Ankur Sarodia in his criticism of John Lawless on Wednesday (Nov. 13 letter) asks, "How does one place a greater value on one moral over another? Can anyone legitimately offer any framework from which to critically evaluate opposing morals?"

This was done classically by the ancient Greeks, in particular, Aristotle in his Politics, when he gave the definition of a "good regime" as being one that tends towards the common good of the polis, i.e., societal common good. The behavior that doesn't meet Aristotle's definition is to be avoided by good regimes, a characteristic of which is that the regime's laws aren't formulated with the primary intent of making the rulers comfortable with their vices.

How can sexual promiscuity be considered "tending toward societal common good" with much well documented evidence from medical and psychological sources to the contrary?

Reference the most recent statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on the inordinate increase of sexually transmitted diseases, and numerous psychological studies on the devaluing of marriage and the family, and women in general, by treating them as mere objects for sexual gratification. Nothing like a "Sex Faire" and "C-fest" to promote the dignity of human beings, especially women, right?

Sarodia continues: "The truth is that the morals which you claim are innate in all human beings aren't universal. The moral character of an individual is almost as unique to the individual as their genetic composition."

This sounds suspiciously like an absolute statement to me, which proves that moral relativists are hypocritical, as even a cannibal has the good sense to try to avoid being eaten.