Sidelights on Moral Relativity

Many people today, especially young people, have come to accept that morals are relative. Few of these people wonder what morals are relative to. Perhaps they realize that in theory, an individual constructs their own guideline, to which morals are relative to. What they take for granted however is that few people live in such obscurer isolation that they can decide what is right and wrong. A person living i the company of others must at some level, pay due respect to the morals generally accepted by the society. Thus a person's morals may be relative only to himself, unless he holds any communion whatsoever with his fellow man. Morals, under social conditions, then become relative to more than just the individual, but be relative to the sum of every man's morals.

If, in the event that someone's act comes under moral censure, that person can no longer plea that his moral code differs from the society, but must accept the censure because of his association. Suppose that one man has no qualms about loud music in his apartment, and thinks that he is somehow morally justified to play it at 3 AM. If this man were to play it in his own individual house, his morals would be in act, but when coupled with a society, his morals become relative to them. Morals, then, grow from being relative to self to being relative to society. 

One can, to a practical extent, choose the company he keeps, and he can keep company with those of like morals, which in turn justifies his own moral conduct. Return to the example of the man and his music. What if, after vacating his old apartment, he were to move to an apartment full of fellow music enthusiasts, who stayed up just as late and played their music just as loud. Thus the morals of society come into harmony. 

Suppose for a moment that only one person didn't like the late hours and the music. If this person was a regular joe, his morals would be overcast by the group's morality; except that this one person owns the building. Thus everyone's musical  morality become more-or-less subject to his approval, or face eviction. Suddenly, everyones morals become subject to one man... the land lord. While this sounds tyrannical, it remans just because the apartment building is owned by him, paid by him, and kept by him. Staying in his apartment building is not to dissimilar to staying in his house. Depending on who's land you are on, or who's house you are inhabiting, the owners morals come foremost. 

The question then arises "what is one person owns everything?" In that case either his ownership is unjust or completely just. If unjust, then relating your morals to him would not be called for; if just, then his morals come foremost as well. Although it is hard to comprehend anyone short of God being justified with the ownership of everything.

If God is taken into the equation, who in his might created and organized the world and placed man upon the worlds surface, then clearly all morality becomes relative to him and his commandments. This moral standard would be universally true but for the fact that God has not made himself publicly known, nor are his words and scriptures translated the same way twice. 

Who then sets the bar for morality? Does everyone decide for themselves? Society? Private men on private property? Kings? Governments? Nations? God? Could a standard be found in theory? Could a standard be found in objective science? Perhaps, perhaps. In any event, despite what morals are relative to, it is essential that we all try to be honest and true the best we can to the knowledge we have.