Earlier this evening I took a little quiz called the philosophical health check, it showed some interesting results. The test asks moral and philosophical questions and then examines where your opinions are contradictory. The questions are in random order and you are to answer quickly with agree or disagree. I found that I agreed with two questions which don't match up. The first was "There are no objective moral standards; moral judgments are merely an expression of the values of particular cultures." As to my reasoning for agreeing I believe that you learn what is right and wrong from those around you, if you are told your whole life something is correct you get used to it and accept it. From culture to culture there are different rules and way of doing things this does not make one way anymore correct than the other. The only things we don't learn through culture are thinks of nature like being hungry, needing sleep, fight or flight responses and so on. The other question I agreed with was "Acts of genocide stand as a testament to man's ability to do great evil." This belief is supposed is something I developed culturally, but at the same time I think it's a natural question too. Killing mass numbers of human beings is something instinctively you know not to do and nature doesn't support. Genocide occurs when someone cannot allow others to live a way different from themselves.
The problem with agreeing with both of these statements is there is technically no evil only learned ways and opinions. It is strange how you can believe two things although they don't actually fit together. My opinion of genocide being evil is something that has been taught to me by culture, so how can I say another culture is wrong or evil when I accept right and wrong are not clearly defined by the universe? Just some food for thought.