Morality shifts depending on the context

The argument

In a world characterized by gray areas, attempts to make morality black-and-white are fruitless. We can support any number of moral maxims, from “thou shalt not kill” to “live and let live,” but it’s easy to poke holes in them when we think about situations where they would be rendered inapplicable. For example, most people would agree that theft is wrong-but what about stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family? We also consider killing as wrong, but what if it's in self-defense? Torture is wrong-but what if it’s to further the “right side” of a just war? The same questions can be asked to probe actions we consider good. Telling the truth is good-but what if the truth leads to unnecessary pain? Being loyal is good-but what if the object of your fidelity is corrupt? In light of examples like these, it becomes clear that morality is not absolute. It shifts constantly, depending on the specific circumstances each person finds him- or herself in. What’s wrong in one moment may be right the next, and vice versa. In this way, we can see that morality is far from static, and that to subscribe to rigid moral rules is to accept an idealistic oversimplification of a patently complex world. Not only do right and wrong vary across time and culture, but on a smaller scale, they vary from situation to situation.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Naturally, there are exceptions to moral rules but that doesn’t mean we should deny the rules’ existence entirely. Claims like “lying is always wrong” are true in a broad sense, if not applicable to every situation.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The examples show that simple rules are badly stated, not that morality varies. "Do not kill" was never held by its serious defenders to cover self-defence — the traditional formulation prohibits murder, which is defined so as to exclude it — so the exceptions are built into the principle rather than counting against it. [Rejecting P2] Each case can be read the other way. That nearly everyone reaches the same verdict about stealing bread for a starving family, or about killing an attacker, is evidence of a stable underlying standard — weighing harm against need — applied consistently across different circumstances. Sensitivity to context is what a general principle looks like in application, not its absence. [Rejecting P3] The conclusion equivocates on "relative". That moral judgements vary with the situation is accepted by almost every moral theory, absolutist ones included; that they vary between cultures is a descriptive observation about disagreement; and that no moral claim is true independently of who holds it is a third and much stronger thesis. The premises support the first while the conclusion asserts the third, and nothing bridges them — nor does the argument address the near-universal condemnations, of gratuitous cruelty or of betrayal, that a variation thesis has to explain.