140 réponses à ce sujet

[briskojr]

soteria wrote...

Your logic is impeccable, except you base it on a shaky premise (theft and murder are universally deemed wrong).  I know of cultures where (successful) thieves are honored, murder is OK as long as you're killing someone from a different village, and treachery is admirable.  You could probably say universally that people don't appreciate murder and theft being practiced on themselves.

I guess this is the point where you tell me that tribal groups in the Amazon, deep dark Africa and southeast Asia don't qualify as established societies so they don't count.  For what it's worth, I *used* to think certain moral values were universally accepted.

I do think it's interesting that you claim that societal values are absolute because of perceived commonality (murder and theft are unacceptable) but religious or philosophical values are relative because... they don't have perceivable commonality?  Religion and philosphy are both elements of culture and societal values, right?  If, as I hear so often, all religions are just a construct of a given society, I wonder how it is you wave away religious values as "relative" but accept societal values as absolute.

Is it that "all" societies agree on this one point, so it must be true?  If so, then don't "all" religions agree on the existance of the supernatural?  Would that make that true, as well?  Or is it that you, philosophically speaking, believe that certain values are just necessary for the survival of the species?  If the second, then I guess we're probably stuck back at arguing whether or not such societies *really* exist as I claim.

As you expected me to say religions are a contruct of society so when I say morals in religious doctrine are relative it's because of just that. Any absolutes such as "Thou shall not kill" are not based in religion but society. Religion simply recycles them as words from God. When I say relative I'm referring to any number of other acts such as adultery or foul language.

I was actually thinking of tribal villages as I wrote that post. I admit, not an expert so my entire argument may be flawed. But as you say murder is acceptable (if they consider it murder) only if it's members of a different village. Why isn't it acceptable among their own? I kill your sister, your brother kills my nephew, my dad kills your dog.  It doesn't work. Of course, that's over simplifying it. As far as honoured thieves, not sure which you are talking about but when I hear that I think of Robin Hood or John Dillinger. Any rob from the rich give to the poor scenario. Fairly isolated figures and not exactly fitting into everyday common theft. Me stealing from my neighbor or job would be an example of what I was talking about. Unless it's some sort of hippie commune these acts are universally accpeted as wrong. While Dillinger was cheered on as a hero by many they all knew (mostly at least) that fundamentally what he was doing was wrong.

Modifié par briskojr, 28 octobre 2009 - 01:20 .

[On_Slaught]

Kill them all! Let the maker sort them out.

[briskojr]

On_Slaught wrote...

Kill them all! Let the maker sort them out.

You mean The Maker as in first boss of the Blood Furnace in Hellfire Citadel?

[Taleroth]

On_Slaught wrote...

Kill them all! Let the maker sort them out.

Screw the maker.  Let me do the sorting.

Those who are beneficial to my world order, they get in Line 1.

Those who are not beneficial to my world order, they get in Pit A.

[soteria]

briskojr wrote...

soteria wrote...

Your logic is impeccable, except you base it on a shaky premise (theft and murder are universally deemed wrong).  I know of cultures where (successful) thieves are honored, murder is OK as long as you're killing someone from a different village, and treachery is admirable.  You could probably say universally that people don't appreciate murder and theft being practiced on themselves.

I guess this is the point where you tell me that tribal groups in the Amazon, deep dark Africa and southeast Asia don't qualify as established societies so they don't count.  For what it's worth, I *used* to think certain moral values were universally accepted.

I do think it's interesting that you claim that societal values are absolute because of perceived commonality (murder and theft are unacceptable) but religious or philosophical values are relative because... they don't have perceivable commonality?  Religion and philosphy are both elements of culture and societal values, right?  If, as I hear so often, all religions are just a construct of a given society, I wonder how it is you wave away religious values as "relative" but accept societal values as absolute.

Is it that "all" societies agree on this one point, so it must be true?  If so, then don't "all" religions agree on the existance of the supernatural?  Would that make that true, as well?  Or is it that you, philosophically speaking, believe that certain values are just necessary for the survival of the species?  If the second, then I guess we're probably stuck back at arguing whether or not such societies *really* exist as I claim.

As you expected me to say religions are a contruct of society so when I say morals in religious doctrine are relative it's because of just that. Any absolutes such as "Thou shall not kill" are not based in religion but society. Religion simply recycles them as words from God. When I say relative I'm referring to any number of other acts such as adultery or foul language.

I was actually thinking of tribal villages as I wrote that post. I admit, not an expert so my entire argument may be flawed. But as you say murder is acceptable (if they consider it murder) only if it's members of a different village. Why isn't it acceptable among their own? I kill your sister, your brother kills my nephew, my dad kills your dog.  It doesn't work. Of course, that's over simplifying it. As far as honoured thieves, not sure which you are talking about but when I hear that I think of Robin Hood or John Dillinger. Any rob from the rich give to the poor scenario. Fairly isolated figures and not exactly fitting into everyday common theft. Me stealing from my neighbor or job would be an example of what I was talking about. Unless it's some sort of hippie commune these acts are universally accpeted as wrong. While Dillinger was cheered on as a hero by many they all knew (mostly at least) that fundamentally what he was doing was wrong.

But societies, like religions, have standards on adultery and foul language, and presumably those are relative as well.  Since the religion in your thinking flows from society, the standards should be just as absolute or just as relative as societal standards.  That was my question--if the reasoning for believing in certain absolutes is that they are universally held mores, then shouldn't common religious mores be just as absolute as societal ones?

You are probably correct in your implication that they don't consider it murder.  Each village is typically an extended family, and they do all their killing to/against neighboring villages.  Usually that ends up in a cycle of revenge and fear so neither village really gets anywhere, and sometimes one ends up getting wiped out.  For thievery, the specific case I'm thinking of is not a Robin Hood concept so much as they respect someone who steals without getting caught.  The punishment for getting caught is severe.

You could argue that they still consider murder wrong, since they don't practice it within their own village.  Some of them are practicing it, though, on their neighbors, who likely share the same language, ethnic heritage, religious beliefs, cultural values, and may even be distant relatives.  In that case, they define murder differently.  Can we say absolutely that murder is wrong if what some people mean is it's always wrong to take someone's life, others mean you may only kill in self defense, and still others means it's wrong to kill your close friends and relatives?

[briskojr]

soteria wrote...




But societies, like religions, have standards on adultery and foul language, and presumably those are relative as well.  Since the religion in your thinking flows from society, the standards should be just as absolute or just as relative as societal standards.  That was my question--if the reasoning for believing in certain absolutes is that they are universally held mores, then shouldn't common religious mores be just as absolute as societal ones?

You are probably correct in your implication that they don't consider it murder.  Each village is typically an extended family, and they do all their killing to/against neighboring villages.  Usually that ends up in a cycle of revenge and fear so neither village really gets anywhere, and sometimes one ends up getting wiped out.  For thievery, the specific case I'm thinking of is not a Robin Hood concept so much as they respect someone who steals without getting caught.  The punishment for getting caught is severe.

You could argue that they still consider murder wrong, since they don't practice it within their own village.  Some of them are practicing it, though, on their neighbors, who likely share the same language, ethnic heritage, religious beliefs, cultural values, and may even be distant relatives.  In that case, they define murder differently.  Can we say absolutely that murder is wrong if what some people mean is it's always wrong to take someone's life, others mean you may only kill in self defense, and still others means it's wrong to kill your close friends and relatives?

To the first point, I didn't word what I said correctly. When I said religious standards for adultery and foul language are relative I should have said it's the same for society as well. While a society may have a standard code of ethics for any number of wrongs, unless they're neccessary for survival or prosperity of a society then they're not absolutes.

That last question seems to be more about what the exact definition of murder is. The word itself may carry a different meaning amongst different cultures/peoples so maybe it's more accurate to say that taking the life of another in way that's not acceptable to the society in which it takes place is absolutely wrong?

Modifié par briskojr, 28 octobre 2009 - 12:22 .

[Lotion Soronarr]

I've yet to see a game that can truly challenge me in regards to morality.



The Witcher tried, but if failed, cause it was being a bastard with the consequences.



I dont' see this as a problem tough. I have a strong sense of morals and 99% of all "grey" arguments/examples I heard are actually rather clear to me.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Herr Uhl wrote...
There is no universal right and wrong.

Can you prove that?
No?
Thought so!


@Cuuniyevo :

I agree with your belief in absolute morality. But, I don't think "the goal justifies the means" is any more true than "the means justify the gaols".
They WHY you do something is equally important as WHAT you are doing. The form a whole and trying to judge purely on one is like trying to read the book with half the pages missing.
While intent might be the more important aspect, the action aspect CANNOT be ignored.

Modifié par Lotion Soronnar, 28 octobre 2009 - 12:58 .

[dtsazza]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
There is no universal right and wrong.

Can you prove that?
No?
Thought so!

I'd say the burden of proof doesn't lie on him, though. Countering a claim by saying the something doesn't exist is the null hypothesis - and if somebody asserts the existence of that thing as a logical grounds for their conclusions, then it is up to them to show that it does exist.

[Lotion Soronarr]

Herr Uhl wrote...
I always thought of religion with an omnipotent being that decides if we fry or live in bliss for eternity in the afterlife was the ultimate "might makes right". But I'm just a layman.

Hey, God can't help being omnipotent.
But you really forget it's in no way comparable. God doesn't only have might. He has everything. Ultimate knowledge. Ultimate wisdom.
Doesn't it only make sense that he's able to make decisions that are far better than any human can ever hope, even in his wildest dreams?
So The Republic of Titystan can conquer you and might have the military might to enforce their moral views - but they don't have the authority.

B.t.w. - you don't fry in hell. I find it funny that the same peopel that often accuse people for being stupid because they are taking things from the Bible too literally, do the same thing when it suits them.

[Lotion Soronarr]

dtsazza wrote...
I'd say the burden of proof doesn't lie on him, though. Countering a claim by saying the something doesn't exist is the null hypothesis - and if somebody asserts the existence of that thing as a logical grounds for their conclusions, then it is up to them to show that it does exist.

The burden of proof lies on me? Why? Because you said so? Can you prove the burden of proof lies on me?

EDIT: To all of those citing the crusades as an example of religious crime above crimes. Read this:
http://www.thearma.o...ys/Crusades.htm

[tinfish]

I ussually go with the light path, reason being, you cannot be truly evil, or even slightly immoral in 99% of games, due to censorship.

take fable II/Fallout 3 as an example, invulnrable kids ?



you cant kill them because its "wrong" and apparantly no one realises that they are not actually real, and shooting them in a game, wouldnt make me go and shoot them in real life.



so you cannot commit evil acts, due to censorship, and trying to do so instantly ends any immersion you had in the game world.



not that i particularly want to kill them, but if they get caught in the crossfire, well oopsie.



but they cannot, so by default, we never get to commit any evil acts in most games, and therefore any so called evil characters, are rarely more than "slightly naughty"



as long as censorship is all pervading, true immersion will always escape those who choose the "evil" path.

[balu1982]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

dtsazza wrote...
I'd say the burden of proof doesn't lie on him, though. Countering a claim by saying the something doesn't exist is the null hypothesis - and if somebody asserts the existence of that thing as a logical grounds for their conclusions, then it is up to them to show that it does exist.

The burden of proof lies on me? Why? Because you said so? Can you prove the burden of proof lies on me?

That is not a question of proof, but a question of definition.
dtsazza already explained why, but here is an easy explanation:
If i tell you, that there is a flying pig over your head, you would probably say "I don't see it, so you must prove that it's there".
If i answered "No, you must prove that it ISN'T there, until then you have to assume it is." that would be equal to your earlier statement.

Apart from that, i would simply like to know why you think there is a "universal right or wrong".

[balu1982]

tinfish wrote...

I ussually go with the light path, reason being, you cannot be truly evil, or even slightly immoral in 99% of games, due to censorship.
take fable II/Fallout 3 as an example, invulnrable kids ?

you cant kill them because its "wrong" and apparantly no one realises that they are not actually real, and shooting them in a game, wouldnt make me go and shoot them in real life.

so you cannot commit evil acts, due to censorship, and trying to do so instantly ends any immersion you had in the game world.

not that i particularly want to kill them, but if they get caught in the crossfire, well oopsie.

but they cannot, so by default, we never get to commit any evil acts in most games, and therefore any so called evil characters, are rarely more than "slightly naughty"

as long as censorship is all pervading, true immersion will always escape those who choose the "evil" path.

Besides censorship the storyline of a game ultimately prevents players from being truly evil.
Let's take DA:O: A truly evil being would side with the Blights Archdemon and destroy Ferelden. That's obviously not possible.

Modifié par balu1982, 28 octobre 2009 - 02:02 .

[gethsemani87]

The problem with the whole "Burden of Proof" discussion is that it misses the point. How do you prove that something, that by its' very defintion defies human understanding and ability to percieve, exists? You don't obviously, so you either believe it exists or you don't. That is the very concept of Faith, believing in something that can't be proven.



The problems with philosophical discussion is that you can't use scientific methods to find out what is right or wrong. The question of "Does God(s) exist?" is in fact not a scientifical question, but a philosophical one (You could of course argue that it is scientifical, but the point is rather moot since even if it is, Humanity obviously lack the necessary tools to determine if God(s) exist or not which puts it right back in the field of philosophy as the answer will be unique to each individual).



Now, if God(s) exists, then God(s) have the authority to provide us with absolute morals. The question isn't whatever or not God(s) exists, but rather that if God(s) exists then what is the morals it/they judge us by?



In the end, in any work of fiction, morals will be absolute. The authors have the ultimate say in what is right and what is wrong (since the actions and reactions in the work of ficition are determined by the authors). Ergo, the authors have the ability to lay down their own set of morals as absolute within the cosmos that they have created.

[Lord Clocks]

Rezylarap wrote...

Exactly. Ultimately, you cannot play an anarchist character. You can play an evil character, one who servers their own means, but you cannot, with this storyline be an anarchist and  assist the blight in destroying the world. Aside from that one decision, you have full control of the 'morality' of your character

I feel constrained to point out that an anarchist would probably NOT help the blight.  They would assist in the overthrow of the current order of thier own means and then would seek to hold off the blight lest they fall under the dominion  of a DIFFERENT system but a system of control nonetheless.

[soteria]

briskojr wrote...

soteria wrote...




But societies, like religions, have standards on adultery and foul language, and presumably those are relative as well.  Since the religion in your thinking flows from society, the standards should be just as absolute or just as relative as societal standards.  That was my question--if the reasoning for believing in certain absolutes is that they are universally held mores, then shouldn't common religious mores be just as absolute as societal ones?

You are probably correct in your implication that they don't consider it murder.  Each village is typically an extended family, and they do all their killing to/against neighboring villages.  Usually that ends up in a cycle of revenge and fear so neither village really gets anywhere, and sometimes one ends up getting wiped out.  For thievery, the specific case I'm thinking of is not a Robin Hood concept so much as they respect someone who steals without getting caught.  The punishment for getting caught is severe.

You could argue that they still consider murder wrong, since they don't practice it within their own village.  Some of them are practicing it, though, on their neighbors, who likely share the same language, ethnic heritage, religious beliefs, cultural values, and may even be distant relatives.  In that case, they define murder differently.  Can we say absolutely that murder is wrong if what some people mean is it's always wrong to take someone's life, others mean you may only kill in self defense, and still others means it's wrong to kill your close friends and relatives?

To the first point, I didn't word what I said correctly. When I said religious standards for adultery and foul language are relative I should have said it's the same for society as well. While a society may have a standard code of ethics for any number of wrongs, unless they're neccessary for survival or prosperity of a society then they're not absolutes.

That last question seems to be more about what the exact definition of murder is. The word itself may carry a different meaning amongst different cultures/peoples so maybe it's more accurate to say that taking the life of another in way that's not acceptable to the society in which it takes place is absolutely wrong?

Oh, I understood you in your meaning that adultery and foul language (for example) are relative.  My point is that ethics in religion and society should be judged by the same standard.  I mean, if society says murder is wrong, that is absolute because it is necessary to the survival of that society, but if religion says murder is wrong, that is relative because...?  A religion has no function with no people.  It is therefore just as interested in the survival of society as the society itself, ergo, certain religious standards must be absolute as well.

As for the second paragraph, sure, it can come down to the definition of murder.  I'm fine with your definition there, but I would tack on to the end, "relative to the society you are in."  After all, killing a given person may be wrong in one society and right in another, so it's a relative value.

[briskojr]

soteria wrote...

Oh, I understood you in your meaning that adultery and foul language (for example) are relative.  My point is that ethics in religion and society should be judged by the same standard.  I mean, if society says murder is wrong, that is absolute because it is necessary to the survival of that society, but if religion says murder is wrong, that is relative because...?  A religion has no function with no people.  It is therefore just as interested in the survival of society as the society itself, ergo, certain religious standards must be absolute as well.

As for the second paragraph, sure, it can come down to the definition of murder.  I'm fine with your definition there, but I would tack on to the end, "relative to the society you are in."  After all, killing a given person may be wrong in one society and right in another, so it's a relative value.

1. True, religion has no function without a people, however is the existence of religion required for a society to survive? Morals exists without religion just as they do with it so I'd argue that if you remove religion from the picture and the same moral absolutes remain then any founded under a religion are therefore not absolute. There is afterall no universal religion. Of course if there are no absolutes then this is all meaningless.

2. Agreed, assuming they're the same race/religion/class etc. If you have a tribe of  hundred and five are considered less than human due to any number of reasons and one is killed it would not effect the tribe's properity. Take the life of any of the other 95 and they would all feel threatended and they would take action to prevent it from happening again.

I'm tired and sick and I may be just speaking in circles and stating what I've already said so forgive me if so.

[Herr Uhl]

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
I always thought of religion with an omnipotent being that decides if we fry or live in bliss for eternity in the afterlife was the ultimate "might makes right". But I'm just a layman.

Hey, God can't help being omnipotent.
But you really forget it's in no way comparable. God doesn't only have might. He has everything. Ultimate knowledge. Ultimate wisdom.
Doesn't it only make sense that he's able to make decisions that are far better than any human can ever hope, even in his wildest dreams?
So The Republic of Titystan can conquer you and might have the military might to enforce their moral views - but they don't have the authority.

B.t.w. - you don't fry in hell. I find it funny that the same peopel that often accuse people for being stupid because they are taking things from the Bible too literally, do the same thing when it suits them.

Did I say which god I was talking about? And Knowledge is also considered might in my book.

And personally, I'm tired of the whole god debate, I was just commenting about claiming that atheists are more prone to follow "might makes right", when most religions feature an all-powerful being to be worshiped and to be the example for all human beings to live by.

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
There is no universal right and wrong.

Can you prove that?
No?

I meant in morality, so how would something be universally right or wrong if all of humanity isn't clones with exactly the same experiences.

[Darthnemesis2]

soteria wrote...

However, I COMPLETELY disagree with you saying irreligious (read: Athiest) people are more likely to believe in "might makes right". Believing in a god does not automatically make someone a good person, or make them any less likely to try and exploit others. In fact, I would argue its the opposite in some cases. How many wars, killings, and purges have happened simply because someone else was of a different religion? Are they morally right because their god tells them so?

But I never said they were "more likely" to believe "might makes right," I just said that moral relativism is probably easier to justify from an atheistic standpoint. If you don't believe in a higher being, it's hard to justify any sort of moral absolute. I added that a logical conclusion to moral relativism is, "might makes right." That doesn't mean all or even most atheists believe that (I even said a lot probably don't).

Read more carefully before you try to argue a point, please. If you still disagree with me, that's fine, but I'm not going to defend something I never claimed.

"If you are irreligious, it's probably hard to justify any sort of moral absolute... I think ultimately "might makes right" if you believe in moral relativism" This is what I was responding to. I took that to mean you thought irregligious people (ie, people who find it hard to believe in moral absolutes) were more likely to believe in moral relativism (might makes right). IF that's not what you meant then I do apologise, but that's how it came out to me.

------------

As I also said in my post, I believe that each individual person has their own set of beliefs, based on a number of factors (where they grew up, how they grew up, what society/religion/etc tells them is right/wrong) BUT there are also certain things that are wrong.
As much as I hate to say it I kinda have to agree with Arttis on this a little bit (just a tiny bit). The only universal right is the right to live in a manner of your choosing. Once you go out and take away someone's right to live their life, you are wrong and at that point lose your right to live how you want. If you kill someone who has done nothing to harm you or anyone else, you are wrong. If you steal from someone, you are wrong (baring theft for survival, but that is an extreme circumstance). If you torture/rape/whatever someone else for any reason, YOU ARE WRONG. And once you have done that, once you have commited that wrong, you're free game for others (as in the Police, or whatever form of enforcement) to take away your right to a free life (whether that be jail time, fines, death is determined by the severity of your wrongness). Basically, to my own moral code, nothing is wrong unless it intentionally harms others (either physically, mentally, financially etc.).

[foolish_sagacity]

Lotion Sorronar, not that I mean to stir up this whole God debate, but you must keep in kind that history is subjective. That article you linked to had some places where it seemed correct, and through my own education, I believe it was correct. Crusaders were generally wealthy. But it was entirely against the Saracen and Islamic empire, and entirely defending the Christians. I learned a history of the Crusades that roughly stood in the middle position between the two. But the Christian Crusaders did commit murders and even a small scale genocide against Jews during the Crusades. There are actual, first hand accounts I've read (translated of course) of the Christian Crusaders slaughtering Jewish people, particularly in the Temple of Jerusalem.

But that doesn't have to threaten your Christian sense of morality. That you believe morality comes from God and I believe it comes from a human desire to survive and live in peace within a society doesn't mean anything if we both agree roughly on what good is. That the Crusaders committed deeds we now undeniably call evil does not mean anything other than they twisted the words of faith into violence and wore your God's words like an armor they hoped would make them impervious to committing evil.

What matters most to you is that you die feeling you were a good person. What matters to us, the people who share this world with you, is that you acted as a good person and treated others well. I think people simply wish to point out that just because one calls oneself a believer in something doesn't excuse them (the Crusaders) from having to follow the mandates of morality. After all, didn't Jesus forbid murder. Ever. Isn't it better to let yourself be murdered than to murder another?

Also, just cause it always irks me, Dante Alighieri invented the whole Hell is fiery thing. It's not in any early versions of the bible I've ever heard of. I just hope this intelligent conversation doesn't have to become an argument over religion and history.

[soteria]

briskojr wrote...

soteria wrote...

Oh, I understood you in your meaning that adultery and foul language (for example) are relative.  My point is that ethics in religion and society should be judged by the same standard.  I mean, if society says murder is wrong, that is absolute because it is necessary to the survival of that society, but if religion says murder is wrong, that is relative because...?  A religion has no function with no people.  It is therefore just as interested in the survival of society as the society itself, ergo, certain religious standards must be absolute as well.

As for the second paragraph, sure, it can come down to the definition of murder.  I'm fine with your definition there, but I would tack on to the end, "relative to the society you are in."  After all, killing a given person may be wrong in one society and right in another, so it's a relative value.

1. True, religion has no function without a people, however is the existence of religion required for a society to survive? Morals exists without religion just as they do with it so I'd argue that if you remove religion from the picture and the same moral absolutes remain then any founded under a religion are therefore not absolute. There is afterall no universal religion. Of course if there are no absolutes then this is all meaningless.

2. Agreed, assuming they're the same race/religion/class etc. If you have a tribe of  hundred and five are considered less than human due to any number of reasons and one is killed it would not effect the tribe's properity. Take the life of any of the other 95 and they would all feel threatended and they would take action to prevent it from happening again.

I'm tired and sick and I may be just speaking in circles and stating what I've already said so forgive me if so.

Yeah, I think we've pretty much beaten this to death.

[soteria]

Darthnemesis2 wrote...

soteria wrote...

However, I COMPLETELY disagree with you saying irreligious (read: Athiest) people are more likely to believe in "might makes right". Believing in a god does not automatically make someone a good person, or make them any less likely to try and exploit others. In fact, I would argue its the opposite in some cases. How many wars, killings, and purges have happened simply because someone else was of a different religion? Are they morally right because their god tells them so?

But I never said they were "more likely" to believe "might makes right," I just said that moral relativism is probably easier to justify from an atheistic standpoint. If you don't believe in a higher being, it's hard to justify any sort of moral absolute. I added that a logical conclusion to moral relativism is, "might makes right." That doesn't mean all or even most atheists believe that (I even said a lot probably don't).

Read more carefully before you try to argue a point, please. If you still disagree with me, that's fine, but I'm not going to defend something I never claimed.

"If you are irreligious, it's probably hard to justify any sort of moral absolute... I think ultimately "might makes right" if you believe in moral relativism" This is what I was responding to. I took that to mean you thought irregligious people (ie, people who find it hard to believe in moral absolutes) were more likely to believe in moral relativism (might makes right). IF that's not what you meant then I do apologise, but that's how it came out to me.

Well, I did say, and do believe (from observation), that irreligious people are more likely to believe in moral relativism.  I'm not equating "might makes right" with that mindset, I'm just saying it is a logical conclusion from that mindset.  Another way of putting it would be, "Whatever the majority holds to be right, is right."  Maybe some people see a difference between that and "might makes right" but I don't see much.