An example? Well ...
In America, it is considered wrong to kill someone, at least without provocation. In certain tribes of the Amazon, it's not considered wrong to kill someone unless he is part of your tribe. The question beins asked, tailored to this example, is: Is one of these conflicting values ("killing strangers is wrong" vs. "killing strangers is not wrong"😉 objectively correct, and the other objectively wrong? Or are they both equally valid?
Gregory what you are doing there is being an external observant. To be apart of the culture is to understand the actions, behavior, and values of the culture. Think of it as an Anthropologist, when studying a certain culture one must be connected within the culture to understand. Therefore your own ethical standards would be different than that of the culture you are viewing. Adoptation is always helpful to a learning process of another culture.
Originally posted by Storm
[b]In theory, morality should be, at its base, absolute and never relative.
But morality is based on universal principles.
Some view abortion as morally acceptable while others see it as murder. [/B]
Which I suppose then means that Morality is relatively absolute 😕
as in it is absolute, relative to the personal beliefs of the people/culture in question.