When discussing moral issues, there are often misconceptions that many of us defend. To better understand ethical issues, your views and those of your opponents, it is important to correct several common misconceptions about “morality”. Whether they are “directly moral” or are simply related to clear thinking, I tend to see them appear in several debates. This is my attempt to untangle some of them.
I've talked about some of them before on the blog. But we must avoid absolutist statements, such as “all” or “all”. In addition, even if the crime itself is worth hating, it could be proven later that the criminal is innocent. It seems to me that many arguments in favor of human equality are lacking, such as appealing to spirituality, to God or to something called “innate humanity”.
Does that mean that I believe that certain races are “better” than others, that certain sexes deserve it more than others? No, because they are even more defective. Many students initially adhere to a simplistic and ill-justified regulatory cultural relativism, which may or may not be consistent with some of their other beliefs about morality. I suppose most moral philosophers reject (R); otherwise, it would be difficult to explain what they are doing. Because many people rely on a personal moral code to make ethical decisions, there can be as many unique perspectives on ethical behavior as there are people in the world.
In addition, they are often surprised to realize that relativism can rule out or turn into mysterious aspects of their moral thinking that they didn't even know were related to a metaethical position (for example, those moral perspectives may not always align with expectations in the field of self or employer psychology). Ethical norms are based on human principles and moral beliefs that may vary depending on people and culture and, therefore, may offer something different or additional to the law. And none of these forms of relativism is absurd or necessarily based on some kind of misconception. Ethical codes communicate a common set of principles, norms and ambitious objectives to all members of a collective, and offer a sense of guidance to overcome ethically ambiguous situations in order to ensure that the decision serves the interests of the interested parties and is aligned with the ethical principles adopted in the field of interaction psychology.
Third, I fully agree with your point of view on the importance of taking relativism and moral skepticism seriously. Therefore, according to them, we must all follow the 10 commandments (ignoring the others), we must love, love the teachings of Jesus (usually the Republican Jesus), but we must not judge the morality of people because morality is relative, they are just opinions or, in the case of other cultures, a question of social values.