To: one_less who wrote (70624 ) 6/30/2003 2:46:53 PM From: Solon Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486 "Conduct is always circumstantial and subject to the judgement of the actor. " That sounds like a relative morality to me. Unless you wish to add that it ought to conform to some external law as yet unknow."Since across generations, cultures, time, and circumstances, we continue to identify the same moral principles and associating the same tags of good/bad with them " One argument for moral relativism is precisely that --that across time, culture, and circumstance, people and groups have identified DIFFERENT principles of right conduct. Indeed, the major religions which generally insist on being the carriers of the knowledge of absolute morality, often hold contrasting views on what is right behaviour. Thus it would seem to be a matter of opinion... The fact that human beings share common physiology and biological make-up makes it unremarkable that in certain areas of conduct there should be at least a general agreement. Thus most of us feel that eating one another is "wrong" (who wants THAT to be considered a decent thing for heaven's sake!) while most of us consider that eating other animals is justified by self interest. Of course, sacrificing infants was a common value in other cultures just as eating human flesh was considered an act of decency and often of honour. So the more we look across time and culture the more it becomes apparent that "right" behaviour has always been a matter of opinion. When all conscious conceptual beings cease to exist, we have no reason to believe that morality will not also cease to exist...or that it has ever existed apart from subjective consciousness.