@johannw,
johannw;154426 wrote:I understand what you are both saying, but if absolute morality doesn't necessarily exist, and all moral judgements are relative and subjective, then doesn't it make sense for one to claim that it doesn't actually exist? Morality is the judgement of if something is right or wrong, but if there are exceptions to every situation and if there are so many factors that there is no universal way to make a moral decision, then wouldn't it make the concept of morality rather weak?
Do I make sense?
You did not understand what I said. I said that even if there is only relative morality, morality exists anyway. Morality does not have to be absolute to exist. If I say that capital punishment is moral in my society, but not in some other societies, that is still morality, isn't it? So, relative morality is still morality.
The fact that there are exceptions to a moral rule does not weaken it. It makes it more sensible. If I say that killing is wrong except in the case of self-defense, that does not weaken the rule that killing is wrong. Why should it? It makes it more acceptable. But, notice, the rule that killing is wrong in all places and at all times except when it is in self-defense, is still universal, even though it makes an exception for self-defense. Universal does not mean the same as exceptionless. And, by the way, relative and subjective are not at all the same thing. An action may be right is one society, but wrong in a different society, but it is still objectively right in the first society, and objectively wrong in the second society.
These matters are complicated, and you might expect. It is important to be exact.