This is a sensitive subject for many people. Differences in perspectives on morality cause division, some minor, and some large. At the heart of these perspectives is one question: is morality relative or absolute? This is a topic that affects everything, including my works of fiction. There are some who believe the same as I do about Jesus, but feel enjoying Fantasy is immoral. Are they correct? Is there even a right answer to these questions?
An entire book series could be written discussing in depth why there is morality, what morality is, and if there is an absolute basis for said morality. Here I simply want to address the question, is morality absolute or not? In short, my answer is yes. Morality, like many realities are more nuanced than merely yes or no. While the idea of moral relativism and absolutism appear incompatible, I argue it depends on the approach one takes. An absolutist version of either end up with absurd logical conclusions. Absolute moral relativism would mean that morality is determined by the individual and society. However, when we study history we agree that the actions of the Nazi’s and Stalin’s Red Army were unquestionably evil. I am familiar with the argument that there is no true right or wrong, just what we make of it, but I don’t think many truly apply that belief. Sure, there are moral relativist apologists from the common Facebook user all the way up to professional philosophers. No rational person would agree that just because it was culturally appropriate to commit mass murder in Nazi occupied territories means it is okay. In the 21st century few would argue that slavery is evil and a terrible thing that happened not only throughout history, but has remained in various forms throughout the world. Sometimes slavery has been used as an example of this philosophical position’s truth. It is true centuries ago slavery was more accepted than it is today, the issue once again was that those that were enslaved were thought of as not entirely human. Ultimately, I find it difficult to get around the conclusion that moral relativism will lead to individuals doing what they please, while not pleasing anyone. Much more could be written on moral relativism, and within that think tank there is diversity.
On the other side of the spectrum there is absolute morality. This essentially states that there is a moral code that is universally true for every human being. I believe this is a little closer to the truth than moral relativism. Those who disagree with this point of view will mention the differences throughout history in society’s values and morality. However, there are more similarities across cultures then one might realize. A common example would be that murder has not been freely allowed in cultures. Now of course there are cases of cannibalism, genocide, and murder of every kind, but the difference is the victims were not considered people by their oppressors. Even in Nazi Germany murderers were punished. Those who adhere to this moral philosophy may cite holy religious texts or scriptures. What absolute morality fails to take into account by itself is the different sensitives of other people’s consciences. This looks like tastes in music, books, television, basically any consumable media. Where some may be deeply disturbed by a film and may deem it to be immoral, others may gain something from it. Another difference may come in food and drink, where one may see eating meat as wrong, another may see supporting agriculture as wrong.
In the above cases, I feel it is down to the individual to do what is best for them, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t overarching moral truths that apply to everyone. Murder is wrong, but self-defense is typically seen as fair and at minimum a less punishable act. Within certain cultures people have been deemed less-than-human but murder remains illegal. Some believe enjoying media with magic in it is