[exmarine]

I believe that all moral decisions are relative, in that most all things anyone can think of as being immoral, have been, at some time in history, condoned by the local majority. An absolute, to me, is something that no matter what, no one would do it. I believe the only absolutes in this world, are the physical ones.

Then you are morally confused. If all moral decisions are relative, then there can be no moral difference between cruelty and non-cruelty, between torturing babies and feeding the poor - all becomes mere personal preference. There is a huge difference between what I like or prefer and what I think is morally right. If I say abortion is wrong, I am not merely saying that I don't prefer it, I am saying it is wrong whether I prefer it or not. Your morals make no distinction between preference and right and wrong. Moral principles are not decided by men, they are discovered, and exist independent of man's beief.

I will tell you now that you will not be able to logically defend your belief. Moral relativism is a lie and it is indefensible logically.

[stuartcr]

As an example, abortion is morally relative in that, while we agree that it is pre-meditated murder, it is not only condoned, but legalized. How can anything be a moral absolute if it can be condoned and even legalised? I view absolutes, as something which cannot be done, cannot be rationalized. Of course, my definition is relative.