Morale relativism

Protagoras stated that man is the measure of all things; of those that are, that they are, of those that are not, that they are not. This saying implies moral relativism; in other words, there is neither absolute right nor an absolute wrong. Everything is relative. Indeed, the separation between right and wrong is different from a person, group of people, organization, society to another because of many factors, such as education, media, history and culture etc. From my daily observations, morality is more present in groups exceeding three members. In order to maintain the status quo, the strongest and smartest person imposes a set of morality that should be followed by the mass in exchange of security. But, you will ask me what is strong? Strong is relative; it can be physical or mental. It might be even the power to manipulate the mass without giving that feeling of manipulation to the manipulated. As a result, to be accepted in a group of people, the self should follow the mass; otherwise the mass will either destroy or reject the different “part”. As it is noticed, human beings are afraid and reluctant vis-à-vis change and difference. Even though human race is prizing the added value of difference, any idea that goes outside the box -threatening the power- is threatening the stability. So, it produces a state of stress difficult to manage by simple minds.

Besides, every community has its own values, truth and filters to differentiate between wrong and right. In some “primitive” cultures, it is normal and accepted by the society to sacrifice virgin pure and beautiful girls in the lava of the Massaya volcano in Nicaragua, for example. On the other hand, in western countries, it is wrong to kill someone for a sacrifice. Since western countries are nowadays stronger economically, scientifically, militarily than people in Nicaragua, so they are allowed to impose their own values and morality; their belief of the absolute truth through many organizations, such as United Nations. Nowadays, strong organizations that prize human rights, such as United Nations are imposing to lot of different cultures to get aligned with a more standardized and universal morality. This behavior deletes the uniqueness of every society and its blue print. In fact, after the Second World War, a more universal morality is spreading exponentially, making the mass easily managed by the elite.

In this world, morality is made by the strong for the strong. We can go back to the creation of human being and have more insight in the genesis to understand this point. At the beginning, there were twenty million spermatozoids fighting to survive. After, minutes or hours in the uterus, just twenty spermatozoids will survive to the massacre. Others, “the weak spermatozoids”, get killed by the white blood cells when the immunity system of the uterus gets activated. Why? Because spermatozoids are different from the hosting body; they are “foreign bodies”. No way for the uterus to accept the change. However, the battle does not stop here. The twenty remaining spermatozoids in the fallopian canal will fight till they die. In the final sprint, one and only one spermatozoid will have the right to survive by perforating the ovule wall; if he is strong enough. In that specific moment of fusion, the ovule changes her morality and though her status quo. She is now looking for survival. If another spermatozoid perforates her wall, she will die. So, under stress, she secretes a substance that kills all the other remaining nineteen. Is it wrong or right? I think it

...