Moral Relativism

I found much of the authors take on the topic of morality and ethics to be quite interesting and he made very good points. I do agree with the idea that morality can exist without religion and that a person can be a law abiding citizen without being moral. One thing that caught my attention and really made me think about the subject matter was the idea of moral relativity. Are there any actions that can be considered truly moral or immoral or is there no standard by which to judge these actions? I think that actions are neither moral nor immoral in nature. I think that actions are intrinsically neutral. What makes an action moral or immoral is the subject matter surrounding it. In other words, were the intentions and the resulting consequences of the action moral? I believe that is the global standard of morality. If a person’s intentions come from a sound moral decision, then the action is therefore moral.

                The article discussed different cultures and things that may seem immoral to a person that was brought up in a modern Western society. One of these was the Inuit’s practice of abandoning their elderly and letting them die. While I personally do not agree with the idea of this, the Inuit people’s intention is not one of malice. The article states that it is the “highest level of reverence for the elderly”. The intention is not to knock off the elderly, but to show respect and to care for the rest of their people. It is difficult to accept this view because we are so accustomed to our definition of right and wrong. In order to understand and to judge the morality of cultural practices as such, we must first understand the culture to which the custom belongs.