Moral Relativity?

[Logiclul]

My "positive way" is objectively arbitrary, however personally it is based off of a personal sense of what is right. I have accepted through culture some basic beliefs, and then built on that to form more beliefs, and then continued to do so, and in the process have even neglected and discarded some of my original beliefs.

If the purpose of morality is in question, if the definition of what is "good" is in question, then we cannot say that morality is surely objective, do you disagree?

 

[Smiley Face]

But doesn't that position seem to stand out in the face of how you would treat the judgement of other things? Like the chair example. You don't say that what you are sitting on is a chair because it is good for sitting on. You say that you are sitting on a chair, because it provides a place for sitting. Whether or not it is a good chair is a different question entirely. This of course provokes the question: Then is not everything anything? Is not the fridge a bad chair? To which I respond, there is more to the idea of "chair" than just the idea of something to sit on. A chair is a device which specializes in the area of being sat on, that is, a device which has no other intended purpose than for sitting.

On a further note, "goodness" has no attributes of its own. It is solely dependent on the subject of which we are talking about.

I find it amusing that you're using the example of a chair's definition to defend objective morality. You are on the right track, I feel, in your claim that something is what it is because it fits a certain set of qualities that define it.

So please give us the exhaustive definition of morality. And then explain why it is an absolute, universal truth. Because that is what 'objective morality' means - a set of exhaustive moral rules that are TRUE, independent of what humanity, or anything else, thinks of them. In order to support objective morality, you take on the burden of proof - it's up to you to demonstrate your source of these absolute moral truths that is unchanging and independent of any human interference. Turning the tables and demanding that we prove a negative ignores the facts of the matter, EVEN THOUGH it's possible to all-but prove that same negative.

You're also confusing the word good. There's good as in 'this is a good pie', and good as in 'a good deed'. One indicates superior quality of an article, and the other indicates a moral judgement. Same spelling, different meanings. The good of a 'good chair' is not the good of morality.

here's a part of an objective morality. Morality serves to protect the community and the individual, since morality is something that is taught to individuals by the community. Murder then, must always go against the purpose of morality, and thus be considered "bad". However, some people may disagree with what the purpose or objective of morality is, and may thus have moralities differing from mine. It is not subjective, however, since our moralities do not differ due to our differences in experiences and senses.

I'm not confusing the word good, I'm disagreeing with you on what "good" means.

Okay, so you're saying that your morality is X, and despite the fact that my morality is Y, yours is still 'objective' because "our moralities do not differ due to our differences in experiences and senses"?

1) You still fail to provide an objective standard by which to measure your morality, which is a necessary criteria of objective morality.

2) If "our moralities do not differ due to our differences in experiences and senses", then they must differ due to our interpretations of those things. You and I perceive the state of the world, looking only at the same things, and come up with different definitions of morality. Not only is this EXACTLY what subjectivity is, but because we didn't "differ due to different experiences", it must mean that neither of us experienced an objective basis of morality, because if we did, there would be no way of misinterpreting it. So you MUST have a subjective view.

 

[SaikyoKid]

Damn it, I wish I was more awake to actively participate in this but work sorta kills my urge to debate... I guess I can just kinda bumble along and say that moral relativism is incredibly lazy. I believe that ethics should in fact be objective, and personally I find that Utilitarianism is a much way to gauge the goodness in an action as opposed to simply saying "That's just the way they do things."

 

[Joccaren]

No, morality is not necessarily based off of whim. Illogical, or irrational morality is based off of whim. Objective morality is based off of logic.

There is no objective morality. There is logic based morality, but that does not make it objective. Take the above case of capital punishment. It is logical to kill them so that the state does not have to pay to keep them incarcerated, or fill up prison cells with them. There is also no chance of them breaking out and committing crimes. Does that make it objectively morally right to murder some people? Take into account that were someone from the street to walk into prison and stab that person on Death Row to death they would be considered a murderer. Part of it would likely be that they would possibly do it to someone else - but it is logical to get rid of said person sooner rather than later, so that less resources are being spent on them.
Now, there are things that are objectively advantageous or disadvantageous for the success of a community, but this does not mean that such things are objectively good or evil.

Murder, in my view is wrong, because morality is all about community. Without a community to live in, there would be no need for self-preservation against members of the community and self-preservation of the community. Murder destroys the community.

Here is the main point: In my view. Not a simple 'it is', but a subjective view on murder.
Now I will ask you, why is destroying the community a bad thing?

 

[zehydra]

No, morality is not necessarily based off of whim. Illogical, or irrational morality is based off of whim. Objective morality is based off of logic.

There is no objective morality. There is logic based morality, but that does not make it objective. Take the above case of capital punishment. It is logical to kill them so that the state does not have to pay to keep them incarcerated, or fill up prison cells with them. There is also no chance of them breaking out and committing crimes. Does that make it objectively morally right to murder some people? Take into account that were someone from the street to walk into prison and stab that person on Death Row to death they would be considered a murderer. Part of it would likely be that they would possibly do it to someone else - but it is logical to get rid of said person sooner rather than later, so that less resources are being spent on them.
Now, there are things that are objectively advantageous or disadvantageous for the success of a community, but this does not mean that such things are objectively good or evil.

Murder, in my view is wrong, because morality is all about community. Without a community to live in, there would be no need for self-preservation against members of the community and self-preservation of the community. Murder destroys the community.

Here is the main point: In my view. Not a simple 'it is', but a subjective view on murder.
Now I will ask you, why is destroying the community a bad thing?

because it goes against the purpose of morality.

I suppose the better question should be, "why should we be moral"? My answer is self-preservation and the preservation of those we care about (or other emotional incentives), but the reasons for being moral may vary from person to person. This does not mean, however, that what is right and what is wrong in the context of this morality is different from person to person. What is right and what is wrong in the context of any particular morality is true for all persons everywhere.

I suppose the reason I refuse to classify myself as a moral relativist is because I believe that there is a single purpose to morality: protection of self and others.

Note:
"There is logic based morality, but that does not make it objective" that of course DOES make it objective. If it's logic-based morality, then it is objective. If it isn't objective, then it isn't actually logical.

 

[Smiley Face]

Note:
"There is logic based morality, but that does not make it objective" that of course DOES make it objective. If it's logic-based morality, then it is objective. If it isn't objective, then it isn't actually logical.

It depends on how that morality is rooted in logic. If logic demonstrates that it is only possible for there to be a universal truth of all the stuff that is 'goodness', then yeah, morality is objective. If, however, your particular morality is based in using logical processes to work towards ideals that aren't derived from the Universal Fact of Stuff that is Good, then no, your morality is not 'objective' in any way that's relevant to a debate of moral relativism.

See, logic is a tool - we use that tool towards certain ends. Utilitarianism is a school of moral thought that is logic-based, insofar as how 'good' something is is determined by its total aggregate benefit to people in some form or another, depending on what variety your using. Plato/Socrates, on the other hand, attempted to use logic in the pursuit of truth - notably, what this debate is about, whether things like Justice, or Beauty, had actuality beyond the subjective viewpoints of people. I suggest you look to them for ideas on what the nature of 'objective morality' is.

 

[Joccaren]

Note:
"There is logic based morality, but that does not make it objective" that of course DOES make it objective. If it's logic-based morality, then it is objective. If it isn't objective, then it isn't actually logical.

It depends on how that morality is rooted in logic. If logic demonstrates that it is only possible for there to be a universal truth of all the stuff that is 'goodness', then yeah, morality is objective. If, however, your particular morality is based in using logical processes to work towards ideals that aren't derived from the Universal Fact of Stuff that is Good, then no, your morality is not 'objective' in any way that's relevant to a debate of moral relativism.

See, logic is a tool - we use that tool towards certain ends. Utilitarianism is a school of moral thought that is logic-based, insofar as how 'good' something is is determined by its total aggregate benefit to people in some form or another, depending on what variety your using. Plato/Socrates, on the other hand, attempted to use logic in the pursuit of truth - notably, what this debate is about, whether things like Justice, or Beauty, had actuality beyond the subjective viewpoints of people. I suggest you look to them for ideas on what the nature of 'objective morality' is.

^^ Answered for me whilst I ate dinner. Thankyou.
Also think about this: Sometimes, two logical trains of thought on the same subject can lead to totally different answers. This makes logic based decisions also sometimes subjective based off which logical path you followed. Whilst these cases are somewhat rare, it does point out the flaw in basing objectiveness off logic.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

I'm a Buddhist and a pacifist, so I view morality as something of a... problem. Having a set of morals you consider 'correct' and enforcing them on others who don't share them--others you see as 'bad'--is as unappealing to me as anarchy in the streets and that is an entirely different and more dangerous problem itself.

It's a complicated situation, lol.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

Note:
"There is logic based morality, but that does not make it objective" that of course DOES make it objective. If it's logic-based morality, then it is objective. If it isn't objective, then it isn't actually logical.

But whose logic are you using?

Logic is just as subjective as anything else we humans partake in.

 

[Bunnymarn]

The reason I believe that it reinforces the concept of morality is because once you strip away ideas like a "judgemental God" or a "punishing society", there is still a POSSITVE VALUE associated with helping others rather than hurting them.

I know I am taking it out of context somewhat, but where exactly does this positive value derive from? Is it the action or the consequence? You may view murder as an abhorrent act as it is one that hurts another. But what if, for example, there were three men stranded on an island and to survive, two of them killed the other one to eat? The act of murdering may be seen as wrong, itself, but the consequences of that action (one man dying, two surviving) is, for the sake of this argument, more 'positive' than all three of them dying. So, one would come to the conclusion that certain actions are immoral, but can be accepted should the resulting positives outweigh the negatives (utilitarianism - if I have my definitions correct). Though, by my reasoning, and correct me if I'm wrong, that would make morality subjective, since the weighing of the consequences is up to perspective. If morality is objective, there can't be any exceptions. To use the light metaphor again, the light is either on or off - there are no exceptions.

EDIT: Not sure I'm satisfied on the last part of my argument about exceptions. I'll have to mull that over.

 

[Axolotl]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

Morals are a man made concept, humans cannot be purely objective. Ergo, all morals are subjective.

/Done.

Mathematics is a man made concept, it is not subjective. Similarly unicorns are a man made concept, they aren't subjective either.

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

The way morals change over time and differ--sometimes wildly--across cultures shows pretty conclusively that morality is subjective.

Our claims about physics and the nature of the universe vary wildly as well (far more than morality even) would you claim that as evidence that the physical world is subjective?

Even for things that the vast majority of human beings consider immoral, you can find groups who disagree, or qualify it differently.

The majority of Humans claim that there is a God others disagree, or define the God differently, is God's existence subjective?

(Hell, the very idea of applying qualifiers to moral questions shows its subjectivity)

How?

Morality is a man-made product,

So is mathematics, doesn't make it subjective.

shaped by and subject to the beliefs and emotions of the society.

Once again, do you have anything to back this up? Why would morality be changable? You've siad that moral claims have changed but that doesn't in any way mean that morality itself has changed.

Where does a definition of morality come from, except from us? Since morality is an abstract concept that comes from us, it will naturally be subject to the beliefs and emotions of society.

As I've stated before mathematics comes from us, it's not subjective or affected by beliefs or emotions.

To use a super-easy example, slavery was considered, at the very least not immoral for thousands of years. In most of what we call the civilized world, attitudes gradually changed and eventually most societies considered it immoral to own another human being as property. If a modern man went back in time to 18th century Georgia, he could call slavery immoral all he wants, but the society of the time thought otherwise and would simply view him as a loon and may even respond with violence to the perceived "****** lover." Was their definition of morality invalid? By our relative standards, yes. By theirs? No way.

But why should their morality be factored into it at all? Their physics were wrong, their biology was wrong their understanding of mathematics, economics, psychology anthropology was woefully incomplete. Why not simply admit that their morality was also wrong?

If there's an objective morality, what is it? Where did it come from? Whose is it?

I don't know what it is, just like I don't know what the reality is, that doesn't mean it's not objective. As the where it comes from, most likely it'll come from us, just a mathematics has. And as to ehose it is, nobodies, it'sw not something that can be owned, it's an objective concept it doesn't belong to anyone.

It is not a quantifiable thing, you can't show me an equation that defines morality, so it is subjective.

Really? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felicific_calculus]
Sure you can argue with that specific equation but it shows you can make equations for it and you can quantify it.

Actually I think that last demonstrates the subjectivity rather elegantly. The values for pain/pleasure for the same act would be different across individuals.

But that's just another factor in the equation, the overall end result (happyness=good, suffering=bad) isn't subjective.

 

[rabidmidget]

You can't exist in a society and be a moral relativist. Every society has some basic morals that are legally and socially enforced to ensure the collective good of the society and its people. By being a part of a society, you are obliged to follow these basic moral constructs while the society is obliged to ensure you the rights that these constructs grant you.

You can create your own morals, but that doesn't mean that society is obliged to help you follow them.

 

[Doitpow]

I think some people in this thread fundementaly misunderstand the terms Objective Morality and Relative Morality

Objective Morality - The only consideration is ACTIONs. Some actions (murder, theft, rape) are wrong, and must be punished.
Relative Morality - Both ACTION and CONSEQUENCE are considered. (murder is wrong, but war may be justified.)
(pure) Utilitarianism - Only CONSEQUENCE is considered. (torture is right if it saves two lives, throwing acid in the face of a child is right if the net happiness of the world increase).

Think "Watchmen", a book written to explore these themes.
Rorschach-Objective- will always punish a criminal, wants to kill Veidt at the end for his crimes despite acknowledging their positive effects.
Night Owl-Relative-Is horrified by Veidt's actions, feels guilt for his part in it, but keeps his secrets for the greater good.
Veidt-Utilitarian-Sees nothing wrong with his actions, even mass murder, as the result is peace and prosperity (note this is not an attempt to "strengthen" the human race, not Neitschien, but is simply to make the human race happier.)

 

[Logiclul]

You can't exist in a society and be a moral relativist. Every society has some basic morals that are legally and socially enforced to ensure the collective good of the society and its people. By being a part of a society, you are obliged to follow these basic moral constructs while the society is obliged to ensure you the rights that these constructs grant you.

You can create your own morals, but that doesn't mean that society is obliged to help you follow them.

Uh.. even IF there are say 10 basic morals which everyone has to follow to function in society, there still isn't objective morality. This is because, as you say, you can create your own morals which you truly believe in, and also that the 10 basic morals don't have to be obeyed; one can simply choose to not function in society.

You basically argued for moral relativity in the same post you discredit the idea.

 

[Smiley Face]

You can't exist in a society and be a moral relativist. Every society has some basic morals that are legally and socially enforced to ensure the collective good of the society and its people. By being a part of a society, you are obliged to follow these basic moral constructs while the society is obliged to ensure you the rights that these constructs grant you.

You can create your own morals, but that doesn't mean that society is obliged to help you follow them.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. For example - I am a moral relativist, and I exist in society. All that moral relativism has to entail is the denial that there is a metaphysical truth that some action is, Factually, Right or Wrong. What this DOESN'T mean is that I throw my subjective morality and value systems out the door. I just recognize that it is a SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, in the same way that Friendship or Beauty are. I can still look at something and think it's beautiful, I just don't think that it's an in-built law of nature that it is - it's made that way for me by society, or just my quirkyness. And I can still have a morality system.

Now, I can be a moral relativist and still, when I look back at the many, many cultures in history that have oppressed women, I find it repulsive, and I'd love to try to show them the error of their ways, given a time machine - but I recognize that these are coming from MY judgements - they may be coming from judgements that are more sound, and they may even come from what people might call objective truths, but the point is that what they are NOT coming from is this mystical lexicon of all that is good in the world.

The point is that you can be a moral relativist and not be ideologically bankrupt. On the other hand, being a moral objectivist can often lead to the dangerous thinking that your Morality is Unquestionable and Right, Beyond any Doubt because it stems from something that is Fundamentally True - even though that system may include massive racism or something. A relativist, by recognizing that there is no metaphysical truth of right and wrong, is in a position that allows them to be open to arguments about whatever code they may have.

A couple more points:

1) Law =/= Objective Morality. It's been said before, I think it bears saying again. In fact, this is a GLARING example of why morality is relative - laws are determined in some part by a majority-to-some-level of the people in society, but not all of them - in other words, the law can dictate action that goes against the morality of some, while conforming to the morality of others, and is drawn entirely from the morality of PEOPLE. Also, Laws Change. For example: Slavery. That it was law meant there were at least some proportion of people who felt it passed the moral litmus test. Now, that proportion is pretty much gone, and slavery is illegal and condemned. Objective moral truths DON'T CHANGE. EVER. Hence, Law =/= Objective Morality.

2)

If there's an objective morality, what is it? Where did it come from? Whose is it?

I don't know what it is, just like I don't know what the reality is, that doesn't mean it's not objective. As the where it comes from, most likely it'll come from us, just a mathematics has. And as to ehose it is, nobodies, it'sw not something that can be owned, it's an objective concept it doesn't belong to anyone.

Here's the problem with your argument - you're saying that even though YOU don't know what objective morality is, and [extrapolating here] NO ONE has been able to demonstrate it, that doesn't prove there isn't one.

This is true, but it's also irrelevant. See, I can argue that there is, somewhere, an invisible planet of aliens called Drangos that have a super-weapon that can blow up the Earth. The thing is, you can't definitively prove that it isn't the case (with modern science, but it doesn't matter for this example). However, this doesn't a) prove the existence of aliens, or b) mean anything at all for how people live their life.

See, if there's a bunch of rules of what is 'right' and 'wrong' with metaphysical truth, but no one knows what they are - then even though that does provide an objective moral standard, it can't be proved, and it can't be drawn from by anyone. Meaning that it's meaningless in a debate like this.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Since there's no such thing as objective morality, all morals are subjective. That is, relative.

Do you anything to back this up? Becuase on the face of it, it's a very wrong statement.

Morals are a man made concept, humans cannot be purely objective. Ergo, all morals are subjective.

/Done.

Mathematics is a man made concept, it is not subjective. Similarly unicorns are a man made concept, they aren't subjective either.

Firstly, Unicorns aren't a concept. Maths I will concede, however, it's a different situation there.

I will revise my statement. Morals are societal constructs which can change depending on upbringing, culture and other factors. For instance, in Islamic countries it is immoral for women to not be covered up. In western societies there is no such moral restriction. This straight away shows the subjective nature of what we define as the nebulous concept of "morals".

In mathematics 1 is always 1. When examining morals, different things are moral and immoral in different circumstances.

If morals were objective, they would be immutable like maths. I however have shown they are clearly not.

The Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality] article is pretty good for explaining this.

There is a branch of ethics called the normative branch. This examines an ideal moral code. However, this ideal is still provided by the minds of philosophers and what they believe the best set of morals to be. In other words, not objective.

 

[Cpu46]

I would argue that we are born with a sense of Empathy. Strong enough to promote the formation of society but weak enough to prevent us from sacrificing our own basic needs for the good of a complete stranger without one of our other needs being satisfied.

Empathy towards what? A subjective sense of wrongdoing? Not much use if something hard wired may or may not be true if the system it is used upon is subjective.

Morals would have to be objective and hard wired into our minds in order for empathy to work alongside it, it seems.

em·pa·thy   [em-puh-thee]
noun
1.
the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

We feel empathy with others. We know how it feels to be slighted so we are less likely to slight others. People with less empathy will slight others more often while people with more will forego their own benefit to make sure they don't slight someone else. It is more or less the golden rule in its purest form.

 

[Joccaren]

To use a super-easy example, slavery was considered, at the very least not immoral for thousands of years. In most of what we call the civilized world, attitudes gradually changed and eventually most societies considered it immoral to own another human being as property. If a modern man went back in time to 18th century Georgia, he could call slavery immoral all he wants, but the society of the time thought otherwise and would simply view him as a loon and may even respond with violence to the perceived "****** lover." Was their definition of morality invalid? By our relative standards, yes. By theirs? No way.

But why should their morality be factored into it at all? Their physics were wrong, their biology was wrong their understanding of mathematics, economics, psychology anthropology was woefully incomplete. Why not simply admit that their morality was also wrong?

But how was their morality wrong? Because we do not agree with it? No. There is no 'wrong' morality.
The thing with Physics and mathematics and science and such is that it is based off observations. We come up with our theories in those fields by observing the universe, running tests, and making observations. From those observations, we make hypothesis. These hypothesis are based on incomplete information, and thus will likely be proven wrong and edited eventually.
Morality is not based on observations in the same way that science is.
If I asked you 'What is good', what would you answer?
Now, what did you observe to come up with that answer?
Why did that observation make you think that was good?

A usual answer will be something along the lines 'It benefits society', 'I observed actions making society happier', 'because people want to be happier'.
In this case, the evidence is made with the decision in mind. You have applied the 'benefits society' thought to find the evidence, and instead of the evidence providing a reason for the decision, it is merely an example of what you mean by the decision.
The 'because people want to be happier' is also flawed. That murderer wants to murder your wife. Is it therefore good to let him because he wants to?
Not saying these will be your answers, but they are common ones that prove nothing.

If there's an objective morality, what is it? Where did it come from? Whose is it?

I don't know what it is, just like I don't know what the reality is, that doesn't mean it's not objective. As the where it comes from, most likely it'll come from us, just a mathematics has. And as to ehose it is, nobodies, it's not something that can be owned, it's an objective concept it doesn't belong to anyone.

See above about observations and such. Mathematics is based off observations and experimentation, morality is not in the same way.

Actually I think that last demonstrates the subjectivity rather elegantly. The values for pain/pleasure for the same act would be different across individuals.

But that's just another factor in the equation, the overall end result (happyness=good, suffering=bad) isn't subjective.

But happiness for who, and suffering for who?
If your wife died because the doctor was lazy on his job and didn't do anything to prevent it, and the thought that he just got away with it causes you suffering every night, and killing him would bring you happiness and closure, would killing him be objectively right? Most would say no.
So therefore, because he would suffer from you murdering him, and he would be happier to stay alive is the standard for morality, and that everyone else is more important than ones self? I'd argue no. Ones self is as important as anyone else.
An example if you will. A man steals medicine from a shop to save himself from a deadly disease that he would die from within a matter of hours as he has no money to buy it. Is he in the wrong or the right?
Some will say that he broke the law, and therefore is morally wrong for their justification, others will say it is wrong for him to let himself die, and was in the right to save himself by their moral justifications. These two different moral outlooks provide evidence for moral relativity.
Why?
Because, simply put, if you say 'There is no moral relativity, it is objective and one is wrong, one is right, or both are wrong', you are ignoring the evidence so that it suits your definition, not modifying your definition to suit the evidence. Different responses from different people more strongly supports moral subjectivity, as the morals have changed from person to person, than moral absolutism.
Of course, that might be wrong. But to use your own example, that is like looking at a scientific theory and saying 'it might be wrong'. Of course it might be wrong, current evidence supports it though, and its applications will work for all presented cases.
Back to the who must be happy line of thought:
Or is it society as a whole who must feel this? Who's to say that he won't be just as lazy and let even more people die, and cause more suffering, should you let him live? Therefore it is morally right to kill him to stop that further suffering.
Most people will say that no matter what, killing him is wrong. Some will say otherwise. Similar to the 'your a Jew with Nazis nearby and your baby is about to cry. Strangle it, or let it live?'. Sacrifice one life for many, or are the many lives more important?

Much of your moral absolutism argument is 'It might be'. It might be is not a sufficient explanation for 'it is'. There MIGHT be a god. Does this mean there is? No. Moral absolutism also brushes aside evidence to the contrary as 'They might be wrong', whereas moral relativism fits with current evidence, as it supports both people having differing morals AND people having the same morals.
Of course, neither can be factually proven right as really, there is no right answer that we can come to with our understanding of the universe. It comes down to how you interpret the evidence. It is not wrong to say that one side must be wrong when looking at a moral dilemma with people taking opposite sides - there is no evidence to back it being wrong [and none to back it being right] - I personally feel it is more appropriate to say that morals can differ from person to person though.
As such, the most logical thing to do is to live and let live with these moral things, as there is no right answer that we can come to. However, this is the Internet and I severely doubt that logic will get in the fun of having a debate.

 

[mellemhund]

The majority of Humans claim that there is a God others disagree, or define the God differently, is God's existence subjective?

As the existence of what ever god people claim to follow is at best unknow, the idea of an existance of god is subjective.

Why would morality be changable? You've siad that moral claims have changed but that doesn't in any way mean that morality itself has changed.

Morality have changed, that's demonstrable. What are the present day views on racism, slavery, marriage, child rearing, etc.? Not even among those who claim that there are objective morality does such a thing exist.

Moral relativity means that there are no rules carved in stone and the present morality is an established consensus among the groups that practice it. Individuals may disagree, but will then be either shunned or punished by the society they live in.

To OP - did you ask your friend for evidence on that case? Sounds rather made-up. Threading lightly on the whole piracy subject, then even if it is considered theft, then one could argue that it is not always wrong to steal. Some would argue, that stealing to survive is morally ok. And others yet could argue, that property is theft, so they are actually only taking something back, that belonged to all of us.