No, morality is supposed to emerge from that.AKG said:Morality is not social policy, although it can be. Your mention of a set of rules which maximises the goals of a society is clearly indicative of a presupposed moral philosophy,
Why would a set of common, shared rules be relative to me ?and so whatever rules you claim come about objectively are in fact relative to your morality.
That doesn't mean morality is subjective, it means the correct methodSome moralities don't focus on making rules, but simply suggest attitudes by which to live your life. In other words, people set goals for themselves to try to be more and more compassionate, disciplined, etc. not in the sense that it is a rule that you must be compassionate, but it is a goal, a virtue that you try to cultivate. Your use of the term "maximises" suggests some utilitarian leanings, but some people believe that "maximizing" is not a good, or even sensible approach.
of arriving at objective morality is doubtful.
That isn't proper relativism. Moral relativism means that whatever answer? Your morality is objective only insofar as we ignore the fact that it is relative to how you answer the preceeding question (and/or questions like),
an individual is automatically the 'right' answer (in some localised sense of 'right'). The fact that conclusions are 'relative' to assumptions is something
quite different. The conclusion can still be wrong, and objectively wrong.
Moral relativism means no-one is wrong.
How do you know they are all equally valid ?and that there are several valid answers to those questions.