Moral Relativism
Makes perfect sense to me, but then again, I'm not a Christian either.
Makes sense to me. And I am a Christian. Or a Catholic. Sort of. Are they the same thing?
I think the greatest extent of disagreement is probably caught up in the semantics of Jim asking if morality is relative and Saintman answering that it may be contextual or situational.
I think level-headed people of today (regardless of race, religion, political affiliation, Saints fan or non-Saints fan) would agree that slavery was wrong, even in the context of the southern plantations of 250 years ago. But to those in power 250 years, it wasn't even a consideration.
On the other hand, we can probably have a good argument about which of those people struggling to survive in the aftermath of Katrina was acting morally or immorally. Is it immoral if I "steal" a loaf of bread to feed my children? Is it immoral if I steal a loaf of bread and a box twinkies to feed my kids?
But to say that immorality doesn't exist would be an absolute in and of itself. Without the immorality, there would be no morality, and our deed performed in a vacuum. And humans with emotion, I don't think we (or most of us) are capable of this.
I think Jim has the nexus of the issue and Saintman provides the conclusion of the thought. Morality is indeed relative but to the context of any particular situation. And that situation (or its defintion) may change with time or place.
Wow. I think my headache is gone. Thanks guys.