/his/ explain moral relativism How is it supposed to work?

>>1495687
That the pope is not objectively wrong for pooping in the woods. He is relatively wrong compared to the bible. But the bible is not objective, and the wrongness of pooping in the woods is only relative to the non objective morality of the bible. If your subjective morality is based on the subjective bible, pooping in the woods is wrong. If your subjective morality isn't based on the bible pooping in the woods may or may not be wrong.

I still have yet to hear an argument that refutes it tbqh

>>1495693
>That the pope is not objectively wrong for pooping in the woods. He is relatively wrong compared to the bible. But the bible is not objective, and the wrongness of pooping in the woods is only relative to the non objective morality of the bible. If your subjective morality is based on the subjective bible, pooping in the woods is wrong. If your subjective morality isn't based on the bible pooping in the woods may or may not be wrong.
is that supposed to make sense because it doesn't

All value systems and moralities are dependent upon certain axioms for their validity, and in rejection of their prime axiom make no sense.

Example: Utilitarianism is an objective value system. It makes perfect sense. As long as you accept the axiom "Maximization of pleasure is the highest Good". If you deny the axiom, the whole system falls in.

This is true for every value set. They all start by identifying certain values, declaring them to be The-Good-In-Itself, and then make broad deductions from those principles into flowerly philosophies. But if you say "I deny that axiom", the whole system falls in. Its how new philosophies and moral systems form in the first place. Someone denies an axiom.

>>1495729
so what part of this is moral relativism?

>>1495710
Maybe for a dumb nigger like you it doesn't

>>1495734
If all moral systems depend upon axioms, then there is no universal objective moral system. All moral systems are like all political systems.

Relative to a particular desires of particular agents, living in particular places, at particular times.

>>1495693
Assuming, of course, that no belief system is objective so all things are relative in comparison to other belief systems

>>1495740
Alrighty then

>>1495710
And yet it does.
Idk, try to read it again, but slower this time?

>>1495741
that is still a reasoning, not a stance.

what does it mean to be a moral relativist?

>>1495744
No, it doesn't even matter if the belief system of a particular religion is true or not. Even if a God existed, that wouldn't overcome the IS-OUGHT problem.

Look, the idea of "moral objectivity" isn't even coherant. Lets look at what that term even means. Here are all the possible definitions I know of for it.

1. An objective morality is a morality that is consistent with itself and coherent. If this is the case, there are literally dozens of objective moralities.

2. An objective morality is a morality that is universally known of. Despite the pleas of men like Saint Paul and C.S. Lewis, this is nowhere near the case. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No such morality exists.

3. An objective morality is a morality rooted in some feature of Nature or the cosmos. If this is the case, there are dozens of objective moralities. The Stoics, the Thomists, and the Darwinists can all claim to base their moralities on Nature, and be right, because "Nature" does not prescribe any particular imperatives, unless you assume axiomatically that some things are desirable. And what things you decide are not desirable, are the parts of "Nature" your morality leaves out. In other words, no such morality exists.

4. An objective morality means a morality that is universally enforced. This type of morality is the ONLY type of moral system that becomes any more valid or true when a God is thrown into the picture, and even then it accomplishes this purely through realpolitik. If a morality being objective simply means its universally enforced, then the concept is valid, but it also destroys the ONLY criticism moral objectivists make against relativists, namely, that their moralities are arbitrary and only maintained through force! Its hypocrisy of the highest type.

In short, not only does a God existing not help the issue of metaethics and answering Hume, it has literally nothing to do with the problem at all.

>>1495773
It means realizing that moral systems and value systems are human constructs created for particular persons by particular interests, and that there is no such thing as a universally accurate and prescribed way of behavior.

That things you find abhorrent are not cosmically wrong.

>>1495729
I seriously don't understand why people have trouble with this. Do they not understand what the word "objective" means?

>>1495781
is there supposed to be a difference to moral nihilism

>>1495786
Yes. Nihilism means "There is no value", relativism means "Value is constructed"

And if you think those are the same thing, it says more about your weak psychology than about metaethics.

>>1495773
Not the anon you replied to but that is a reasoning that leads to taking the stance as moral relativist and what being a moral relativist is can be seen quite well in that reasoning: A stance that declares that morals are relative to a particular desires of particular agents, living in particular places, at particular times.
Can you clarify you question?

>>1495791
if value was constructed then there would previously have been no value

i mean this is an analogy i have no actual clue what the fuck you mean by constructing value. that combination of words does not have some obvious meaning to me.

>>1495801
it seems to lead to moral nihilism but this is not the word that was used

>>1495813
You're assuming that value and meaning are things to be found and discovered, things that are built into the universe and that if you find value and meaning in the "wrong" things you are "wrong", and if you fail to find meaning in the "right" things then you are wrong.

The reality is that "value" as a concept means "evaluated by someone". Its something human beings literally just make the fuck up.

Morality is like concepts like money, and "The State" and laws. Its all shit thats only real in our heads. That doesn't mean we should get rid of it all.

But it is, what it is. If I say "X is Good", you can ask me "Why?" until you reach the point where I say "Because I fucking said so", and at that point morality becomes relative.

>>1495785
Based on the conversations I've had, way too many people seem to use "objective" not as an absolute objective but rather as an "well we can pretty much mostly agree that this is x so it must be objectively x because if it were subjective we'd all disagree"

>>1495826
OH man the best of those conversations is when people realize that someone actually disagrees on one of their axioms.

Like if someone says "Well we can all agree torture is objectively wrong so, wait someone disagrees? Anon how can you say that, thats horrible!"

Just as an example, not stating my views on the above one way or the other.

>>1495825
moral nihilism doesn't deny the physical world or that people have differing opinions

I'm not sure I get it myself. As far as I can tell, it's basically "take a light touch, because everyone has their standard of good, and don't be a dick."

t. Moral Nihilist.

>>1495813
From what I understand, to a moral nihilist the act of killing simply isn't right of wrong.
To a moral relativist killing can be right or wrong, but it being either one is relative to the values, the culture, the time etc.

>>1495854
Pff, kek. I don't get where people get that idea

"Values are relative, lets be SUPER NICE AND INOFFENSIVE"

If anything, the idea that there are no moral absolutes means you should fight for YOUR values with great intensity. Just because other standards of good exist, doesn't mean I have to RESPECT that.

>>1495862
>Pff, kek. I don't get where people get that idea

Same guy here, I got that from looking at society at large. I guess it's because relativist language is usually paired up with the whole politically correct thing.

Personally, although I hold that all moral values are fictions, I'm pretty willing to stick by the shit I do value.

>>1495872
Exactly! Just because my enemies aren't WRONG in some cosmic sense, doesn't stop them from being my enemies.

Just because ISIS isn't "evil", doesn't mean I don't want to bomb them forward into the stone age.

File: 1440128776566.jpg (21KB, 372x260px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 372x260px

>>1495862
but that's not in any way philosophy.

it's literally just acknowledgement that other people disagree with you and an utter lack of action concerning that. speaking it out loud produces word salad since there is no communication. is this brain damage?

unless you defend it by saying you don't care in which case it's nihilism, not relativism.

>>1495883
No, its saying that the entire subject is founded on a false premise, and any examination of what is meant by the concepts used in the subject reveals the whole thing to be nonsense.

Its ethics based on reality instead looking for some Cosmic Ideal Philosophy that does not exist.

>>1495889
that's still nihilism

>>1495890
No, its not.

>>1495891
it completely lacks a difference from nihilism. do you mean to convince me that doesn't make it the same, or do you disagree?

Moral relativism is the idea that the concept of right and wrong differs between different societies.

But morality is subjective, it deals with the outcomes for subjective beings. Something is not good because society says it is, or because it is good for society, something is only good from the perspective of a person who benefits from it. Something is wrong if it wrongs someone.

So even though the concept of right and wrong do differ from society to society, this doesn't mean that an act which is wrong in one part of the world may be right in another part of the world; it just means that societies tend to include aesthetic choices and moral choices in the same category.

>>1495901
I'm telling you, as a matter of fact, that existentialism is not the same thing as nihilism. Saying values are constructed and self-oriented is not the same thing as saying life is meaningless and valueless.

You saying "Yes it is" is not an argument. The reality is that the mere concepts of value and meaning are by necessity linked to the individual. When we say "This matters", we are necessarily saying "It matters to somebody"

The idea of meaning independent of an agent isn't just wrong, it doesn't even make sense.

>>1495774
Spooky spookism is objective

>>1495906
>not the same thing as saying life is meaningless and valueless
moral nihilism is not existential nihilism

is this just rebranding moral nihilism to unassociate from the edgelord thing?

>>1495913
No, but neither is moral nihilism the same as moral relativism. They are distinct concepts. Saying

"There is no subject-independent value" is not the same statement as

"There are no values"

>>1495918
do you imagine moral nihilists deny that people have opinions? you'd be mistaken.

>>1495913
Are you missing the anon's point on purpose?
>Saying values are constructed and self-oriented is not the same thing as saying life is meaningless and valueless.
analogically
>Saying moral values are constructed and self-oriented is not the same thing as saying that nothing is moral or immoral

>>1495920
No one said that moral nihilists deny that people have opinions. Moral nihilists just don't believe that something is moral or immoral based on someone's opinion.

>>1495931
generally no one does

do you mean relativists do or are you just typing aimlessly

File: fgsdfs.jpg (9KB, 189x200px)

9KB, 189x200px

is this really how it is? you spout nonsense and then leave?

File: 1386712953771.jpg (75KB, 1280x720px)

75KB, 1280x720px

>this is bad
>NUH UH WHO SAYS
>this is good
>NUH UH WHO SAYS
>this is
>NUH UHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Why do we take moral relativism seriously?

>>1495729

The maximization principle is not an axiom. It requires justification, which is what all those books on the groundwork of utilitarianism set out to demonstrate.

>>1495687
It's a fancy way of rationalisation for those who are unwilling to face the severity of their actions or inaction. People who are more together are more willing to understand that they did the best they could. Relativists believe they did the best the situation could reasonably allow.
It's the moral equivalent of giving away your agency. Making your moral short comings the fault of fortune rather than your choices and interactions.

Pretty cowardly tb//h

>>1495773
It allows the relativist to devalue the concept of morals. While everyone knows that people disagree on what is and isn't moral, rather than deciding for themselves the relativist eschews all such responsibility and claims that as it is constructed it is all equally vacuous.
When ethics and moral codes have no more weight or legitimacy than deciding what you're having for dinner the relativist may swap and choose between them at will in order to continually be on the side of 'morality'. How can they be wrong if they can change the rules to suite the situations as they arise?
Who could critique them given that their morals are just one 'perspective' and they don't 'understand' the relativistic nature of them.

>>1495926
>constructed and self-oriented
these two words are literally the entire explanation of these supposedly existing values which have no visible difference from other people's opinions

are people's opinions morally important?

>>1495974
It's a slow board mate. Chances are whoever has 'left' will be back.

>ITT people with no formal philosophy education whatsoever discuss metaethical issues they don't understand via concepts the meanings of which they don't know
Brilliant.

>>1496159
well educate us faggot. there's a clearly defined question in the OP.

>>1496165
There's this thing called Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which can be found with Google fairly easily

>>1496159
Ok, and you're going to belittle them trying their best because?

>>1496194
In general people should shut the hell up about things they have business discussing, uneducated blabbering never brought anything worthwhile to the table (see: climate change deniers, homophobes, YECs, supporters of homeopathy and alternate medicine, moral realists and religious fundamentalists/terrorists).

>>1496225
>just shut up and listen to your betters :^)

This is an open image board with no central ideology or purpose beyond facilitating discussion; it doesn't even archive its own threads for any substantial length of time. There is literally no place better suited for uneducated sorts to come here and try and work through this kind of shit on their own. Go climb into your fedora.

File: why.jpg (23KB, 288x499px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 288x499px

>>1496182
according to this moral relativisim has no meaning at all and everyone who has ever used it has first chosen the word and then tried to invent something for it to mean

this word has to be the most retarded fucking thing i have ever seen

>>1496165
>>1496225
and yet you can't seem to bring anything useful to the thread's topic. you're even worse than us.

>>1495774
Does it feel bad writing a long post and then getting no (you)s?

I thought your post was interesting and informative though.

>>1496015

this

Moral relevancy is essentially one big bystander effect

>>1495687
>How is it supposed to work? I don't get it.
There is no source of objective morality and our moral systems are to a large extent arbitrary. There are common themes across all cultures but they are essentially a result of evolutionary history and not evidence of some greater moral force.

File: 1468604779673.png (363KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 500x500px

>>1495773
>what does it mean to be a moral relativist?
To recognise that morals are relative. It's fairly simple. What you define as "right" and "wrong" are dependent on the moral system you subscribe to. For example, a religious man might consider faith to be virtuous, an atheist might consider faith to be dogmatic or servile, and therefore be opposed to it. A Hindu might think that ritual is virtuous, a muslim might think that it is idolatrous and therefore wrong. A communist might think that property is evil, an ancap might think that property is the most fundamental good in human society, and so on.

To be a moral relativist is simply to recognise this heterogeneity.

>>1495813
>if value was constructed then there would previously have been no value
yes, (leaving aside the discussion about whether or not animals or theoretical aliens have morals) before humans existed there can have been no morals.

>>1495862
yup, I agree. This quote from a British official in India sums up how I feel about it.

“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."

>>1495687
Almost no one who claims to be a moral relativist actually is.
They are fine with different values up to a point, but can't fathom going beyond it.

True moral relativism means that even principles like the value of human life mean nothing.

>>1497673
That's not moral relativism. Moral relativism is not being fine with other morals. It's knowing that morality is not objective.

Dogmatic people say there is an objective morality.

Moral relativists say morality is subjective.

Nihilists say there's no inherent value and morality is a spook.

These are not the same thing. You've just been in your echobox too long.

>>1496225
>those bad dumb homophobes XPPP
>haha homeopathy XDDD

literally a list of reddit wrongthink. kill yourself you cookie cutter mongoloid faggot

>>1497699
Moral relativism means that nihilism is equally valid to any other moral system

>>1497711
Not that faggot but if you like homeopathy you're a literal retard.

File: 1442501916087.jpg (34KB, 599x349px)

34KB, 599x349px

>>1495687
Reality is Reality. A man killing a man is a man killing a man. Nothing more or less.

Moral relativism is recognising this and that all forms of morality are abstractions that have no basis in reality.

>>1497699
>These are not the same thing
please explain where this supposed difference is

>>1497766
wut

>>1497741
>>1497777
Not all opinions are equally valid.

>>1498605
explain further

>>1495687
There's nothing to explain. It's complete bullshit. Forget about it.

>>1497520
>A Hindu might think that ritual is virtuous, a muslim might think that it is idolatrous and therefore wrong.
No, religion is different. The whole thing about religion is that it claims to be about "is".

So the Muslim doesn't think that the Hindu has the wrong values, he thinks that the Hindu is factually wrong about what God wants.

>supposed

nump

>>1497741
You're still trying to apply an objective criterion with your use of valid.

The subtext being if we really believe morality is relative then we'll balk at the thought of the opposing system. You've managed to miss the point.

>>1495687
Imagine an innocent child being eaten by starving wolf and its cubs (which are starving because of the lack of game from human hunting), and then being slaughtered by the towns people. Who is in the moral right objectively?
Neither is, because objective morality doesn't exist. To the wolves they are good and the towns people are bad. To the people vice versa.

There is a certain subset of the population that is deathly afraid of making value judgement in general. "Moral relativism" is what happens when they talk morals. The question is why are some people so scared of making value judgement?

>>1499264
>So the Muslim doesn't think that the Hindu has the wrong values, he thinks that the Hindu is factually wrong about what God wants.
A lot of religions equate values with what god wants. Not sure about hinduism but Muslims definitely do it a lot.

>>1501159
moral nihilism is exactly the same except things that aren't true are just called "false" regardless of if someone else believes in them.

there is no difference between what you call "morally irrelevant" and "morally relevant in someone else's opinion".

>>1501423
because it's easier to live apathetic? i dont know

>>1495836
I had an axiomatic disagreement with a friend that took ~4 conversations to track down. It's an interesting process.

>>1495693
/thread

>>1495687
The most concise answer is that it ISN'T supposed to 'work' in the sense of a normative ethical theory.
It is merely means by which to explain why conflicting moralities exists within the global community.
Its shrouded in a lot of confusion and scoffed at in the contemporary philosophical community because it was put forward originally by anthropologists, not philosophers.
And, as demonstrated by others ITT, relativism isn't useful as a guide, again it is more a means by which to explain why various moral codes exist and contradict. In this way it also preserves the anthropologists' precious ideas about the egalitarian value of said various cultures systems. Meaning that, using relativism, all cultures are equally right and or wrong.

So, relativism is can be accepted as a general rule of the basis of morality, that it comes subjectively from humans, but relativism isn't a guiding moral theory. Hope that answered your question OP

>>1495687

>I don't know what the right course of action is in this particular situation.
>That means there is no right course of action, it's all the same!!
>I don't know the answer to this math problem.
>That means any answer I give is equally valid!!

Trash-tier morality for little baby brained beta fucbois.

>>1505388
>There is an objective morality.

Prove it.

>>1506456

Do you agree that truth exists independently of human thought?

>>1495785
No one knows what objective means anymore, if it even meant anything to begin with.

>>1507804
No one knows what adjective means anymore, if it even meant anything to begin with.

>>1506443
You are retarded if you think this is what moral relativism actually is.

It's just recognising that all forms of morality are inherently subjective because they are human abstractions i.e. not objective. How the fuck do you even come to that conclusion?

>>1495687

>I'm a lazy 16 year old that just read Nietzsche for the first time and completely misunderstood the essence of the first 25 pages of 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' before I got bored and drank a pepsi

That's moral relativism in a nutshell

>>1495774

>3. An objective morality is a morality rooted in some feature of Nature or the cosmos. If this is the case, there are dozens of objective moralities. The Stoics, the Thomists, and the Darwinists can all claim to base their moralities on Nature, and be right, because "Nature" does not prescribe any particular imperatives, unless you assume axiomatically that some things are desirable. And what things you decide are not desirable, are the parts of "Nature" your morality leaves out. In other words, no such morality exists.

I can see no reason why a system of morality could not take into account both the desirable and undesirable portions of 'nature'. It a moral system did this, would that then make it objective? If a moral system could not do this, explain why.

>>1508912
Buhcuz adjectives aren't the same as pronouns.

File: historicallaugh.jpg (59KB, 512x624px)

59KB, 512x624px

>>1495693

File: 1470337960116.jpg (20KB, 402x341px)

20KB, 402x341px

>>1508902

*tips*

>>1495687
Kant.

>>1508963

>An objective morality is a morality rooted in some feature of Nature or the cosmos.

but wouldn't an objective morality by definition need to be rooted in all features of Nature or the cosmos? And if it fulfilled this requirement would it not in fact be objective?

>>1496015
>Relativists believe they did the best the situation could reasonably allow.
What are you even talking about?
Moral relativism provides no stance on any particular moral problem besides the nature of morality itself. It doesn't allow to tell you right from wrong in any way, it just expounds on the nature of whatever system of belief allows you to make that judgement. Say, both someone who holds morals to be absolute and someone who holds morals to be relative can be utilitarian, kantian, subscribe to virtue ethics, or whatever. The difference is the first will say he subscribes to a given system because it's right, while the relativist won't hold that any system is more or less right from an objective, impartial, outsider's perspective.

>>1509621
>>1508912
Guy who wrote >>1495774 here. No, it makes no difference. A morality that 'takes into account every facet of Nature', still does nothing to bridge the IS-OUGHT problem. God himself stepping down from Heaven and giving you stone tablets would not solve the IS-OUGHT problem.

Basically to every moral command, you can ask "Why?", and you can question every justification given, until eventually the one giving the command or promoting the principle
has to answer "Because I said so"

And from there, its entirely a matter of subjectivity. Whether you say so too.

>>1501897
>there is no difference between what you call "morally irrelevant" and "morally relevant in someone else's opinion"
That people act on their beliefs, makes their beliefs relevant. Morality matters in the sense that traffic codes matter.

>>1509768
>matters
in the morally irrelevant sense of which nihilists are in complete agreement

>>1509931
What does that mean? What is "morally irrelevant"? Things matter because they are of consequence, they weight in on things, people care, etc. Morals matter.

>>1510001
morally relevant in the sense of moral realism, a position being entertained by one who doesn't agree with it.

realists say "morals are real"
nihilists say "morals are not real. morals are only opinions."
relativists say "what do you mean? morals are opinions so I am now going to defend the existence of opinions."

the great tragedy of our universe is that they will never be strangled through the internet

>>1510062
So, you'd say state laws aren't real?

>>1510062
>>1510079
Well, I'm gonna be busy so I'll make it short:

Being dismissive of morality is much like being dismissive of mental states. While they don't equate linearly with concrete reality, they pertain to it and concrete reality pertains to them. They help predict and explain behavior to an extent. They are useful concepts. Arguing against positions on the grounds of fine semantics, taking an eliminative posturing without offering actual alternative models isn't productive - it's intellectual masturbation.

Because large numbers of people agree on some moral principles, these define the social environment much like state laws do. Both are closely related even, with laws affecting morality in top-down fashion and morality affecting legality in a bottom-up fashion - this is a gross simplification, but you understand what I mean.

>>1510109
your opinions are perfectly moral nihilistic

>>1510079
>I am now going to defend the existence of opinions.

>>1501423
>The question is why are some people so scared of making value judgement?
Because taking a stance means making enemies of the people against it. Many people are way too meek and weak to be willing to risk making enemies, even if the extent of said enmity would be nothing more than exchanging a few harsh words.

>>1509621
if a woodchuck could chuck wood it would chuck this many woods.

>>1495701
All people and societies can be said to believe in the same basic ideals and desires they just acheive them in different ways because of different levels of access to information.
i.e. the mayans sacrificed peopel cause they beleived it was to the benefit of all society but this is only because they believed in certain gods and had certain biases they could nto escape. Upon teaching and telling them cetain things they would change their way and stop sacrificing people.

in essence 99% of all societies have roughly the same basic tenants but the implementation is different. We can disagree on the implementation but nobody sees themselves as bad or self destructive on purpose etc..

>>1495741
But if all practical beleives and social structures are based on the same axioms then you can say that moral ideals stem from certain realities of human existence and are thus universal, only their implementation changes.
i.e the intentions are the same but the ways to reach the goal are different.

>>1511084
>>1511077
Except this is not in fact the case. The idea that all societies share the same values is complete nonsense and anyone who tried to oversimplify ethics by claiming such a thing is a fool.

Moreover, individuals value systems vary even more than the various societies do, since merely being a 'society' assumes certain values, whereas smaller groups are not under that stricture.

There is no value or idea that is universally believed in by all mankind, and any claims to the contrary is willful delusion.

>>1511084
>But if all practical beleives and social structures are based on the same axioms
They aren't. Not even remotely.

>>1511099
>>1511100

>nahaa

Give examples cretins or elaborate in some way why you disagree. You are not arguing with my made up theories but with an established field in philosophy of ethics and morality.

>>1511112
No. The wide variety of philosophies is an established fact. The burden of proof is on you to somehow prove that the apparent variety is in fact an illusion.

Please name a single moral concept or idea that is both universal among human beings and is equally valued among human beings.

Otherwise shut up.

>>1511123
But why? When one could just argue.

According to Marcus and Fischer, when the principle of cultural relativism was popularized after World War II, it came to be understood "more as a doctrine, or position, than as a method." As a consequence, people misinterpreted cultural relativism to mean that all cultures are both separate and equal, and that all value systems, however different, are equally valid. Thus, people came to use the phrase "cultural relativism" erroneously to signify "moral relativism."

People generally understand moral relativism to mean that there are no absolute or universal moral standards. The nature of anthropological research lends itself to the search for universal standards (standards found in all societies), but not necessarily absolute standards; nevertheless, people often confuse the two. In 1944 Clyde Kluckhohn (who studied at Harvard, but who admired and worked with Boas and his students) attempted to address this issue:

The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principle of cultural relativity will weaken morality. "If the Bugabuga do it why can't we? It's all relative anyway." But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean.
The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact gives intellectual warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy scepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes.

>>1511165
Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable.

There is no absolute morality and it cannot be rationally attained, instead it is a question of existing moral systems which through their existence have proved themsleves to be adequate to their times.
You can ask well how do we communicate and debate moral issues without resorting to power struggles and aggression? Well this is where cultural narratives come into play. The spread of moral ideals is tied to cultural scuess and proliferation. meaning that you can spread culture through different mediums instead of conquering or fighting nations.
Now that there is no blockage of authoritarian individuals and information flows relatively freely from one individual to another new nerratives grow that are a product of current times and more culturally advanced and nuances a society is the more power it will have and the more its moral systme will seem appropriate.
Its simply a question of pragmatic vevaluation.

>>1495693
Well put.

File: NEVER_EVER.png (965KB, 631x631px) Image search: [Google]

965KB, 631x631px

>>1495710
Hahahaha
A nigger! Everyone point and laugh!!

>>1506468
go on