If there are no absolute moral truths why does every society have rules built around certain concepts?

in order to get along.

without some laws man would be "nasty, poor, brutish" (Thomas Hobbes)

it's referred to as social contract and it exists so we can coexist without killing each other.

Many of the laws and rules are based upon past understandings and opinions of a religious nature and even those are often flexable asa we say that it is wrong to murder yet we murder as a punishment.

Adultery is not the stoning offense throughout the world that it once was except in certain cultures and societies.

Basically, those acts that cause civil unrest or that disrupt the normal flow of a society are those that are disdained by all nations and cultures.

namaste

The university of moral behaviors that humans have to regulate about only establishes that they're universal, meaning axiomatic in the fact that we exist, not that the rules for dealing with them are absolute or not absolute in some sense. Every society now has traffic laws -- does that mean there are absolute traffic truths or laws? No, it just establishes that every society must have rules regarding traffic. There maybe absolute moral truths but I don't see how you establish the legitimacy of the notion of them via the alleged university of them.

Morals are always conditional therefore can not be an absolute truth. Those who dominate a "society" sets the "concepts" ( in other words, " one who has the gold, makes the rules"). Male domination in the middle east verses western concepts is just one example.

So I assume you are trying to say there ARE absolute truths?

I disagree in that I think each society makes laws that help keep order. Property is a relatively new "right" at least in terms of the entire history of human civilizations. Marriage as we know it today is also not an extremely ancient concept.

It wouldn't be hard to argue against me. (I have had this very debate in my philosophy classes)

Professor of English Literature, Dan Rubin

"for the reason that with none absolute ethical truths one is left to wade in a sea of opinion without consensus" And yet there is consensus. regularly uneasy consensus, yet consensus however. "Then why is it time-honored by making use of ethical relativists?" back, localized consensus. i'm valuable your ethical absolutes are in conflict with those of the common fundamentalist Muslim. a ethical relativist in simple terms calls ethical absolutes what they are, evaluations and possibilities. "If people or societies do not agree on morality does that advise morality is relative? in simple terms through fact not unquestionably everyone has an identical opinion on morality does not advise there is not any absolute morality." you're properly suited, yet we've no reason to presuppose the existence of absolute morality. "that is like saying in simple terms through fact there may well be competing scietific theories that there is not any precise concept available. the consequence may well be scientific chaos. Similarily, ethical relativism leads to ethical chaos." yet there are various "precise theories" of what's maximum greatest for a individual to do, given their objectives, if there are clean and lifelike reason-consequence relationships that is seen for them to realize those objectives interior the final way available. as an occasion, all of us be attentive to that if we decide to not have lung maximum cancers, then it rather is "spectacular" to evade smoking cigarettes. it rather is greater ambiguous the place the final direction of action won't be in a position to be desperate from pondering the circumstances (what we could do with area extraterrestrial beings?).

America was founded on the premise that there are moral absolutes. I agree that there are, but I also think that man's imagination and freedom can absolutely turn what he will to his will, and act inhumane even though inhumanity may itself be a thing that has absolute existence.

It is simple to say,

Killing is good,

and killing is bad,

and difficult to prove either objective?

If you reward a child for being hate filled, they will think it good, but those being hated won't. The idea that needs to be followed to reach moral absolutes, is that human survival and all attitudes to encourage our moral, and those that prevent it are immoral.

What is morality without human survival? Morality has itself non-existence with the extinction of human life, therefore morality itself depends on survival, and so should the good present in morality.

The general will of the people is their own survival, and those laws are put in place so as to prevent harm as much as government intervention can without impinging on human freedom.

Read Bentham, Kant, Rousseau, Rawls, and other moral philosophers.

Because there are very practical reasons behind these morals.

To find out what the practical reasons of these morals are, I suggest go be immoral and do so with extreme abandon. You will figure the reasoning behind modern ethics very shortly after living such a life.

it is safe to say that moral absolute truth in a person is more truthful to itself than to a collective group.

if there is moral truths in a given society which is being followed and practiced by everybody, that must be in the form of religious belief IMHO.

there is no reason for them to avoid all moral ideas just because they are relative. Parents start with their children, they aren't going to let their kids kill small animals or start fights with others b/c there are no aboslute moral truths.

there's gota be some control and sense of SECURITY for people. if they live in a society where murder isn't ruled as wrong or crime.... people feel they would be less secure.