Morality

[Mike Flynn]

Why? What makes you think that this is "an absolutely higher moral standard"?

Because when it is acted on it *always* amounts to negative consequences and harm. And this is a claim that I would challenge anyone to falsify.

As a side point: what does "pleasure" have to do with anything? Are you saying there are cases where turture and murder is justified? Does that mean that if we take two different people doing the very same act, one may be considered immoral if he enjoys it, and one might be considered moral if he does not?

No michabo...the act of murder and torture are always wrong...I am simply trying to paint a picture of something that is universally contemptable...for anyone who had any sense at all (thats not a shot at you BTW...it is a comment about the lunatics who actually seem to have deplorable morality).

What general principle are you using to make your decisions? Why do you think this general principle is universal and absolute?

Human experience, while not transferrable, must be symmetrical to some degree. When a child is bullied, it has consequences that cannot be described as completely relative. While there is certainly some variation in experience, there is surely a common ground to it as well. Otherwise it would be scarcely possible to even have a simple conversation with another being...each one having a totally alien experience.

Obviously, I draw from the Bible as a general principle for my moral conduct (and no, not in the superficial sense that is often pushed by some fundamentalists). And I have found that good moral conduct bears good fruit, while bad moral conduct does not. That fruit is described in some detail in the Bible...my experience tells me that it is true. I submit that most of the world would agree with it, whether they are Christian or not. I, for one, do not believe that such things are merely coincidental.

I would agree that I consider torture to be wrong, but I can certainly see cases where torture would not be considered immoral. Just because you and I, or even some significant majority of the world's population agrees, still does not make it absolute.

Since when is popularity a measure of truth? It doesn't matter if most people agree and some do not. That does not prove the case either way, right?

My point is this: we all agree that serial killers are cracked. IOW, there is something wrong with their moral conduct...and we should correct it or lock them away. Certainly, I would agree with you if you say well he doesn't see it as wrong...so we have moral relativism. However, I would disagree with you if you say that what was done by this individual was not wrong...or it did not cause harm. I would say it IS wrong, period.

While I would like it if all of the world agreed that torture was wrong, that clearly is not the case. Many people function quite well with a moral system which does not prohibit torture. How can this be if absolute morals exist?

Of course, the idea is that things would function *much better* with better moral conduct. That is why we continue to update our moral standards...allowing women freedom to vote and work, creating a charter of rights and binding the members of society to its tenets in a fair legal system. IOW, we continually seek a higher standard than the one we have. But how do we judge what makes a better standard, were we not drawing from some kind of ideal that we are getting closer and closer to approximating as our society moves forward. (not that we don't take steps back at times)

Are you saying that people have different morals (you relativist, you) but you wish they didn't, and you are going to judge their actions by your moral standards?

Obviously people have different moral standards. What I am saying is that some are better than others. And *we all judge the actions of others by our own moral standards*. That has been my point all along: no-one practices moral relativism.

No, I would do as you say. I would acknowledge that my neighbour has different morals (not absolute, see?) and try to convince him that his morals could use some shifting. Maybe take a board and try some normative adjustment upside his head...

So you are the equivelent of a 'moral relativist' hippocrite...claiming that everyone has a valid claim to his own moral code, but not allowing everyone to stake their claim to their own moral code, believing your own is, in fact, better than the others.

I suspect that the only people who could be satisfied with everyone having different moral systems and make no attempt to correct anyone else's behavior to bring it in line with their morals would have to be sociopathic or profoundly anarchistic.

IOW, something is wrong with someone like that.

I am egotistical enough to think that my moral system is far superior to most everyone else's! I just can't think of any reason for it...

See? Not a practicing moral relativist...just a preacher.

Contrast this with CS Lewis who believes in absolute morality. He says that Nazis, child molestors, and professional torturers all share the same underlying morals (absolute, see?)

Not exactly. He is saying that some human moral systems appoximate more closely an *ideal* system than others. He is simply saying that there is a moral ideal...and some moral codes are clearly far from it, while others are closer to it. So not everyone must share the same moral code (that is simply stating the obvious). But some moral codes are better than others (and, to me, that is also simply stating the obvious).

So the Nazis might have thought they had a pretty good moral code. CS Lewis is saying this: that they would have found their lives much more fruitful and peaceful and abundant had they chosen a better moral code. (and so would many others whose lives they had touched with their poisonous mentality).

Whenever these people act against these absolute morals, their conscience gives them a twinge and they feel bad and regret their actions. Do you think this characterizes your beliefs?

I am quite certain that more than a few Nazi's felt more than just a twinge when they carried out some of the more deplorable orders that were handed to them. But lets put that aside...

Again, CS Lewis is not claiming that everyone will feel bad. What he is saying is that when we get it right, life would be much better...and everyone would agree about that given the experience of getting it right. IOW, were a Nazi to live a life according to a higher standard, he would realize that his life is, in fact, much better than it used to be.

Do you think that that everyone shares a common understanding of what is right and wrong, or are you just saying that everyone should?

I am saying that I believe there is a moral ideal...and that ideal would lead to a better existence for mankind than those systems that are less ideal. And when we live according to a morality that is closer to that ideal, our expereince of life is greatly improved.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Many people have "tested" them and said "Yes, it works!" While many people have tested them and said "No, zero result." The apparent conclusion is that it lies within the tester, not within what is being tested.

Nonsense. You test them for yourself. You can't make them claim that they are not testable at all merely because personal experiences can't be shared or agreed upon objectively.

Here's an example: I tell you that hockey is a fun sport to play. You can put that to the test against your own experience. It does not matter if we disagree about it...you can still test that claim through your own experience. You can say "in my experience, hockey is not fun".

So you can test the validity of several biblical claims according to your own personal experience.

This doesn't mean you have proved anything in a universal sense, since such things are not transferrable. Nevertheless, you have put them to the test.

I'll be quite clear on this point - not ONE of Christianity's tenets are testable.

Does a faulty argument followed by a clear statement make the statement more valid Bellman? I understood this statement the first time you made it. You don't win a debate by stating the same point with the words 'I'll be quite clear' stated emphatically, do you?

 

[Mike Flynn]

I've given some examples above. So has Mike Flynn (although he has claimed that they ARE testable, he nevertheless gives some).

Because they are. You seem to be equating 'test' with universal agreement or proof. Perhaps that is valid in its application toward a physical measurement. But another definition of test is 'a critical examination, or evaluation'.

Obviously, many of the tenets of Christianity are indeed testable in that sense.

 

[The Bellman]

Nonsense. You test them for yourself. You can't make them claim that they are not testable at all merely because personal experiences can't be shared or agreed upon objectively.

Here's an example: I tell you that hockey is a fun sport to play. You can put that to the test against your own experience. It does not matter if we disagree about it...you can still test that claim through your own experience. You can say "in my experience, hockey is not fun".

So you can test the validity of several biblical claims according to your own personal experience.

This doesn't mean you have proved anything in a universal sense, since such things are not transferrable. Nevertheless, you have put them to the test.


Does a faulty argument followed by a clear statement make the statement more valid Bellman? I understood this statement the first time you made it. You don't win a debate by stating the same point with the words 'I'll be quite clear' stated emphatically, do you?

My statement wasn't to you, so you can drop the sarcasm.

And I'm sorry, but the criteria for something being testable include that valid results be obtained. Subjective results are not valid, because they are a test, not of whatever it is being tested, but of the tester. To use your example, hockey IS, regardless of who plays it. Whether or not it is fun depends entirely on the tester. Thus hockey's "fun" is not testable.

In the same way, a claim of christianity such as "belief in Jesus leads to a better/more fulfilling life" is not testable. The results of an attempt to test it depend on the tester, not the thing being tested.

 

[Mike Flynn]

My statement wasn't to you, so you can drop the sarcasm.

Then for whom was it intended, since you were responding to my post?

And I'm sorry, but the criteria for something being testable include that valid results be obtained. Subjective results are not valid, because they are a test, not of whatever it is being tested, but of the tester. To use your example, hockey IS, regardless of who plays it. Whether or not it is fun depends entirely on the tester. Thus hockey's "fun" is not testable.

Obviously you are testing your own experience Bellman...because it is within that experience that one lives out their lives (whether a Christian or not).

So you are testing yourself....you are testing the claims made by the bible about yourself. And this is still a test.

In the same way, a claim of christianity such as "belief in Jesus leads to a better/more fulfilling life" is not testable. The results of an attempt to test it depend on the tester, not the thing being tested.

I agree with that. Nevertheless, you are still *testing* something here. Testing your own experience of some of the tenets of Christianity.

IOW, the particular tenets I am talking about pertain specifically to human experience. So you are testing those tenets as they are reflected into your own experience. Obviously you are testing the 'tester'...that is the whole point.

And again, testing the tester's experience of the tenets is still a test. (and a tongue twister).

 

[The Bellman]

Then for whom was it intended, since you were responding to my post?

einstein, of course. We have been discussing the subect.

Obviously you are testing your own experience Bellman...because it is within that experience that one lives out their lives (whether a Christian or not).

So you are testing yourself....you are testing the claims made by the bible about yourself. And this is still a test.


I agree with that. Nevertheless, you are still *testing* something here. Testing your own experience of some of the tenets of Christianity.

IOW, the particular tenets I am talking about pertain specifically to human experience. So you are testing those tenets as they are reflected into your own experience. Obviously you are testing the 'tester'...that is the whole point.

And again, testing the tester's experience of the tenets is still a test. (and a tongue twister).

Thank you. It is the tester which is tested, not the claims of christianity at all. As I said.

 

[Mike Flynn]

einstein, of course. We have been discussing the subect.

Huh?

thank you. It is the tester which is tested, not the claims of christianity at all. As I said.

Well, you can miss the point if you like...I'll leave that to you.

See bellman...these particular tenets of Christianity are actually calling you to test the tester...and you can perform that test and verify its validity against your experience...and you can decide whether it is valid or not within that context.

IOW, you are indeed testing the claims of Christianity by putting yourself to the test. And you have clearly missed the point entirely.

Perhaps others without a strong bias to simply be disagreeable (because I am a theist, perhaps?) will understand this point more clearly.

 

[michabo]

Hey Mike,

I'll just dwell briefly on the issue of torture because it helps to illustrate the differences, but is still a bit of a distraction.

No michabo...the act of murder and torture are always wrong...I am simply trying to paint a picture of something that is universally contemptable...for anyone who had any sense at all (thats not a shot at you BTW...it is a comment about the lunatics who actually seem to have deplorable morality).

I can think of many moral codes which will permit torture and murder. In times of war, we may make the decision that torturing a person to extract information is moral if it can save the lives of innocent people. Not to be too pop-ish, but in the tv-series "24", this issue has come up a couple of times: when you come down to the wire and it is a matter of hurting one person to save hundreds or thousands, it may be moral to turn to torture.

In the real world, torture is being practiced to some extent or other by many nations including the US. Without any judgement of what I think is moral, I can see that they clearly think that it is justified. I don't think that the people who do this are lunatics or senseless, I just think they operate under different principles.

So you are the equivelent of a 'moral relativist' hippocrite...claiming that everyone has a valid claim to his own moral code, but not allowing everyone to stake their claim to their own moral code, believing your own is, in fact, better than the others.

As I've said before, this is not hypocrisy. I do not say that all individual morals are equivalent, nor do I think that everyone is entitled to practice their own moral code - that is probably impossible. Believing that my morals are better is both empty ("goodness" is defined as how close ones morals match mine) and not hypocricital but perhaps egotistical.

A moral relativist only conceedes that there are no absolute morals. That is, there are no moral codes which are shared by everyone at all times in all places.

Not exactly. He is saying that some human moral systems appoximate more closely an *ideal* system than others. He is simply saying that there is a moral ideal...and some moral codes are clearly far from it, while others are closer to it. So not everyone must share the same moral code (that is simply stating the obvious). But some moral codes are better than others (and, to me, that is also simply stating the obvious).

This is in re: CS Lewis, who is an example of an absolute moralist.

I think he's actually a good resource because he takes very much the same position as you take in his book "Mere Christianity". He calls these absolute morals the "Moral Law", formerly the "Law of Nature".

This law was called the Law of Nature because peope thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it.

When addressing his hypothetical critics, he says:

I know that some people say the ideo of a Law of Nature or decent behvior known to all men is usnsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.

He only gives a few examples, and they're odd enough to mention:

Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. you might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to--whether it was only your family, or your fellow countrymen, or every one. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you like.

Leaving aside his examples for the moment, it is clear that what Lewis is saying is not that there is a moral ideal by which we may judge others, but that everyone actually has the same set of absolute morals! Further, he is saying these morals do not change across culture or across time.

I am saying that I believe there is a moral ideal...and that ideal would lead to a better existence for mankind than those systems that are less ideal. And when we live according to a morality that is closer to that ideal, our expereince of life is greatly improved.

How do we judge what is a better existence, or what is greatly improved? A few obscenely wealthy people with all of the resources of science and medicine to draw oupon and billions of poor, or an egalitarian society? Who is to say? How do we say who is right?


I think Lewis is wrong, or at least unscientific: at the end of the section on the Moral Law, it makes no predictions, and explains everything. He then uses this empty statement to argue for a moral lawgiver, which is doubly questionable.

I don't have any problem per se with absolute morality, but you've done little to demonstrate it. What I do find troubling is the accusations and name calling. Because I don't conform to some arbitrary and impossible definition of "moral relativist" which is closer to "sociopathic anarchist", I don't see any reason to start making this personal.

Ultimately, these terms must be descriptive, not proscriptive. When I say I am a moral relativist, I am merely saying that I do not think there are any absolute morals, and when I look around the world, I see different cultures with different values. They have high and low points in my opinion, but they are internally consistent and functional. I am not intending to shackle myself to some definition of your own choosing.

As we aren't in a debate over the existence of absolute morals (or at least I don't think we are), why don't we just agree that I am not using the definition that you are using; you understand now where I am saying, I understand what you are saying.

If on the other hand you would like to try your hand at the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (isn't that what absolute morals are all about?), then please be clear and upfront about it.

 

[Mike Flynn]

That is, there are no moral codes which are shared by everyone at all times in all places.

I agree with that statement...its obvious. But that does not mean there is no ideal moral standard.

This is in re: CS Lewis, who is an example of an absolute moralist.

Brilliant writer IMO.

I think he's actually a good resource because he takes very much the same position as you take in his book "Mere Christianity". He calls these absolute morals the "Moral Law", formerly the "Law of Nature".

Excellent book.

Leaving aside his examples for the moment, it is clear that what Lewis is saying is not that there is a moral ideal by which we may judge others, but that everyone actually has the same set of absolute morals!

No he is not.

He is saying that all moral systems advocated by any society in history have some common ground. He is also saying that some of that common ground represents part of an ideal moral standard...and part of it inevitably does not.

In a nutshell, Lewis is claiming that we have some foggy idea of ideal good and bad moral conduct...and we incorporate that into our moral codes. We then test our moral conduct by examining the experience of it as a society...and update it to try to shake loose the flaws.

Further, he is saying these morals do not change across culture or across time.

What he is saying here is that there is some universal common ground to societal moral codes through history. I suspect he is correct about that, don't you? Like I said before, human experience must have some degree of symmetry to it...it can't be completely relative since we are all apparently cut from the same cloth.

How do we judge what is a better existence, or what is greatly improved? A few obscenely wealthy people with all of the resources of science and medicine to draw oupon and billions of poor, or an egalitarian society? Who is to say? How do we say who is right?

You are and I am. Judge for yourself the value of your moral code and your life according to one standard, and then according to another. Its not my business to judge the value of another person's life per se.

But I would still make the claim that we would all agree that life would be better under the experience of one code over another. So I won't say that a selfish rich man's morality gives his life no value. I would say that he, himself, will find his life much more valuable were he to be less selfish and more generous instead.

I think Lewis is wrong, or at least unscientific: at the end of the section on the Moral Law, it makes no predictions, and explains everything. He then uses this empty statement to argue for a moral lawgiver, which is doubly questionable.

I believe you have misinterpreted several of his claims. Try to reflect them into what I have said about them here.

Moral Law does make predictions, BTW. It makes the prediction that we will all agree on a better experience of living under a more ideal code of conduct. it is still up to the individual to put that claim to the test. But I believe it is a perfectly viable claim to make (and not a at all a stretch). You probably believe the same thing when you think about your moral code over a Nazi one: That the nazi, according to his own experience, would have lived better had they clung to better morals.

I don't have any problem per se with absolute morality, but you've done little to demonstrate it. What I do find troubling is the accusations and name calling. Because I don't conform to some arbitrary and impossible definition of "moral relativist" which is closer to "sociopathic anarchist", I don't see any reason to start making this personal.

When did I do that? All I am saying is that I do not agree with moral relativism when it says that there are no moral ideals. I do agree with it when it says that everyone has their own take on morality. Those aren't arbitrary statements michabo...they are quite specific.

I am not trying to prove or demonstrate it. I am trying only to clarify ideal morality to you (since you asked). There is no evidence that there is no ideal either...it is simply something I choose to believe. There may simply exist a set of ideal codes for behaviour, that when adhered to, realizes the best possible kind of living according to those who practice it.

My point has always been that even moral relativists tend to practice the same kind of thinking in this regard.

Ultimately, these terms must be descriptive, not proscriptive. When I say I am a moral relativist, I am merely saying that I do not think there are any absolute morals, and when I look around the world, I see different cultures with different values. They have high and low points in my opinion, but they are internally consistent and functional.

And they have common ground as well. And, again, the idea is that under a more ideal system, these cultures would experience better living according to their own judgement.

I am not intending to shackle myself to some definition of your own choosing.

Huh? There are two 'definitions' to be dealt with here:
1. moral relativism says that everyone has their own take on morality (I agree with that)
2. moral relativism says there is no ideal standard for moral conduct. (I disagree with that)

why don't we just agree that I am not using the definition that you are using; you understand now where I am saying, I understand what you are saying.

I've done that already....

If on the other hand you would like to try your hand at the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (isn't that what absolute morals are all about?), then please be clear and upfront about it.

I told you this from the beginning: if ideal morality is true, it does not mean God exists. It could simply be the product of evoutionary development. IOW, there could be a particular moral conduct that maximizes reproductive potential for group animals like ourselves. IOW, moral ideal may exist, simply because we are all cut from the same cloth...this makes no statement about God either way.

I'm not here to prove God to anyone Michabo. Even the Bible tells you that such things are not possible to prove (or disprove).

BTW...the best evidence I can think of for spiritual existence is apparent free will and conscious thought...but its not proof...just circumstantial evidence really.

 

[michabo]

Excellent book.

I've been playing at reading it for a couple months now, but I'm only getting to it in fits and spurts. I'll try to give it more attention...

But I would still make the claim that we would all agree that life would be better under the experience of one code over another. So I won't say that a selfish rich man's morality gives his life no value. I would say that he, himself, will find his life much more valuable were he to be less selfish and more generous instead.

You probably believe the same thing when you think about your moral code over a Nazi one: That the nazi, according to his own experience, would have lived better had they clung to better morals.

A couple years ago I read a very interesting article by a couple of journalists, writing about what they thought the path to happiness was. It was in response to what they saw as rampant consumerism and "shopping therapy" which, they showed, actually makes people more unhappy. It was only through interpersonal connections and improving the lives of others that we can achieve real, lasting happiness. I have thought about that a lot since then, and it seems truer and truer as time goes on.

If it is true, we can make some general guesses about the general happiness and satisfaction of the people within a society. One which imprisons or executes a vast number of people will, superficially at least, be less happy than one which doesn't. That sounds like what you and Lewis are saying, and in a way I agree. Not because there are some absolute morals, but because humans typically receive satisfaction and reward in similar fashions.

So it seems like we reach similar conclusions through different paths. For the moment though, I'll stick to the observation of what makes us happy and leave the "why" unanswered (or at least I won't dream of giving a complete answer). But observing that many people receive satisfaction and happiness from similar behaviours is not, in my opinion, convincing evidence of any absolute morality, moral law, or natural law, just an interesting observation. I would expect that any social animal would demonstrate the same thing.

1. moral relativism says that everyone has their own take on morality (I agree with that)
2. moral relativism says there is no ideal standard for moral conduct. (I disagree with that)

When you say you disagree, are you saying that there is no ideal standard (absolute moraity), or are you saying that moral relativists should not claim there is an ideal standard?

BTW: just because I would like to bring some peoples' actions into compliance with my morals doesn't mean that I think my morals are ideal or in any absolute sense better. They're my morals, and so of course they're better because that's how I define "better"

 

[Forty-Two]

My point is this: we all agree that serial killers are cracked. IOW, there is something wrong with their moral conduct...and we should correct it or lock them away. Certainly, I would agree with you if you say well he doesn't see it as wrong...so we have moral relativism. However, I would disagree with you if you say that what was done by this individual was not wrong...or it did not cause harm. I would say it IS wrong, period.

You, as do most people, say it is wrong. But if one person thinks it's right, the serial killer, then it is relative. Right? This is just majority rules morality. How is it even possible for any one person at any time to break the universal moral code? For a moral to be not relative every person must hold to it. Maybe I am not understanding the semantics somehow.

 

[Western Deity]

Moral relativism is NOT a set of moral standards.
Moral relativism does NOT state that all morals are equal.
Moral relativism only states that morals only apply within their appropriate societal context. We can judge those who torture for pleasure in our society, and we can look down on them etc. If some far off alien culture on another planet tortures their beings for fun, we cannot apply our moral standards to them. This doesn't mean it is OK by our standards, it just means we cannot apply our morals to make any judgement about them at all, positive or negative.

This is what moral relativism is. If you're talking about something different, please explain it and name it because it isn't moral relativism.

 

[The Bellman]

Huh?


Well, you can miss the point if you like...I'll leave that to you.

See bellman...these particular tenets of Christianity are actually calling you to test the tester...and you can perform that test and verify its validity against your experience...and you can decide whether it is valid or not within that context.

IOW, you are indeed testing the claims of Christianity by putting yourself to the test. And you have clearly missed the point entirely.

Perhaps others without a strong bias to simply be disagreeable (because I am a theist, perhaps?) will understand this point more clearly.

Sorry, Mike. For the second time I leave what was a promising discussion with you because of your snide tone. Perhaps next time.

 

[Mike Flynn]

Sorry, Mike. For the second time I leave what was a promising discussion with you because of your snide tone. Perhaps next time.

Lets check that:

1. You claim that I made invalid claims and 42 has not...and then there is no substantiation or response when I call you on that claim.

2. You make both dismissive and hand-waving type statements, and then follow it up with 'I'll be quite clear', as if you have simply won your case merely by dismissing mine. Your last post was the most dismissive of all. "thank you...No tenets of Chrsitianity are being tested.... "

Yes, I responded with a bit of a sarcastic tone, but what do you expect? You have not paid any real attention to anything I have said so far...you have simply dismissed every word out of hand.

So you can leave this promising discussion if you like. But lets be clear: it has been you who has obviously detracted from it with your purely dismissive attitude. And while I will apologize for being sarcastic in response, I will not apologize for judging your posts on this thread for exactly what they are.

 

[Mike Flynn]

For a moral to be not relative every person must hold to it. Maybe I am not understanding the semantics somehow.

If you read through the exchange between michabo and I, you will see that I agree with you completely when you say that morality is relative to individual POVs.

My only claim is that there exists an ideal morality that is not relative. IOW, there is a certain set of moral codes that if adhered to, the experience of that would lead everyone who practices to claim that it is indeed a better code than anything they had previously practiced.

And I believe its worth noting the following: I believe its good to be generous, this is part of my moral code. At the same time I find it hard to practice that ideal...and I often fall short of it. I would argue that there are many who believe in good morality...but simply fall short of practicing it.

IOW, we cannot always draw conclusions about a person's moral code based on their actions alone. I think its fair to say that there are few, if any, who *relish* greed and abhore generosity. And yet greed is rampant.

Similarly, most of us believe its wrong to hate. And yet we all are guilty of it. I suspect there is far more congruity between moral codes than is evidenced merely by human behaviour.

 

[ThePhoenix]

You, as do most people, say it is wrong. But if one person thinks it's right, the serial killer, then it is relative. Right? This is just majority rules morality. How is it even possible for any one person at any time to break the universal moral code? For a moral to be not relative every person must hold to it. Maybe I am not understanding the semantics somehow.

Some people are insane, but there are acts that are morally reprehensible. No matter how much any given society held these acts ok, murder, rape, torture, mutilation and slavery were always wrong. The fact that people justified these actions does not make them right. Morality is not concensus (otherwise pogroms against the Jews would have been moral, since society held them allowable).