A question has reverberated throughout history shaking the fiber of society and molding it to its answer: what is good character? There are mainly two views on this: divine command and social decision. Divine command would state that a divine power made a set of morals for humans to abide by: a good character follows these morals. Social decision would argue that morality is simply a set of socially convenient behaviors that can be changed, i.e. there is no absolute truth in this world: everyone has good character in his own way.

Before answering this question one must first understand what 'good' is. If good is bad, bad is good, then we must conclude that 'good' is simply a point of view; I think that it is good that we are getting an early rain because my lawn was drying. The hiker believes that it is bad that the rain has started because he can no longer summit a peak until the rain has ceased. Therefore 'good' is a word that can be compromised. However this argument assumes one thing: good opportunities and good morals are the same entities.

This brings us to another obstacle: what is morality and is it different than any other good thing? If morality is relative, then to be consistent one could argue that different societies in the world can have different inconsequential morals. A good example is Zimbabwe. For the past few decades, AIDS has been a disease that has claimed the lives of thousands (which is a bad thing). At the moment in Zimbabwe, the adult prevalence rate of AIDS is 25%. Approximately 1.8 billion people are living with it which also means they will die from it.

Lately 'safe sex' has been practiced to prevent the spread of this disease. 'Safe sex' is frowned upon and rejected by conservative individuals of Judeo-Christian backgrounds. The Judeo-Christian ethics preach the complete abstinence from sex until marriage. According to moral relativity, neither practice is right nor wrong. Either practice can benefit a culture or not, it simply depends on what the society decides. Now as we can see, the society has decided that abstinence is not necessary and they can partake in whatever 'safe' sexual activity they want. Yet despite this, the percentage of HIV/AIDS is very high - even rising. Obviously a moral perceived as 'bad' by one party and 'good' by another does not negate the fact that there is a consequence for breaking this moral. In fact, the statistics state that the Judeo-Christian ethic would be more logical since it commands individuals to abstain for just one mate therefore lessening the likelihood of contracting the disease altogether. It seems as if morals are morals because there are definite consequences for breaking them.

I believe morals are absolute and definitive. Even those who claim no moral code have them. They use language that condemns or condones others' behaviors such as 'He wronged me when he tripped me' or 'She is a very honest person.' No sane person would admit that killing children can be acceptable. A sane person would not even agree to the mass killings of animals for sport. C.S. Lewis illustrated this point beautifully in his book Mere Christianity:

"A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line."

Whether we like it or not, morals are absolute. This is an extreme statement because of the implications it makes: we are bound to a code of conduct which is closer to a universal law than the traditional view on morals as a list of do's and dont's. One does not get very far in life by ignoring the law of gravity. Likewise we will not get far by ignoring the law of morals.