The relativity of morality

[apostoli]

I'm unsure whether the topic of this thread relates to Ecclesiology as defined by TWEB, but as an ecclesia is by pure definition a popular assembly of a people, a consensus, this seems to be the place to discuss the topic at hand...

Imu, mankind's moral codes (laws/lore) evidences that there are very few morality issues that are universal to mankind, so imo, human morality is relative and has evolved in different societies based on the observation and/or experience of someone or a community. So morality is at first intellectually reasoned by a someone or via community agreement, and over time that morality gains a wider following until it becomes the norm, and once the reasoning is habitual within a community it becomes an emotive force for those who follow that particular morality...

A parable:

At my RCC school, in year 9, we had a subject I'll call "human relations". In one class we watched a movie where the initial plot was that a priest had been sent to take the Gospel to the Eskimos. In the middle of no-where the Priest comes across a fellow, his wife and mother. There is a storm brewing and the priest is invited to share their Igloo until the storm passes.

Everything is friendly and nice until bed time and the husband attempts to give the priest his wife to "sleep" with. (As any well mannered Eskimo host would do!) The priest seeing this as an attack on his European sensibilities and his priestly vows gets upset and rejects the offer. The priest and Eskimo argue and the Eskimo gets all emotive and kills the priest because of the insult to his wife and the insult to his family (they'd be humiliated by their community unless he took the appropriate retribution). In the next days/weeks life is as normal for the Eskimo, the incident with the priest having been dealt with was unimportant. As he related events to his friends, they approved of his actions, and confirmed it was the righteous thing to do.

At some stage the Eskimo's mother leaves home going into the wilderness, sits herself down on an ice-flow and waits for a Polar bear to come and get her - her teeth being worn away, she could no longer chew the furs to soften them, and she was feeble, so she couldn't contribute to the well being of the household, and was simply taking food from the family for no good reason, risking their survival.

As time goes by the Canadian authorities wondering what had become of the priest get wind of the incident with the Eskimo and send mounties in to arrest him - he didn't have a clue what he had done wrong when they arrested him!

The rest of the movie is about the Eskimo and his captors fighting the elements as they head back to "civilisation". In this journey the Eskimo is constantly saving the mounties lives because when confronted by the elements everyone must help even his enemies to survive.

I forget the exact ending of the movie, but there is only one Mountie and the Eskimo left and they can see the lights of the township across a river. The Mountie gives the Eskimo his freedom...

Whose morality is more valid? The Priest, the Eskimo, the Eskimo's mother, the Mounties who were sent to arrest the Eskimo, or the Mountie that gave the Eskimo his freedom?

Forty plus years ago this question raised lively debate amoungst my school friends and teachers. I'm interested in your viewpoint...

[Soyeong]

Whose morality is more valid? The Priest, the Eskimo, the Eskimo's mother, the Mounties who were sent to arrest the Eskimo, or the Mountie that gave the Eskimo his freedom?

If it is up to the individual societies to decide morality, then they were all equally morally valid. What the point in debating the topic if we're judging them by different standards than the ones they used?

[apostoli]

If it is up to the individual societies to decide morality, then they were all equally morally valid. What the point in debating the topic if we're judging them by different standards than the ones they used?

If you were a jurer in a western court contemplating judgement on a Muslim who killed a westerner in payment of an honour debt, would you aquit him because he has a different moral code to yourselve? (aka the Priest killed by the Eskimo.) In my country, it is gambit Muslims use to challenge our Westminster based court system (quite often with some success).

In Western society we baulk at voluntary euthenasia as it attacks our European sensibilities concerning the value of life, yet it has wide benefits to society in general (aka, the Eskimo's mother's suicide). In my country, to assist voluntary euthenasia or suicide is a criminal offense (Assistence includes having foreknowledge and not doing anything to prevent it).

In an integrated immigrant society such as in my country (Australia) or elsewhere (Canada, USA etc) there is a need for a common law based on a common morality - one standard for all! So in that context, "we're judging them by different standards than the ones they used" becomes a practical issue in social justice, hence the discussion my school teacher started some 40+ years ago.

[Soyeong]

Unless there is an objective moral standard that we can apply regardless of what a particular culture says is good, then we have no way to show that one standard is better than another. We can't show whether Muslim honor killing is morally better or worse, only that it different from our norm. It boils down not to who is morally right, but to who has the might to enforce their norm. In our country, we should have the power to enforce our laws, but we have liberal wusses who bow to the might of Muslims.

[apostoli]

Unless there is an objective moral standard that we can apply regardless of what a particular culture says is good, then we have no way to show that one standard is better than another. We can't show whether Muslim honor killing is morally better or worse, only that it different from our norm. It boils down not to who is morally right, but to who has the might to enforce their norm. In our country, we should have the power to enforce our laws, but we have liberal wusses who bow to the might of Muslims.

Muslims aside for the moment. In Oz, we have a debate of reconciling the indigeous societies lore and punishment with our European law and punishment. Which has been a long debate.

But back to ethnics. The drug & gun trade in my country is basically run by supposed refugee people. The simple solution is to put a bullet in the offenders head, but such an idea is against European sensibilities regarding the sanctity of life...the question remains "what is moral?" Do we allow a minority to impose their morality on a majority who are law abiding according to majority opinion? (the majority including Muslims!).

[Soyeong]

It is impossible for something to be both morally right and morally wrong at the same time and the only way to tell which one it happens to be is to compare it to a moral standard. The fact that people disagree on what is morally right doesn't show that there are separate moral standards, but that people are imperfectly following that moral standard. Our ability to follow this moral standard is grayer in some areas than others, but torturing children for fun will always be immoral regardless of whether I were the only one on the planet who was correctly able to follow the moral standard. Thus, regardless of who has the majority and who has the might, we ought to follow the laws that most correctly conform to this moral standard.