[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

I disagree, what is morally "right" or "true" is entirely relative. Morality is a man-made construct and as such was moulded to whatever belief system it spawned from and, therefore, can only be "true" according to said belief system, but is by no means ultimately true (meaning it cannot exist without that system). Some morals are subjective according to culture or individual, however, others are more pan-human due to the very reason that they concern the survival of the species (a pan-human concern). Therefore, it stems more from the desire to survive (and the desire for those closest to ourselves to survive), a desire which exists in every other species.

Here's the problem that I see with saying that morality is relative. Since you talk about marginalized groups, let's talk about some of the things that have happened to marginalized groups which have, at other times and in other places, been considered moral. Let's do the heavy one first and talk about slavery. If what you are saying is true, that morality is relative, then there are times, places or worlds in which American-style chattel slavery is morally acceptable. I would argue that slavery is immoral because it reduces a human being to a mere object and that it is wrong to reduce human beings to mere objects. I would say that this is grounded in our basic humanness, people WANT to be self-determining and self-actualizing and slavery prevents both by its very nature.

Now, if morality is, in fact, relative then the above may not be true. If that is the case then one can imagine a population that has the misfortune of being enslaved becoming adjusted to that condition and, in fact, becoming happy within that condition. I would argue that I am not aware of any such population EVER having existed. My ancestors coped with being slaves, they had moments of happiness--the birth of a child, say--but these were moments of happiness that occurred despite the condition of being enslaved.

I often find it strange the way people in marginalised communities cling to morality as though without it discrimination of marginalised groups would run rampant.

I think we cling to morality because we are human beings.

I've actually found the case to be quite the opposite. Morality seems to have, at least partially, spawned discrimination in that it passes judgement (or worse) upon any act its own system deems as wrong.

Might that not be putting the cart before the horse? Might it be that humans will find some reason to discriminate and will then backfill in the why of it, usually wrapping it up in the moral language of, say, taboo or uncleanliness?

That act may be murder, or, on the other hand, it may be sex between two people of the same sex, or sex between two people of a different race, and so on and so forth.

I don't know about putting those two into the same moral bucket. One (murder) clearly harms others by its very nature while the other doesn't. I think that before society proscribes any given act 'X' it should always ask itself "is there some compelling reason why this should be sanctioned".

Oddly enough both sides, both the "bigots" and the "enlightened" seem to prefer to tout the other as undoubtedly immoral and their own perspective as undoubtedly moral. Why not use reason over moral codes? Who's morality is more moral and according to whom? An extremist who blows up a building or anything else is just as full of moral conviction as those who point at him as the epitome of immorality, the devil in disguise. What makes popular western or left-wing convictions more "true" than any other? Location? The mere fact that one happens to agree?

Well, that last question is the one I like to pull out on relativists, quite honestly. If all knowledge is relative and if all morality is relative, might it NOT be true that, say, Fred Phelps is correct and that all queer people are Satan-spawned demons bound for Hell? If whatever one believes is true is actually true then the only reason we might have for telling Phelps that he is full of it is that we disagree. For myself, I want a firmer intellectual foundation than "I don't like what you say and therefore what you say is wrong" to stand upon. Something similar applies to moral relativism. I would argue that, for instance, slavery is wrong--not wrong in the West, not wrong amongst the Left, not wrong when it's my ancestors but okay when it's your ancestors. Rather, I would argue that slavery is wrong because it violates something central, core and non-negotiable about human beings--namely that we belong to ourselves. That is true for my ancestors and it is true for everyone reading this post.