I think morals are more relative than absolute. Absolute is saying that there are right and wrong morals, but there are only one set of morals in which you will follow by. So, The Way is relevant to relevant morals in my eyes. Btw with the Hiroshima thing: War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
For sure i believe morals are relative (as my previous posts in this thread dictate), my last post was more of a jab at aaronmans post Im a nuclear engineer student and WWII has always made me uncomfortable, I personally wish we could uninvent nuclear weapons - they have profound effects on the entire world when detonated and have caused much backlash against extremely safe nuclear uses (who knows how much nuclear power we would be using now if it wasnt for all the fear tactics against it used previously) I would say im against the development of nuclear weapons, however I (weakly) support our use in WWII as it caused an almost immediate end to japanese fighting
Nietzsche takes the cake for morality http://books.google.com/books?id=Dg...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#PPA60,M1
I don't know about this... but I can say one thing for sure. Right and wrong is very different for everyone. Its based off personal biases and personal experiences. Someone who is rich will think stealing is worse then a poor person would, they have more to loose, and for a poor person, it could be their only mode of survival.
they are both lables because there is no "right" or "wrong" obvious higher power. You can still be enlightened and see a greater sense of "right" and "wrong" though i think.
EITHER Something is wrong because we say it's wrong. Meaning we project our own subjective view of morality outwards on to something. OR the action is inherently wrong bound to some master list that we have no access to and are thus hopeless.
Read some existentialist authors such as Sartre (probably the most useful in this case) and Nietzsche. These two would, for the most part, agree with your argument. If you want an argument against moral relativism within the context of existentialism, I would suggest that you read Ethics by Alain Badiou or Doestoyevsky's Crime and Punishment (though you may want to get some spark notes for this). I mean absolutely NO OFFENSE to anyone here, or their opinions/dissertations on this but, I suggest that you read through some philosophers that have dedicated their lives to answering this question instead of relying on 2-3 sentence arguments posted by amateurs (myself included, though this is not an argument).