My recent post, "Are values personal or universal - and why it matters," (Advice Line, June 24, 2007) generated a great deal of commentary. It's worth your time to read.I thought two of the comments warranted direct responses. One said this:Wow, had no idea you were so anti-religion. I can quit reading now; that's a help, actually, since I already don't have time to read everything I would like to.[Btw, the cons My recent post, “Are values personal or universal – and why it matters,” (Advice Line, June 24, 2007) generated a great deal of commentary. It’s worth your time to read.I thought two of the comments warranted direct responses. One said this:Wow, had no idea you were so anti-religion. I can quit reading now; that’s a help, actually, since I already don’t have time to read everything I would like to. [Btw, the constitution is a magnificent document, but it’s for structuring a gov’t, not one’s life.] For the record, I’m not anti-religion. As a source of personal values it can be a marvelous force. Or a dreadful one, depending on the religion and its interpretation, of course. I’m against religion as the imposition of one person’s values, or those of a group, on others. I’m against this use of religion whether the imposition is through the passage of religion-driven laws, direct oppression, or a boss using his/her authority to impose religious values on employees as an implied condition of work. And no, I’m not overstating things. I’ve heard of managers conducting prayer sessions with employees. Those who attend inevitably are viewed more favorably than the rest. Among other reasons: They clearly have stronger values (in the eyes of their manager). The other question was tougher: Hmmm, there are no ethical absolutes? Is it right for me to: – Kill baby humans for sport? – Take anything I want that without paying? – Rape women? – Cheat on my wife? – Tell others you do all the above? Now you may find those who would say yes to some, but not if it was done to them. These challenges are common ones when discussing ethical relativism. I’ve thought long and hard about this, and have come to these conclusions: Are baby killing and the other practices on the list okay with me? No. They aren’t, and I prefer to live in a society where they aren’t considered acceptable. That isn’t the question, though. The question is whether I consider myself to be “right,” or whether I figure I’ve chosen sides. I think the only honest answer is that I’ve chosen sides. Throughout human history there have been those who have considered one or more of these to be entirely acceptable behavior, especially when practiced by conquerors among the conquered. I have two choices. The first is to consider myself morally superior to them. As evidence for my moral superiority I have this: Mom raised me better. Of course, they would have considered themselves superior to me. As evidence, they’d have crushed my skull with their clubs or whatever, demonstrating that their gods were more powerful than my gods … and therefore their morals were superior to mine by definition. Or, I can consider myself morally different from them and consider their behavior to be unacceptable to me. As evidence I have this: That’s how I feel about it, and I’ll do what I have to in order to make sure that sort of behavior isn’t practiced in the society I live in. Many moral absolutists figure ethical relativism means accepting whatever anyone decides they want to do. That isn’t the case. Moral relativism means acknowledging that what is and isn’t moral changes with one’s point of view. That means each of us has to accept responsibility for the moral code we practice, and for deciding where the boundaries have to be in the societies we live in. It’s more complicated than moral absolutism. But then, relativity makes physics more complicated, too. That isn’t a reason to discount it. – Bob Powered by ScribeFire. Technology Industry