You can use arrow keys to navigate in the map.
it is based on moral relativism that there should be moral differences
could you explain me, why moral relativism entails the notion, that moral "should be" relative ? Is it not a metaethical view ? (How it "is", and not how it "should" be)
it is not that extreme
i think there is universal morality to some extent. The practice is different but the moral principles in deep are the same.
It would be very good, but
philosophers tried to find these core principles, and we end up with many different ethical frameworks.
It would be very "good" that people try to find their own core ethical principles, and make compromises with the others ethical frameworks.
A lot of what people do is harmful even in their own ethical framework.
There are the consequentialist ethics : preference utilitarianism, hedonist utilitarianism, negative utilitarianism, lexical utilitarianism.
And there are also a lot a deontological ethics, by example the kant’s categorical imperative.
I think deontological ethics are untenable, they are just strategies, and aren’t really core ethical principles.
the custom is different but the belief is somehow the same.
but you don
t have a way to prove this. Moral relativism is quite simple to prove. Doesnt show that moral relativism is true, because we can show, that different cultures show different moral notions.
Morality and culture are different concepts so moral differences don't have to be explained by or overlap with cultural differences.
but the difference in concepts, must be explained; so can not culture explain the difference ?
Let's define culture: Handed down rituals and expressions (like food, clothing, music, religion) that bind a community.
Morality: Values and choices about right and wrong behavior.
Morality is often taught through culture but can be treated as independent, even spanning cultures.