Relative morality

Hello Idan. First, it is important to distinguish between what is and what is appropriate. The fact that there is a debate about something does not mean that there is no truth about it. Take, for example, the debate about whether or not there is a God. Does that mean that there is no truth in this matter? Of course there is truth, but there is a debate about what it is. Either there is a God or there is not. There are also debates in the scientific field, and there of course there is truth, but it is not yet agreed upon or known. The change over generations indicates that there is truth. The world is progressing and its values ​​are getting closer and closer to the truth. For example, in the encounter between European and African culture, you won't see Europeans adopting the practice of eating human flesh or burning people alive, but you will see Africans or Indians stopping it. In other words, these changes have a trend and direction. It's not something random that just changes. In my opinion, the more likely interpretation of this is that there is true morality, and we discover it and get closer to it over the generations and the years. Just like the approach to scientific truth, which has also changed over the years. Therefore, in my opinion, the changes in moral values ​​actually indicate that there is truth. In general, when there is an argument about some moral value, it means that both sides agree that there is a binding morality but there is no agreement on its content. If there were no such thing as morality, then what is the point of the argument? The fact that I subjectively advocate for value X and my colleague subjectively advocates for value Y does not create an argument. If I like cake X and my colleague cake Y, we have no argument. When you have an argument, it means that each of the parties thinks that his value is the true and binding one, and they have an argument. But on one thing they both agree: that moral values ​​are universal and binding for everyone (not actually adopted by everyone. This is the distinction between what is and what is appropriate). Only then can the argument begin about what those universal values ​​are.