Q&A 9, Second Answer

My question is: Are there any instances in which morality is subjective or relative?

 Only, I think, in the sense that in some cases there may be more than one moral or immoral option.  If there are multiple options which are equal in terms of morality, then the question of which is 'better' is up to the person making the choice - in other words, subjective.  I do not think that there are any instances in which one option can be genuinely better than another in some cases, but not in others wherein the circumstances are effectively identical.

Q&A 9, First Answer

My question is: Can thoughts or emotions be immoral?

I do not think they can.  Isolated from actions, which they may or may not lead to, thoughts and emotions harm no one but (in some cases) the person who is thinking or feeling them.  As such, they are not immoral, because they do not negatively affect others.  The actions resulting from those thoughts or emotions may be immoral, but that does not make the sources immoral.  Furthermore, to suggest that thoughts and emotions, even disconnected from actions, can be immoral renders a completely moral life basically impossible, because thoughts and emotions are sometimes impossible to control.  Even if one makes allowance for this, by invoking the 'ought-implies-can' concept, it still mandates that people attempt to repress natural thoughts and emotions in order to comply with morality - something which is almost universally severely damaging, and which can lead to people becoming unbalanced and therefore acting in immoral ways.  Lastly, in most cases, legal systems attempt to enforce morality by means of banning or regulation.  It is impossible to regulate the thoughts and emotions of others (and even if it were possible, I think it would be radically immoral).  This is yet another aspect which sets thoughts and emotions apart from actions in terms of moral value.

Guilt and Immorality

While guilt can in doubtless contribute to someone's deciding to act morally, in some cases I think that it can actually cause immoral acts.  In my opinion, guilt is not an innate guide to good and evil, but is primarily a product of the circumstances in which a person grows up and lives.  Therefore, it can be misguided, and not synchronised with actual morality.  In addition to the obvious cases of simply omission of moral principles (such as a person not feeling guilty for treating homosexual people badly), it can extend to causing people to feel guilty about things which are morally correct, and therefore decide not to do those things (for example, an individual seeing a homosexual person in need of assistance might consider helping that person but ultimately decide not to because they feel guilty about assisting an 'enemy').

Response: Religion as a Source of Ethics

In response to Kelsey Phifer's post "Religion and Moral Reasoning" (May 3, 2012):

I do think that religion, and particularly contemplation of a religious conception of guilt, can indeed lead people to adopt ethical ways of living.  However, I do not think that this is the only or even the best method of formulating a code of ethics.  The reliance of many religions on scripture can often lead to stagnation of the morals of religious followers - not a good thing, as I think that it is vital to continually question and re-evaluate moral codes in order to ensure that one has reached the correct moral conclusions.  If, however, some people find it nice, for some reason, to follow a religious code of morality, that is fine, provided that their code does not conflict in any major way with secular morality.