[exmarine]

I'm always thinking, but we're talking about absolutes....what is your definition of an absolute? Whatever people think about morals, is relative, as you say...how then does something become a moral absolute?

Absolute merely means universal, objective, essential when applied to truth in general. When applied to morals, it also means transcendant, eternal. Something does not "become" a moral absolute. Moral absolutes are not invented, they are discovered or discerned. Morality is not doing what I like, but doing what is right. Moral relativism is simply morals based on human preferences and this is the dominant system in the world. For example, the U.N. is constantly talking aobut human rights, but where do these U.N. human rights come from? The come from the men at the U.N., that's where. The men at the U.N. have appointed themselves are the ultimate moral arbiters, but it's a joke because the U.N. has no moral authority beyond themselves.

[stuartcr]

With reference to morality, from what I've observed, there is nothing that man has not done, and, at some time, condoned. This is why I believe there are no moral absolutes. Almost everyone in our country will agree that murder is immoral behavior, yet our very government (of the people), has legalised and condoned it. As you say, there are definitely moral values that we SHOULD all follow, but man does not. Once again, as you say, moral relativism is the dominant system in the world, and has been throughout history. I don't see how you can define something as an absolute, when history has proven that it is never achieved. Where and what is the absoluteness of something that is never achieved? I believe the desire for moral absolutes is an absolute in itself, but there are no absolutes when dealing with the moral BEHAVIOR of man.