently "real" world.
>>Oh.
