Funky: The reason the slavery example is bad is because it is an extreme case that strongly goes against some of our most deeply held (and by this time, quite widely held) values. Do you similarly think there is an absolute right and wrong on meateating, pre-marital sex or abortion for all time regardless of context?

For instance, meateating. It might well be considered quite immoral one day once we perfect tissue culture. But then to go back and consider hunter-gatherer societies immoral seems a stretch. If you do take their situation into account when deciding the morality of their actions, that’s moral relativism.

Mark:
“Is it reasonable to value sentience? Maybe, maybe not. But I do, and I have no problems saying that I disagree with cultures who don’t.” That’s a big part of the problem. Different people value different things. What is more OK to kill? An octopus or a dog? I would be horrified at eating a dog, but find octopus delicious, despite the fact that they are very smart.

As for the existence of God, there is no way to prove or disprove it. However, I think that the majority of evidence suggests that there is a god. Though there’s no way of telling who’s idea of God is closest to being correct, there have been so many recordings of divine works and prophesy that it would take a certain closed mindedness to conclude that we are the highest form of life in existance and that there is definitely no God.

About flexibility: I don’t think that right and wrong change, however it’s vital that our own ideas of what is right and wrong do change. Just as scientific theories change with new experimental data, so should philisophical ones. Anytime there’s a clash in ideologies, both sides have a chance to learn from each other and improve… just as scientific theories do.

I mostly agree with your arguments both about the intersection of culture and ethics and about the whaling specifically. I don’t think that the Arapahoe make a very good example, though. I grew up in the same part of the US which used to be theirs, and there did used to be a lot of buffalo here before Americans like “Buffalo Bill” started wiping them out. But the thing is, by the time buffalo were considered protected, the Arapahoe had already lost their way of life. To the best of my knowledge there aren’t any Arapahoe still living off of buffalo. Back in the days that there were, buffalo weren’t considered protected, anyway. If there were Arapahoe decendants who claimed “cultural rights” to hunt buffalo outside of hunting season now, I would be pretty skeptical.

For people who hunt an endangered species for survival, it’s much more understandable. However, I would be very, very surprised if that were the case with any American Indians in the continental US. I have quite a bit of American Indian ancestry (but not enough to qualify for special scholarships :P), and I’ve visited several reservations. Deer hunting might be an issue for a small number, but in general, the old way of life and the old languages are almost completely gone.

“Slavery makes a good example because it was a well established part of cultures all over the world for centuries, and yet nearly any culture in the world would say that it is “wrong” now.”
That’s why absolutisms are bad.

This is why relativisms are bad. Slavery never was right. The fact that most socienties accepted it, did NOT make it so. Some philosophers, even in though surrounded by people who believed otherwise realized this thousands of years ago. Likewise, there are sure to be certain things our societies do now that future generations will (rightly) condemn us for.

I have no problems with going to bat for women’s rights, or human rights. I believe that many societies are clinging to outmoded and counterproductive beliefs in these areas. But quite apart from my philosophical stance, seeking to “impose” one’s values on others is often counterproductive. For instance, lets accept the Bush administration’s line that this war is about bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqis. I think freedom and democracy are damned fine values. But imposing them by force in a contry riven with sectarian conflict with no proper institutions is just a disaster waiting to happen.

My point about god was not that the existance or lack thereof of a god has anything directly to do with morality. It is that people often use their need for something to justify why they think it exists. With God, the example is usually, “but if there is no god, where do we go when we die?” We have an a priori desire for immortality, and god springs up to fill that gap. With morality, it is our need to know we’re right, for now and all time.

If you want to decrease the incidence of whaling in Japan, don’t attack japanese traditions. Appeal to the fact that there are less and less whales in the world and if we hunt them all down, there will be no whale hunts ever again. If there are plenty of whales, I don’t think we have much of a position to attack whale hunting in Japan while animals are raised under such cruel circumstances in factory farms in the U.S.

also @Battlepanda: If you believe there is no such thing as right and wrong, that would certainly affect your view of this issue. The existence of God though, is an entirely different issue and I don’t see how it’s relevant. Also simply saying there is no God is no more useful than an unsupported statement that there is a God. Much of philosophy is devoted to that one question, and it’s completely unresolved.

@Darin: I don’t think culture is bad. I’m arguing that aspects of a culture can be bad. Slavery makes a good example because it was a well established part of cultures all over the world for centuries, and yet nearly any culture in the world would say that it is “wrong” now. Unlike many, I feel that human society has made progress. However, that doesn’t mean that everything that current cultures accept or embrace is good.

A side point about whaling: I am much more sympathetic to groups which actually have been whaling from generation to generation as many indigenous peoples around the world have. Most Japanese people don’t hunt whales, neither did their parents, their grandparents, or their great-grandparents. This issue is very much like hunting buffalo in the US. For Americans in general to claim it as their culture is absurd, but for certain American Indians it’s more reasonable. I think the greenpeace volunteers confronting the whalers truly believe they are doing the right thing. I can’t say the same for the pro-whaling block.

I think Darin got it right when he said “Absolutisms are fine in theory, but who decides what’s right and wrong?” Many of the founding fathers owned slaves, an immoral act in our eyes. Are we more moral than they are? And one day what we do (perhaps the eating of animals) would be considered terribly immoral too. Does that negate the moral worth of our lives?

Moral absolutism gets one a lot further than moral relativism.
That seems like an awfully utilitarian way of justifying moral absolutism. I admit that in a rhetorical situation, it is helpful to state your argument in terms of absolutes. But truth is almost always preferable to lies, no matter how convenient and benign (like Santa Claus).

We like to think of morality as something concrete and unchangeable. This is understandable — we live our lives by this compass, how frightening to think that it is inexact! But the truth is, there is no morality in planets, there is no morality in rocks and water. There is even no morality among animals. Morality is a human construct which came into being to help us extend recipriocal relationships beyond kinship groups, so it seems natural to me that there are many commonalities across groups (killing those within your group outside of self defense is bad) and many differences (whether sex is OK before marriage, whether eating pork is OK, whether women are the equals to men).

So, does my lack of a belief in moral absolutism make my values weaker and my actions less consistent? I don’t think so. I have enough trust in the sturdiness of my values not to have to bolster them with the false support of moral absolutism even when they are challenged every day by people who think differently. In fact, I think so level of either moral relativism or defacto moral relativism is required for people of different backgrounds to come to an understanding, to seek common ground instead of falling back on their different ideologies and insisting furiously that they are right and their opponents are wrong.