Moral knowledge, like any other kind of knowledge, is cumulative and fallible. Like any other kind of knowledge, tbe entirety is subject to greater confidence as it is vetted over time. It is more reasonable to call it "objective" than to call it "absolute", insofar as there is appears to be an underlying reality to which it tends to conform, especially in the articulation of principles.
If there is a postulate which is assumed to make the whole thing "go", without reiterative debate, it is that we as individuals have a stake in society. After that, we contemplate the traits of a good society, and what individuals can hope to derive from such a society.
Empirical difference will have something to do with the application of principle, as will the lack of precisely calibrated measures. For example, morality will be somewhat different in the context of urban civilization than it is in a bucolic environment, and it is not easy to draw the line between legitimate self- defense and an overly aggressive response.
The application of principle is therefore "relative", but not assumed to be arbitrary, and therefore not relative in the sense required of the term "moral relativity". Perhaps a better term is "contextual".
The form of morality associated with democratic cultures is just about the best that is on offer, on a mass basis, on this planet. Although there is no morally perfect group on this planet, those who have had the benefit of English civilization do pretty well.
It is not moral to take the land of others, if they have an established claim. If the claim is disputable, it may be moral.
Guerilla warfare is acceptable. Hyper- terrorism is not.
Israeli newspapers are more professional and freer than Arab newspapers.
The rest rather degenerates, so I will call it quits..... |
