Answer to Morality III

Sorry it took me so long to respond. Guests from out of town slowed me down, hehe.

You said,

Given these responses to the questions I would think it fair to say that you do not believe there to be any universal standard of right and wrong (as relates to actions), but that everything is relative to the individual. According to his nature and past experiences he determines for himself what is right and what is wrong and acts accordingly. So for some it is altruism, others masochism, for some it is loving his neighbors, for others it is eating them. Each man does what is right in his own eyes and there is no universal standard that his actions can be judged by. Is this, in essence, what you are saying?

Not quite. A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society. In our society, cannibalism is judged as immoral; but in some tribes eating the organs of an enemy you slew in battle was seen as a sign of respect and treated as a courtesy. You would only eat the organs of enemies that died with honor, and that fought well. We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice. Would I eat an honored enemy? No, but I am judging the act from the framework of my societal context. Same applies concerning slavery.

Not much else to comment on here, so I'll leave it at that.