Agree with you but!. As individuals there's clearly a limited amount we can do to 'make the world a better place' Perhaps it would be an easier task to concentrate on what we perceive to be 'absolutely' right than 'relatively' right and not dwell too much on the possible consequencies of such behaviour? ie don't bomb Iran because it's wrong in absolute terms although perhaps not what we perceive to be wrong in 'relative' terms and whatever that leads to, so be it? Perhaps a dangerous policy but 'relativity' may also be dangerous theory and in 'Bush warfare' terms based on absolutely wrong ideals.(Original post by Eien)
It is an interesting point to consider, in terms of absolute values, you are correct in saying that death of one or one thousand is the same in the sense that it has the same outcome, but in terms of perception built from our social understanding of the world, rather than what we perceive to be "the absolute truth outside of human perception", would not accept this, since the death of thousands would affect more families, is the ending of a greater amount of life, etc. While absolute morals can be technically correct, I don't see how human nature can change enough to accept them.
This can be similarly applied to the train/organ donor problem - both are identical situations in different guises, which results in a different human perception of the problem, and absolute morals would state that the decision would have to be the same in both cases, yet a human (or relative) perception may not make the same decision. Relative perception will also take into account, such as deedee7 mentions - perhaps you are only prolonging 10 unhealthy lives as opposed to saving 10 healthy lives, which results in a change of our moral perceptions of the dilemma.
Find out how you've done here