Hey adv, what do you call the fallacy when someone uses moral

>>17755048
counteract by saying that you were saying it from the general consensus point of view and that applying relativity to these kind of statements is illogical being the least practical way to look at it. It can be viewed with relativity, but being less pragmatic in society it is far less applicable.
Thus purposefully choosing that point of view to counter the kind of statement you said (especially the second one) demonstrates stubborness and unreasonableness.

>>17755048
Realize that "moral" doesn't mean "good/evil" but "general public perception about good and evil" ... if you try to argue for objective morality, you can't win, since it's bullshit.

If you're clever enough you can even make an argument for objectivity of beauty but it'd need an opponent who is less clever.

Also read the greeks.

>>17755062
I did try explaining in similar terms in an attempt to be reasonable but more often than not the other person will just take any reasonable argument to troll me further.

I'm just curious if this one has an official term so I can just call them out on it to enlighten them, or if they're doing it deliberately, to let them know I'm on to them.

>>17755079

Are you saying that you can never truly argue that throat raping babies to death is "evil" and "wrong"?

>>17755082
How could you enlighten anybody if you can't find the term yourself and hence clearly didn't study the topic in depth?

Stop seeing arguments as something to win.

>>17755086
>evil
Unless you roll with objective moral like religionfags, it won't work. Of course there is a general consensus as in "most people say it's evil" so basically what morals are and it's reasonable enough, just not for an argument about it.

What you can do is argue for practicality, negative aspects for the rest of society and that "being technically right" is irrelevant in the context of society. So basically for the "wrong" but for something to be wrong, there needs to be reasons.

>>17755048
I want to know this too. People keep saying "What's swedish anyway?" to justify the genocide.

>>17755095
Well there are things like ethics, which are scientifically agreed upon. SCIENCE... that might win the argument. Taking a child's existence is ethically wrong for a number of reasons. Study some ethics

>>17755101
Objectively: Having a Swedish ID.
Subjectively: Whatever criteria you want.

If your position can't be supported logically doesn't mean you're wrong. (Although it's always a good idea to consider it) Most decisions in human history were made due irrational factors like greed, fear and other feelz.

>>17755048
>what do you call the fallacy when someone uses moral relativity
It's not a fallacy when it's true.

Like others said you can still argue against it, but it's not a logical fallacy since your original argument wasn't logical in the first place.

>>17755110
>It's not a fallacy when it's true.
Nope. This is the fallacy fallacy. (yes, that's the real name for it) Just because someone used a fallacious argument it doesn't mean they are wrong, and just because they are right it doesn't mean they aren't using fallacies to argue for it.

>>17755104
You mean stuff like ethical naturalism and the likes? Not very scientific. Generally speaking ethics are simply the result of individual morals, so on almost the same level. Nothing scientific here.

>which are scientifically agreed upon
I'd love to see that. Link please.

>Taking a child's existence is ethically wrong for a number of reasons.
Assuming the person has the same ethic beliefs as you.

Besides, you seem to argue from the position that "science" is objective.