The Maze of Moral Relativism

In this article, the author discusses the theory of moral relativity. The writing style to me seems as though the author started with just facts, and from that made discoveries and asked questions in a coherent order, making it easy for the reader to follow his exact train of thought without feeling pushed in one direction or another. This article is more applicable to those who do not derive their morality from a religion, because those who do from what it seems to me have a clear moral code. However, for those of us who aren't driven by the moral code of their religion, the theory of moral relativity is put into play. Most of us, when asked to state the moral principles we live by, will say it is immoral to kill, immoral to rape, immoral to steal, etc. However, when pressed I cannot answer exactly why these things are immoral. I know that it is wrong to kill, I know that it is wrong to rape, I know that it is wrong to steal, but why? This article discusses how we use the words "right" and "wrong" but we, at least I, don't really know what they mean. There are no moral absolutes for me, I've been taught killing is wrong, but what about self defense? Why does that have to be so different? Can I steal food if I'm starving? As you can guess, I favor the nihilistic mindset to this "Maze of Moral Relativism", because when I really think about it, very single moral absolute I thought I had can be questioned, and therefore is not an absolute, therefore to my mind there are no real moral principles. As the article says;

"The argument is significant because it shows that we should not rush to give up on absolute moral facts, mysterious as they can sometimes seem, for the world might seem even more mysterious without any normative vocabulary whatsoever."

Which is true. The world would be mayhem without basic moral guidelines, but that doesn't mean we can't question them. The author also discusses how table manners can be relative, with the example of;

"If we are dining at Buckingham Palace, we ought not to slurp, since our hosts would consider it offensive, and we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts. On the other hand, if we are dining in Xian, China, we ought to slurp, since in Xian slurping is considered to be a sign that we are enjoying our meal, and our hosts would consider it offensive if we didn’t slurp, and we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts."

This example puts "we ought not, other things being equal, offend our hosts" as the absolute in morality, however the details of this absolute are relative. However, this does not translate as well into moral relativity, because in order to have the moral relativity, you have to have the moral absolute, however there are no moral absolutes in life. You could argue that moral relativity is relative to the moral absolutes of the community you are in, but no community has completely clear cut moral absolutes, so that moral relativity still does not translate. I would argue that you cannot even have moral relativity within yourself, because, at least for me, I do not have any moral absolutes. As far as moral theories go, many find that subjectivism and utilitarianism are the most sensical. However they do not leave room for argument, and since nobody has all the same moral absolutes, I find that there is always an argument surrounding morality, but, since you need absolutes to have morality, I would argue morality does not, in fact, exist.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/the-maze-of-moral-relativism/?ref=opinion