Jumpoing on the relativism boat

The problem with imposing one set of morals on a set of people with another set of morals is, of course, that morality is relevant. Even on planet Earth, between a single species, we can barely agree on a single instance of good and evil. We agree killing is evil... but disagree about killing in wars, or blood feuds, or if he stole my cow. We agree rape is bad... but disagree about whether you can be raped if you're married, or if rape is a punishment. We agree love is good... but disagree about whether children can love romantically, or whether it's okay for two members of the same sex to love each other, or if two people from different religions can love each other.

Can there be a universal standard of morality? Clearly we can't crusade on specifics - for example, the U.S. culture finds burkas barbaric, but some Muslim women choose to wear them in order to free themselves from male scrutiny. However, the majority of people would agree that the choice to wear a burka should be just that - a choice.

So can we agree that something is moral if it is a choice? If everyone who follows that moral code agrees with it, and makes the choice to follow that code of their own free will - is it moral?

Even if we put aside the problems of identifying choice vs. coercion (do the Runa choose to live as they do, or do the Jana'ata coerce them?) and assume that children must be coerced by their parents before they attain an age or maturity to make their won decisions, this system of judging morality wouldn't work. Most participants in the U.S. culture agree that murder is bad and rape is bad, but we still must have laws and a police force to legislate against and punish those who choose not to follow this moral code. Thus, many are coerced into following the "no murder no rape" morality.

But that's a good thing, right? Rape and murder both hurt other people. So what if we judge all moral systems based on how much they protect its participants?

Unfortunately, this is also problematic. Besides the fact that in some circumstances, rape ("she deserved it") or murder (the death penalty, anyone?) can be justified as protecting others, almost ANYTHING can be justified as being "for someone's own good." Radical Islamic men who force women to wear burkas, leave the house only in the company of male relatives, and leave their professional lives claim they are protecting the women from dangerous males and the scary outside world. The Jana'ata would claim that their breeding program (and stringent hierarchical system) prevents poverty, crime, genetic diseases, overpopulation, and overuse of the planet's resources. Columbus claimed his work went to cilivilize, tame, and "save" (convert) the Native Americans.

Logic fails to find a common ground for judging morality. Thus, the only way to judge morals is from a moral standpoint, which basically means that there must be agreement among those following the same moral code, and either noninvolvement or conflict between those with different moral cades.