Human morality is based on the fact that humans are social beings and on universal truths. There is a distinction between the
truths that are a priori to humans (universal truths) and truths that are created by humans (relative truths). For example,
1 + 1 = 2 is a truth that is a priori to humans while the truth, Canada is a country, is a truth that is dependent on humans since
the term country was created by humans. Morality that is based on universal truths holds for all rational beings since without
these truths and without logic rationality cannot exist (see the page on logic). However, in human societies, there are
different opinions about what is true with regards to various moral issues. Many societies have a view on a particular issue
that contradicts the view held by other societies, for example the relationship of women to men.
Consider two societies, one society only educates men because its members believe that only men are intelligent beings
while the other society educates both sexes since its members consider both sexes intelligent beings. Women are either
intelligent beings or they are not intelligent beings, but both of these views cannot be true since they contradict each other.
To determine which view is correct involves investigating whether or not intelligence is related to sex among the human
species. There is not any relationship between intelligence and sex, and women have proven that they are intelligent beings
by becoming scientist, engineers etc. Therefore, �women are intelligent beings when compared to the human male species�
is a universal truth and the societies that deny women the right to an education are committing an immoral act.
The above example demonstrated that morality is based on the universal truths and is an argument against moral relativism.
Without the truth rationality cannot exist. Therefore, in order to be rational beings humans must abide by the truths.
However, many truths are obscured by prejudices, biases and social norms. Only by freeing oneself from social
confinement can a person find the universal truths.
Humans are not self-sufficient beings. In order for the human race to survive, procreation has to take place, which involves
two persons. It is plausible that a person can exist alone like a hermit and only procreate as required to ensure the survival
of the species but many would find such a life unbearable since humans need friendship and love. This has given rise to the
formation of societies. In order for a society to exist there has to exist laws that govern the interaction of its members. This
implies that the members of a society have to trust each other to abide by the laws they agree on. For example, there has to
be laws to ensure that the societies� members do not kill or steal from each other except in particular situations. Therefore,
two moral laws would forbid killing another human being and stealing from another human being except in special
circumstances. An exception to the law forbidding murder would be when people kill in self-defence or in defence of a
third party. Because morality is also based on the existence of societies, this seems to indicate that the society-based form
of morality is relative to a particular society. However, closer examination of this issue indicates that no form of morality is
relative.
Consider a community where it is morally wrong for women to show their faces in public. In order to decide if this law is
morally wrong or morally right humans have to decide whether or not this law is a society-based law or is based on an
ultimate truth. Now the wearing of clothing is dependent on humans since there is no universal truth that states humans have
to cover themselves. Therefore, this law cannot be based on any universal truth. Neither is this law society-based because it
is perfectly possible for societies to exist where women can show their faces. In conclusion, this law is morally wrong and
morality is not relative to a particular society. The other issue that needs to be discussed is how two societies with there
own society-based rules interact.
Imagine, two distinct societies in existence with their own society-based moral rules. Both societies will have common
rules like prohibiting murder in order to exist, however, they do not have laws prohibiting murdering and stealing from
members of a different society. Therefore, members of one society can murder members of another society and such acts
will not be considered morally wrong since society-based moral laws only apply to the members of a particular society.
If this should become a reality, societies will continually wage war against each other, which would eventually lead to the
destructions of the human race. In order to avoid such an outcome all societies must recognize the rights of other societies
by applying the laws needed for their existence not only to their members but also to the members of other societies.
Therefore, all societies must have international laws similar to the society-based laws, which they all agree to follow. This
illustrates that the moral laws required for the existence of a particular society must apply to all societies.
In closing, morality cannot be defined by one law or several laws because their will always be exceptions to the law or
laws. Thus there cannot be universal moral laws but only absolute moral laws i.e., a law is morally right for a very specific
situation.