I am working on the hypothesis that all ethics and morality is tribal. That is, what is acceptable to the tribe or in the modern world a Social Support Group (SSG) is absolutely the right thing to do and if you wish to be a part of the SSG you do it that way. There are several distinct but overlapping SSGs in the USA but within the SSG there is little latitude for divergence.
Take for example the SSG of educated rational people. If you think I am talking about those reading this blog you are correct. Things like sexism or homophobia, if openly expressed would likely be met with that raised eyebrow that says "We don't think that way." Ignore the eyebrow and you will find that SSG meetings will be closed to you.
但在ssg中，这样的事情是道德标准。
It makes it difficult to ignore relativism even though within a SSG the standards are absolute. This is where discussion becomes confused. Are we talking about society in general or our SSG when discussing morality?

生活无量才是真理。
Just be,
=
MJA

SQUIRMING RATIONALITY
Nothing entertains me more than rational thinkers squirming to justify: 1. immoral or amoral actions, 2. drawing lines (or refusing to draw them).
The morality content of any issue is just one factor to consider before taking action (as opposed to having an opinion, short of acting). There are others: such as, convenience, necessity, well-being, survival, expense, social consequences, etc. Disagreements about moral action often hinge not on the assessment of moral content, but on the assessment of the impact of these other factors on action.
这种蠕动的例子:女性生殖器切割(坏的，不道德的)，而男性生殖器切割，即割礼(好的)。堕胎(好的，不道德的谋杀)，但有必要或其他压倒性的问题为其辩护;塔利班(好?自由战士?当把俄罗斯赶出去的时候，坏的恐怖分子?4);5.亚伯拉罕·林肯(好的，他为了维护国家和防止继承，即自决，发动了杀害数百万无辜民众的战争，摧毁了南方)、萨达姆·侯赛因和卡扎菲(坏的，他们为了维护国家镇压了少数民族和分裂主义者)、战争:杀害25万无辜的人，以防止他们再杀害1万无辜的人。
As for line drawing: Remember: the only real-life practical worth of philosophers is to draw lines for those immobilized by ?but where do you draw the line?? The philosopher recognizes it is immoral NOT to draw lines. Relativism in these instances is a refuge for wimps who use the ?but?line? as a cop-out. They are afraid to draw lines.

这都是相对的，不是吗?到目前为止，我想我理解这些评论，并且大部分同意他们的观点。我将给其他评论者的想象留下任何例外。相对主义的问题在于，它依赖于各种各样的影响，有些旧的，有些新的，这些影响使我们相信，在任何给定的时间点上，什么是相对的，什么不是相关的。这些影响必然包括政治、文化、神学、伦理等。相对论的某些方面变化缓慢;进化。其他人则以革命性的方式改变着——除了认真研究社会变革的学生之外，大多数人完全意想不到。
为了我自己的理智，我拼凑了贝克尔、丹尼特、道金斯、古尔德以及最近的戴蒙德和平克等人的著作，试图找出相对主义的进步本质。但这种说法可能过于乐观，因为有迹象表明，相对主义有许多倒退的方面。以防没人注意到。我认为相对主义很重要——如果它不重要，它就不值得研究，不是吗?但在我看来，这是一个不断变化的目标，很难确定。

A Symposium
我吗?i’我很想和苏格拉底、爱因斯坦和马丁·路德·金开个座谈会，但我也会和你们大家平等而愉快地解决问题。菜单很简单，是吗?这就是事实。
(Sorry for clarity no alcohol will be served)
Let?s eat!
First Course:
The flaw in our mentality is our continued practice and belief in measure or measurement. Science has proven nature to be truly immeasurable but unfortunately as of yet most including science itself has failed to move on. Probability is all we have today, QM, the grey area of fairness, of justice, a dice game. ?Man is the measure of all things,? yet truly everything is immeasurable!
Main Course:
Einstein knew God or nature doesn?t play dice but unfortunately again science rather than searching for the absolute path went the most probable way instead, the wrong way. Beyond our path of measurements, of uncertainty or chance, beyond our judgments of good and bad, beyond our philosophies of East and West, beyond our theories and faiths, or beyond what you call relativity IS nature?s absolute; a truth more simple and more powerful than thought; the true Way.
Desert (The Cake):
There was an old Greek who asked his wife to follow him outside into the starry night so that he could show her the truth of the universe he had found. As they walked through the darkness the man stumbled and fell into a ditch. The woman began to laugh. The man became angry and asked why she found this so funny. She said you claim to know the truth of the universe yet you fail to know what is in front of your own to feet.
The Frosting:
真理不仅在我们所有人面前，它就是我们所有人。
Truth is!
Bon appetite,
=

I have truly enjoyed all commenters' notions, ideas and opinions on this post. Savinar is intelligent and eloquent, as always; cudos to Michael J. for posting far more than haiku---liked your idea for symposium. Relativism becomes us, because we are human and we have this burning need to measure things. I think the Carpenter is on the right track in saying relativism is evolutionary---I have no proof of his assertion-it just feels right. Whatever that is worth.
我们创造了这个世界，我们塑造和重塑了相对主义。有些时候，我们本可以认为它不值得考虑、调查或分析。但这与我们的求知欲不符，与我们对事物测量的极度需求不符。
KT一开始的问题就有了答案。是的，一切都是相对的。如果不是这样，我们该怎么办?那是另一种调查方式。

This exposition of relativism ignores what I think is the only really interesting form of relativism - what you might call objective relativism. Define objective relativism as standard moral realism minus moral universalism. On this view, values are objective, but only relative to a particular organism. So x is objectively good for A, though not necessarily good for B. And x is good for A not in virtue of A's opinion or choice, but because x and A are objectively so constituted that x is valuable for A (on whatever theory of value you like).
By now, we're very used to the idea that even within a species there is a lot of variation. So you'd think we'd be suspicious about any morality that claims to be both universal and based on (or consistent with) human nature. There is no "human nature"; there are just "humans," with highly variable talents, interests, drives, disabilities, and so on. So we should expect that some humans might properly be bound by moral imperatives that conflict with the moral imperatives that properly bind others.
现在，这个想法似乎吓坏了人们。“但是……希特勒!”首先，我们没有理由认为希特勒遵循任何恰当的道德准则。(这种形式的相对主义的优点之一是，人们应该做什么可能是错误的。)第二，即使希特勒遵循的原则在道德上对他来说是恰当的，他的道德原则也没有理由阻止我们对他采取行动。"老虎攻击我是有道理的，我击杀它也是有道理的。我为他辩护的不是我的权利，而是我自己。"*
* Max Stirner.

都是各种各样的好意见。在阅读平克先生的《语言本能》时，我在他的第十三章《思维设计》中发现了一些东西。He was quoting philosopher and 'experimental psycholinguist' Jerry Fodor who (allegedly) said:
The thing is: I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate anything else, excepting, maybe, fiberglass powerboats. More to the point, I think that relativism is very probably FALSE (emphasis added).What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature...
Fodor的咆哮持续了一段时间，但你应该能明白大致的意思。将Fodor描述为实验心理语言学家是模糊的:实验心理语言学是一门实验亚科学，还是Fodor在用它做实验?我不清楚其中的区别。但我跑题了——所有思考者都会这么做。
After some thought and consideration of the above comments, I must conclude that relativism is real. If it were not, we would not be vexed by it and Jerry Fodor could---would have to---find other things to hate. I expect it is a PROBLEM because it represents a class of differences over which we conjure wars and other more-or-less destructive anti-social behaviors.
人性的结构是“固定的”吗?我想可能是这样，不过固定到什么程度还有待商榷。也许这都是相对的。如果是这样，我们还想要其他方式吗?我们能想象，更不用说忍受，其他事情吗?

讨论文化道德的问题在于，他们认为在一种文化中，每个人都有相同的信仰。这很少是真的。例如，我们可能会说X文化认为同性恋是错误的，但几乎可以肯定的是，在X文化中有一些人质疑或完全不同意这种观点。所以这不是一个问题，我们是谁来反对x文化?，而是，我们应该站在多数派/文化x代言人的一边，还是站在少数人/弱势群体的一边?“文化相对主义”只是对现状的一种懒惰的选择。

As the king of Siam said, "Is a puzzlement!" Is a puzzlement to me about all the discussions brought up about 'relative morality', 'culturally determined morality' and other such issues regarding a once perfectly defined and understood concept.
Morality was simply about (1) refraining from harming the well-being of others, and (2) furthermore enhancing the well-being of others. If the universe has suddenly emerged from a wormhole where this fundamental definition no longer holds, then let's talk about "decency and non-decency" and start again from there.
Perhaps it's that some wish to quibble over what constitutes "well-being". If so, I suggest a better waste of time is debating what is sadness or happiness.
The role of government or social/cultural factors in morality {or 'decency/non-decency') is indeed a tricky one and is perhaps what much of the fretting is about. So let's clarify that fact at least.
Also the role of preternatural forces or "spirits" is commonly brought up. I recommend settling that issue by proposing preternatural forces as exclusively ENFORCING decency/non-decency. However, beware of extending this to the Abraham-Isaac sacrifice of infants problem in religion. Preternatural MANDATE outside of decency/non-decency is big puzzlement!

There are a lot of ideas floating about concerning this post. But I will posit another one for those who remain unfulfilled. Relativism, by its nature, assumes there are no absolutes. Bad assumption. MJA simplifies absolute to one word: truth. This may be oversimplification, yet he re-emphasizes his point, time after time. And whether you agree with him, or believe him to be a lost seeker, something inside your head cannot dispute his claim. Take this where you will, or dismiss it. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

Here is some non-relativity for ya:
We are truly just One,
The Universe,
=
MJA

When all the relativities are equal,
Relativity becomes the Truth.
=
MJA

I have been perusing E. O. Wilson's CONSILIENCE, THE UNITY OF KNOWLEDGE (1998). He said something that solidified what was for me previously unexpressible. Ths substance of his remark was that relativism denies any sort of objective truth. The sentiment seems elegant to this layman, even if it is incomplete in some way or another (not saying it IS). But when we relegate matters to their relativity to others, we appear to be discounting the fact that some things, just ARE, WERE and have always BEEN. I'm sure MJA would agree.

PT writes (I assume it's Ken's argument):
"The conclusion is supposed to be that the bare fact that we greet moral disagreements with arguments, rather than with automatic acceptance or indifference, shows that we aren?t really relativists after all.
But a not so small voice inside me thinks that the last line of argument just went by much too fast. Why, the not so small voice plaintively asks, can?t a relativist rationally prefer that others share his or her moral outlook? If she does rationally prefer such a thing, then that bare optional preference itself would give her a reason to invite further argument in the face of apparent disagreement. And there?s no reason, the not so small voice says, that she can?t coherently both have such a preference and believe that there is no absolute truth of the matter where things like morality are concerned"
肯的“小声音”是正确的。相对主义者可以条理清晰地参与道德辩论，同时始终相信结果只能是她喜欢的共识，而不是共同的真理。然而，对于这样一个相对主义者来说，使用她的“理性偏好”策略将是一种欺骗。让我们想象一下，她进入一场关于道德问题的辩论，比如焚烧可兰经是否正当。除非她在一开始就宣称她是一个相对主义者，并且她只是基于她的偏好来争论，她的对话者来分享她的立场，那么她在讨论中使用的任何论点都将是欺骗性的，仅仅是修辞手段。如果她的对手发现相对主义者在这类问题上根本没有辩论的实际用处，而只是希望她的修辞或情感说服能力足以解决这个问题，那他当然会愤怒。这是不诚实的行为。

Hello, a visitor here! I have to say that in regards to the comment about hitler and the nazis, it's a rather problematic subject in regards to relativity. On one hand, Hitler and the Nazis were all humans, and their the fault of their deeds doesn't necessarily lie on just their hands, but on civilisation's for allowing them to every get away with what they did. But, if you mention that to the average joe, you'll likely be branded as some sort of inconsiderate, apathetic individual. I believe the problem here might be that empathy is often seen as feeling sorry for victims, rather than it's more raw form of understanding the viewpoints of others. So a problem about relativity might be the scope of it - it's hard to go fully holistic with it and try to understand things from everyone's viewpoint, which leads to the demonisation of some offenders, the sanctification of some victims, despite the fact that ultimately both parties are human and neither is demonic nor holy/righteous, and often reality is more blurred than that.

多么活泼、有思想、有见解的一群人啊!这是非常有趣和刺激的交流。从克里斯萨默瑞评论的最后一部分开始:那么，现实是相对的吗?还是说事情就是这样?嗯。

A challenge to Fodor's alleged assertion (from Van Pelt's comment): Is human nature 'fixed'? We have often assumed so, but do our views of and relationships toward others remain the same as they were fifty, one hundred, five hundred years ago? If this is what Fodor meant, he must have been sleeping lately.
An example(and Pinker might like this one): 'Thanks for your help with this.' Response: 'Oh, no problem.' Oh, no problem is noncommital---even disdainful. But if we cannot utter the words, you are welcome, without feeling that we just apologized for being human, then human nature is far from fixed---it may be irreparable. But check on the 90-year hypothesis, recently advanced by some science folks. Human nature may be running out of wiggle room.

If your searching for Truth beyond relativity, study nature; it worked for Michelangelo and me.
=
MJA

I stumbled upon this forum and it's a great discussion. I've been thinking about this very thing for a while. Here's my 2c:
Humans have an "objective" aspect to their morality. That is tied to their biology. All humans are the same species and are very nearly identical in the way they operate, their desires, their motives, so they lie in the same moral domain because of their biology. You can't just decide to change your genetic makeup, otherwise you wouldn't be human (by degrees). This is why I accept the quote:
"老虎攻击我是有道理的，我击杀它也是有道理的。我为他辩护的不是我的权利，而是我自己。"
但我不认为这适用于希特勒。希特勒是不道德的。我之所以能这么说，是因为他打破了同理心这一黄金法则，以及其他一些根植于他生物学中的法则。
一个思想实验:假设发现了一个岛屿，那里的人类变异成了另一个物种——我们称这个物种为choomans。朱曼在各方面都和人类一样，除了他们必须每十年吃掉一个小朱曼才能生存。如果这些人中有一个不吃自己同类的孩子，他们就会死。
This means that every surviving adult chooman on the island has eaten a baby. Every chooman of reproductive age has eaten a baby.
So, assume that we know for humans that it's immoral to eat people's babies (you can disagree but then we'll have to have a different discussion). Can we judge the choomans to be immoral for eating their babies? Remember, they need to do it to survive.
My conclusion is that the choomans aren't being immoral in eating their babies. Their biology dictates that it is something they must do, and thus they do what leads to the best outcome.
事实上，有些动物确实会吃掉自己的孩子，但我们不会从道德上评判它们，因为我们不认为它们有道德能力。但是，如果一个完全有知觉的生物在生理上被迫吃自己的孩子，我们就不能把同样的人类道德规则强加给他们。
在许多方面，这些道德规则归结为生存和繁殖，而楚曼人吃自己的孩子是他们生存和繁殖的最佳方式。
The point of all this is to say that I think we can empirically reach an optimal ethical system to the degree that our species' biology stays constant. If aliens were discovered, we couldn't automatically assume morals that objectively apply to humans would apply to them - it would depend on how similar they were to us biologically. I oppose moral relativism, but at the same time I don't think there are any cosmically objective moral imperatives - there are only biologically objective moral imperatives.
What do you think of the thought experiment? It's my original thought (although I'm sure others have considered this) and I'd like it shot to pieces if possible, thanks!

好话题。如果我可以从佛教中推断，这个世界是1和0的结果。因此，从技术上讲，这是一个相对的领域。
In Buddhism, there is this realm of Absoluteness. And meditation is the key to it. This realm of Absoluteness is located within each of us. Whilst, the realm of Relativity that we know of is located away from us. The more we try to explore outside for answers, the further we dive into relativity...so the further away we are from absoluteness (which what some people calls, "The Truth").
希望你能理解;)

This post couldnt be more right on