Morality: Relative or Absolute?

There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so
-- Shakespeare, Hamlet

To me, this means that morality is a relative thing, though many people would not agree. However, the truth of this can be easily seen by just looking around at how the world works.

As an example, for nearly everyone, myself included, murder is considered inherently wrong; immoral. Most people would consider this an absolute moral value. However, our society has several exceptions to this general principle -- killing enemy soldiers in battle, executing criminals, and for some, euthanasia. So, even for what is probably our planet's most universal moral principle, there isn't an absolute idea of right and wrong.

And if this is so for murder, imagine how much more flexible other ethical ideas in our society are. Lying is considered a character defect by most societies, yet no man in his right mind is going to answer in the affirmative if a woman asks him if her butt looks big in what she's wearing, even if said butt could have its own zip code!

One sees this principle operating in the matter of laws. We have laws banning things most people consider inherently wrong, such as murder, and then we have laws banning things that are deemed illegal for practical reasons; simply because a particular society says so.

We have speed limit laws, not because there's anything intrinsically wrong with driving over a certain speed, but because it's been proven that fewer accidents occur below certain speeds. We have "status offenses", such as the ban on alcohol consumption below a certain age. This is not because there's anything particularly heinous about drinking before a certain age -- indeed, our society has changed what that certain, arbitrary age is more than once -- but because most, though not all, people below that age are not mature enough to handle drinking responsibly.

And this brings me to my own pet issue, monogamy, or at least, sexual exclusivity. This one is firmly in the camp of relative morality, even though, again, many folks would not agree.

For one thing, it's never been a universal value, in all societies and all times. That alone should convince people that it isn't an absolute moral idea. Laws banning adultery, bigamy, and other forms of multi-partner marriages definitely fall into the category of the "It's wrong because we say so" brand of morality.

I will concede that it's easier if people conform to this widely accepted practice, simply because our society is set up on nearly every level to accommodate those who do. But having said this, I'm not convinced that limiting oneself to a single sexual partner at a time is inherently morally superior to availing oneself of multiple partners. For me, the how and why is much more important than the what.

In regards to adultery, I think that it's the lying that is the "cheating", not the having sex with another person, per se. That is, having sex with a person other than one's committed partner is unethical only if one has promised to be faithful. If one has not made this promise, it's a whole different ballgame.

But I digress.

Thoughts?