If you don't believe in morals/ethics then you must believe 'Might is right'

a reply to: ketsuko

You can say, "I think murder is always wrong for me; see? I have a personal morality." However, when it comes to some cultures, murder is morally acceptable. And since you say that morality is subjective, you cannot judge others for whom murder is morally acceptable. At that point, your original statement becomes something more like, "I think murder is always wrong for me, but it may be morally acceptable to some."

There are a few instances where murder or the act of killing another entity can be justified... I.e self defense,war and abortion.

Where the moral disagreement comes in is where this justification is applicable to certain actions and issues.
Your already presupposing that there is a universal standard of moral excellence and justification for any action considered immoral on any basis is wrong. If I steal food because I'm starving,by your logic this petty act of crime is immoral. Why?

You bring up a good point about the many cultures and their differing views on morality. Your right,I cannot judge them as there is no consensus for what is consider moral or immoral on a global scale. Even on a societal level this isn't the case. Although I do not lack any moral principles because of it,I just choose to not judge what I consider a person's moral failings as that is not up to me or to anyone. For the record I do think murder is wrong,though I would not take it to the extreme of an absolute.

I'm not really surprised that you have a problem with moral relativism,as you yourself are Christian and you take your morality from God. That's fine,however that in and of itself is just a differing perspective on morality.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Ah, but look again. I did not demand you to adopt any particular morality. I only said you had none if you saw all as equally valid. You can lambast me for having a morality shaped by my faith, but the fact is that I do have morals because I adopt a set of principles to guide me.

My morality may be different than the morality of others. In fact, I know it is, but I am comfortable with it and use it to guide my actions.

Going back to the idea of murder ... How can you judge a murder if you don't even know if it's wrong? You won't kill someone, but if someone else wants to because they feel it's acceptable. What then? Would you stop them or simply walk on by? If you judge murder to be morally wrong, then you should do what you can to stop it, but if you feel that all morality is subjective and relative ... then you walk on by. You tacitly admit that murder is OK so long as the person doing the murdering feels it to be a good thing to do.

Is that really who you are?

a reply to: ketsuko

You tacitly admit that murder is OK so long as the person doing the murdering feels it to be a good thing to do.

Interrupting here.......

Ketsuko, don't you also admit that murder is okay as long as you feel okay about it? For example, do you support the death penalty in certain instances? Would you condemn your neighbor's son for going to Afghanistan and taking a military appointment as a sniper?

a reply to: ketsuko

My morality may be different than the morality of others. In fact, I know it is, but I am comfortable with it and use it to guide my actions.

Well this kind of proves my point... You know for fact that there is a lack of moral consensus worldwide. I don't get what your issue is.

How can you judge a murder if you don't even know if it's wrong?

I already addressed this, I don't judge as it is not for me to do so or anyone for that matter. If it's within my power to stop someone from murdering in cold blood in my vicinity, I'll do so because I find murder immoral as it's a violation of the victim's autonomy. Since murders occur everyday, I have to accept there are somethings out of my control and no moral judgment is going to fix that.

You tacitly admit that murder is OK so long as the person doing the murdering feels it to be a good thing to do.

Yes,in some cases murder can be justified. Is murder always wrong 100% of the time? Ideally,I would agree with your moral absolutist stance on murder,however it's not a realistic stance. There are some cases in which the act of ending someone else's life isn't always morally wrong.
Do you disagree with the above statement and if so why?

a reply to: Profusion

By their etymological roots, ethics is character and morals are customs.

Ethics vs. morals

Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based. Ethics are principles of right conduct. So the two nouns are closely related and are often interchangeable. The main difference is that morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based, while ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions. For example, a politician’s sex scandal may involve a moral lapse (a subjective judgment), while a politician taking money from a company he is supposed to regulate is an ethical problem. But of course, both ethics and morals may have a part in both situations.

Ethics (the word takes a plural form but is treated as singular) is also a field of philosophical study. There aren’t many college courses on morals (though ethics courses inevitably involve discussions of morals), whereas classes in ethics are required for many degrees, especially in law, business, and medicine.

Meanwhile, the difference between ethics and morals is often formulated this way: that ethics are the science of morals, and morals are the practice of ethics. But that’s a little too neat and doesn’t cover all the ways in which the words are used.

Please think of this post as only a summary of the concepts. Anyone who has studied these issues closely might have much more to say about what they mean and how they differ.

I think what you are hinting at is the fatalistic attitude some hold toward the constructive discussion of manifest policy and the thorough inspection of the tangible results they produce.