But if stealing in certain situations is ultimately good and sometimes bad that would mean that there actually is an objective morality. Just a harder one to define.
Stealing is only good in these situations blablabla , killing is only good in these situations blablabla.
that doesn't mean theres an objective morality, that just means that the reasons the stealing was done for the in a persons view a good reason
you really don't understand moral relativism at all
it would be a good thing for a person to steal bread for his family so they don't starve to death, but would the baker feel the same when it robs him of money to provide for his family? and in the culture is it considered evil or good to steal if your family is suffering?
What I understood is that moral relativism means that everyone makes up their own morality, and not that in some situations a normally bad action might be good in some situations.
no one makes it up, they realize that a static morality doesn't work, such as "thou shall not kill", or murder as they mean, well what about self defense? is that murder? or is it?
when there is only one way to do something i think that might be the only time we have an absolute morality
™ Version 4.2