Refute moral relativism.

>>2453245
Morality is based on human biology, which is consistent across all cultures, therefore there must be at least some universal principles which are moral.

>>2453249
How is morality based on human biology?

>>2453249
>Morality is based on human biology
Morality is only relevant in societies and is a product of human sociality. Biology may not change, but societies do.

File: Assbaby.jpg (22KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x400px

>>2453249
Wrong.

File: 1457882759410.jpg (62KB, 396x691px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 396x691px

it's technically a cognitivist stance, as it's a truth-apt unfalsifiable claim related to morality.

phenomenological non-cognitivism is what you are looking for. sorry to go boss monster on this thread.

>>2453249
cite a single moral principle that is consistent across all cultures. just for fun.

File: persuasion.jpg (69KB, 458x600px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 458x600px

explain where it is supposed to differ from moral nihilism?

a typical approach is the one in your picture where some retarded person hints at a "non-universal moral rule" without directly claiming there is such a thing. it is something outside the definition of what most people mean when they say "moral rule". if you were to convince these people their morals aren't universal that would rather make them stop calling them morals.

you are making two different arguments at the same time and pretending they're the same one. neither of them can be addressed because you're not committing to either one, just going "huurrr durrrr this is what you believe debat me"

>>2453257
Morality is the analysis of our behavior toward others, and our behavior is mostly derived from our physical bodies, our needs, habits, interactions, etc.

>>2453265
I think that "fairness" is the most root moral principle that all cultures can recognize.

>>2453277
moral relativism argues that morality objectively exists as a social tool, but the specific details that compose moral "codes" are entirely subjective. what you are saying does not contradict moral relativism.

>>2453283
cite a single example of what is considered "fair" that is consistent across all cultures. "fairness" is a branch of morality, just like "justice". even if the concepts exist in all cultures, they are defined subjectively by each of those cultures. I find it probable that some cultures might not even have a word for one or both of the concepts.

>>2453287
Oh ok, oops.

>>2453283
what's considered fair is entirely subjective and differs radically between cultures, though.

>>2453287
>moral relativism argues that morality objectively exists as a social tool
>untrue things are untrue but it is possible to lie to people
wow such insight

>>2453309
reminder that 99%< of the world is moral realist. it's not as obvious for people to conclude as you think.

>>2453245

Hard to refute.

For instance, although all cultures have rules like "you shouldn't kill" and "you shouldn't steal", every culture has a slightly or drastically different definition of what killing and stealing is, and what the exceptions are. And they would argue vehemently for their point of view.

For your rule about killing, choose one or more of the following:
- Kings can kill anyone they want to because they're kings.
- The state can kill killers (capital punishment).
- The state can kill rapists.
- You can kill enemy soldiers if you're a soldier.
- You can kill animals, just not humans.
- You can kill your pets.
- You can kill an unborn child.
- You can kill someone if otherwise they'd kill you.
- You can kill your wife and her lover if you catch them in the act.
- You can kill yourself if you do it in a noble way.

>>2453265
The golden rule is pretty consistent my dude

>>2453318
moral relativism is morally truth-apt, though. it asserts unfalsifiably that there is no truth in any moral stance.

while I definitely hold the belief that moral relativism is likely the diagnosis for the reality I am experiencing, I can't recognize it as objective, simply on the grounds that even though I find the idea completely fucking asinine for a variety of reasons, the creator of this universe might reveal themselves to me one day during a masturbation session and cook me alive for not aligning to his moral code. it can't be said with certainty that this is an impossibility, even though it's preposterous. a way to argue it in a seemingly more likely route would be moral hard coding involved in a simulation hypothesis, even though that's also fairly absurd, not really worth going into.

tl;dr technically moral relativism is unfalsifiable but it's probably reality in my opinion.

File: goalposts.jpg (26KB, 300x240px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 300x240px

>>2453299

>>2453331
not lying? some cultures encourage or actively pursue lying to enemies, children about certain concepts when raising them, white lies to avoid problems, etc. etc. it's completely subjective between cultures when, where and how it's acceptable to lie to somebody.

for example, some australian aboriginal cultures saw many forms of knowledge as something that must be earned to be obtained from others, and would lie to their children and others in place of sharing knowledge as part of their social system. they did not see it as immoral to lie in this way.

>>2453340
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

>>2453339
fallacy fallacy. "fairness" isn't a moral principle, it's a branch of morality that may or may not even exist depending on the culture, that differs significantly from culture to culture. "fairness" is composed of moral principles, and is not a moral principle in itself.

>>2453344
so what is war, then?

If you spend your entire life being told that it's okay or even good to do something, and you're surrounded by people who only share that viewpoint, then how can you really say you're a bad, immoral person for doing it?

>>2453344
not even remotely all cultures believe this to be true. many cultures have dualistic attitudes(insider/outsider) when dealing with people, something that is very consistent with abrahamic religions for example. people who are not a part of your religion may subjectively not be held up to the principle "treat others as you wish to be treated" while people within your religion are, whereas in other cultures this may apply to anybody or nobody. an islamic man beheading a man for disgracing his god may not wish to be beheaded for disgracing another man's god, but he will still sure as fuck do it. only the tip of the iceberg of the phenomenon, which is all that's required anyway to refute your claim.

>>2453245
The difficulty with moral relativism is codifying it into law.

Laws can adapt and change over time, and thus have some reflection against the reality that requires moral relativism, but they can't account for nor adapt to every situation on the fly, at least, not until you come before a judge, and that assumes the laws do not tie his hands in some way, and that he is indeed just.

It also, as your picture suggests, presents a problem when judging other cultures by your own rules. That doesn't mean you need to respect them, however, as it's a clear conflict of interest, but you may need to negotiate a bit to find common ground, when forcing them to submit isn't an option.

Though with cultures that no longer exist, of course you are free to judge them by your current morals, though you may need to suspend them a bit to interpret their motivations.

>>2453340

I'm not saying whether it was moral or immoral to lie, just that the golden rule exists in just about every culture there is; as inconsistent

>>2453348

You know you can break rules right? Doesn't stop it from being a rule consistent throughout cultures

all moral relativism means is that it's perfectly OK for third worlders to give their daughters cliterectomies in your neighborhood while abusing your welfare system and its objectively wrong to be racist against and want them out of your country :°)

>>2453358
*as in consistent, whoops

>>2453359
I know moral relativism has become a /pol/ buzzword, but that's not what it means. You can have moral relativism, and still, either individually or collectively, enforce your morals on someone who doesn't agree with your own - provided, of course, your own morals allow it.

>>2453358
what is a "just war", then? or manifest destiny? or the white man's burden? or a caste system? or a million other things I can pull out of my ass?

it only takes a single exception to counter your argument, and there are many.

>>2453359
it doesn't mean it's okay. it means that it's neither okay or not okay.

that doesn't mean you won't end up in prison or killed by people that disagree with you.

File: 1451907005758.jpg (67KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 540x960px

>>2453358
Are you seriously claiming there has never been an instance where people have decided it was morally acceptable to subjugate other people, even though they do not wish to be subjugated? Have you ever opened a history book?

>>2453358
Still not as widely accepted as you are suggesting, but yes, it is definitely one of the more wide spread moral models, even though it is also probably one of the most commonly ignored.

It's probably closest to the social instinct of empathy from which all morality ultimately derives. It's also, however, extremely amorphous, and in the end, becomes a form of moral relativism itself.

>>2453368
My argument was that the golden rule is found consistently between cultures, not whether it's consistent in and of itself or consistent within the culture; that you could see it in most cultures, not whether those cultures actually followed those rules.

>>2453382
an islamic man beheading a man for disgracing his god may not wish to be beheaded for disgracing another man's god, but he will still sure as fuck do it. direct violation of the golden rule you claim to be consistent across cultures. all it takes is one.

>>2453345
>it's a branch of morality that may or may not even exist depending on the culture
I can't think of a culture that rejects the concept of fairness entirely. I mean, yeah, hierarchy gets into it, as do folks outside the culture, but when it comes to dealings between like-stationed individuals, fairness seems pretty universal - even if the details are vague.

Similarly, every culture rejects "murder", they just have varying definitions as to what murder is.

Collective survival would be a virtually universal moral goal though. I mean, there are a handful of exceptions, but for obvious reasons, they are extinct. From that you derive certain universal concepts such as unity through cultural identification, harmony, aversion to social disruption, and thus stability, inasmuch as they can be maintained.

Yeah, there's probably no hard-and-fast LAW that is universal, but some basic moral concepts are so widely accepted as to be nearly universal, even if the application of said varies wildly.

>>2453391
Whether the culture followed the rule is irrelevant to the fact that you can find it within that culture. An "Islamic man beheading a man for disgracing his god" doesn't remove the golden rule ("None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself."(among others in Islam)) from existing in writing. Do we say that Kant's ethics or Aristotle's ethics don't exist because people don't follow them? No, and the same should follow for the golden rule.

I agree the golden rule is a shit ethical model but it doesn't mean that it exists in many cultures

>>2453382
Even if the "golden rule" concept exists among all cultures, which it does not whatsoever when you start digging into aboriginal and tribal groups, it being completely arbitrarily defined between those cultures makes it equally relativist to any other moral concept.

it's basically the same argument that >>2453283 tried to make. a common liquid umbrella concept that is still subjective and still relativist in the end.

>>2453400
Except the threat root requested a "moral principle" that was universal - not an individual law. Empathy is a universal moral principle, even if it goes out the window left and right and the application varies.

The golden rule is pretty vague and doesn't give specific guidelines on whether or not everyone should do specific things.
For instance, you might love bondage sex and want to be tied up and whipped before/during sex, but still recognize that not everyone is like that and thus not automatically tie up and whip all your lovers. You have to interpret the Golden Rule instead as something like "I want to allow others to explore what turns them on, just like I do".
Where and how cultures apply the Golden Rule determine the specific shape of their morality, which can still be different between one culture and another. So, the Golden Rule doesn't help much there.

>>2453396
>>2453399
commonly recurring models =/= objective principles inherent to reality. I've made a promise to myself to stop spending so much time trying to hold people's hands through logical argumentation, so I'll try to leave you with a few easy ways to understand this.

1: would these principles continue to exist if humans were to go extinct? if not, that might be a huge hint that they are not inherent. biologically reinforced, potentially, but that doesn't make them any less subjective.

2: "an Islamic man beheading a man for disgracing his god but not wishing to be beheaded for disgracing another man's god", is, however you put it, a direct violation of "treat others the way you wish to be treated", in every linguistic logical sense. I cannot take the denial of this seriously whatsoever. war, invasion, slavery. all of these are examples of people treating others the way they do not wish to be treated, much of the time from the moral high ground. you are willfully ignoring most of written history and large swathes of contemporary society if you claim the opposite.

3: nobody rejects murdering "the bad guys" in a "just war"

4: "Do we say that Kant's ethics or Aristotle's ethics don't exist because people don't follow them?"
see >>2453287
what you are saying does not contradict moral relativism

>>2453409
empathy is an instinct and a sensation found across many species of mammals, not a moral principle by any definition actually.

>>2453411
That's because it's a principle or guidestone and not a law. It's basically empathy writ large.

Also bringing in the insane into the conversation is a non-sequitur.

>>2453245
Moral relativism means morality is subjective. Meaning that what is good to me might not be good to you. And there's no objective morality to determine who is right.

>>2453357
>The difficulty with moral relativism is codifying it into law.
There is nothing hard about it. Just consider law pragmatic and amoral.

>>2453414
>would these principles continue to exist if humans were to go extinct?
Then I guess at that point the only morally objective principles are "You exist", "You experience time linearly", etc

>>2453414
>would these principles continue to exist if humans were to go extinct?
Irrelevant when it comes to a discussion on morality as it is, literally, a social construct..

>"an Islamic man beheading a man for disgracing his god but not wishing to be beheaded for disgracing another man's god", is, however you put it, a direct violation of "treat others the way you wish to be treated"
It's actually not, as the idea is that you'd rather die than disobey God. Between like-stationed individuals, the principle still stands. It is a violation of basic empathy, particularly if it involves suffering, but not the golden rule per say.

>nobody rejects murdering "the bad guys" in a "just war"
I think we've repeatedly stated that while the definition of murder floats around quite a bit, every culture has some sort of prohibition against some form of it.

>>2453414
Poster of >>2453399 Sorry, probably didn't explain myself clearly. I didn't mean that ethical models exist in objective morality (exist probably wasn't the right word) just that they were written down or passed down through word of mouth and was a part of certain cultures.

> I cannot take the denial of this seriously
I'm not denying that it wasn't a violation of the moral rule. I'm just saying that violating the rule doesn't stop it from being a rule within that culture. Like I can violate a curfew but it doesn't stop that curfew (again I don't mean exist as in within our biology or in some other sense)

So we humans are on earth discussing morality, trying to find calories to survive and pass on our genes, when suddenly a UFO warps in and a race of intelligent moral agents shows up and introduces themselves and want to discuss moral relativism. But these other alien beings are must like humans in mind and spirit but their bodies are immortal and indestructible. They are utterly unconcerned with their "safety" or passing on genes.
Do you think that between these two cultures, there would be a relative difference in what they considered moral and what we consider moral?

>>2453419
I see what you did there.
Pick any other thing where there are strong preferences for and against.

>>2453425
Well, you could do that, but if morality's goal is to maintain a society, that makes it rather difficult to maintain at any level beyond maybe a family unit. With so many interactions going on in a large society, there's a lot of activity that may seem innocuous at first glance, but is harmful on the grander scale, thus complex laws and regulations are required to avoid those pitfalls that may otherwise create such frictions as to make it untenable.

I think this thread is enough proof of moral relativism

>>2453454
Why are you conflating laws with morality?

Subjective morality doesn't mean anything goes.

It means when in Rome do as the Romans do.

>>2453445
That would cast the net a whole lot wider. There's strong preferences against causing social disorder through almost whatever means you could name. The details vary to the extreme, of course, but morality is taught and enforced, at its core, to prevent that and make the center hold - even if, often, the laws derived from said are short sighted and ultimately work against that end.

>>2453463
>Why are you conflating laws with morality?
I'm not, I'm saying moral relativism makes laws difficult. Morality exists to maintain society, and laws are required for larger societies, thus moral relativism and laws are at odds.

>It means when in Rome do as the Romans do.
No, that's not what it means either - that's cultural obedience. Moral relativism does not require that you respect other's morals.

>>2453472
>I'm not, I'm saying moral relativism makes laws difficult.
No it doesn't. There are shit tons of laws on the books that have nothing to do with morals.

> Morality exists to maintain society, and laws are required for larger societies, thus moral relativism and laws are at odds.
And you can have amoral laws. Hence why kings have been known as unjust. And then they get overthrown because the king's divine mandate based morality was at odds with peasant's I don't like taxes morality. You fail to make a connection between laws and morals besides claiming there's an unalienable link.

>No, that's not what it means either
Yes it is.

>that's cultural obedience. Moral relativism does not require that you respect other's morals.
You have the radical freedom to go punch someone in the face for no reason because you don't think it's wrong, even though other people think it's wrong and will beat you up for it. Or maybe that shit flies in Carthage, but not in Rome.

Morality is a subjective judgement. A lot of people who think you are wrong will beat the shit out of you. People who think those people are right won't stop them.

You have no idea what moral realism and moral relativism are.

>>2453463
>It means when in Rome do as the Romans do.
No. Moral relativism means that the same act committed under different circumstances and/or by different individuals may or may not be moral in every situation and/or from the perspective of every culture or age. That morals are neither objective nor universal. It doesn't say anything about what you should do where, nor how you should react when your morals conflict with someone else's - only that they inevitably will.

If you actually looked at what "moral" means, you'd realize that they can only be objective.

>>2453482
>Moral relativism means that the same act committed under different circumstances and/or by different individuals may or may not be moral in every situation and/or from the perspective of every culture or age.
>every culture
So yes, it in fact means, if in Rome, do as the Romans do, given the condition you don't want to be lynched by Romans, given the entire basis of when in Rome, do as the Romans do, means that Romans have different culture than elsewhere, and you can't just expect to get by doing your own thing. In this context, by ignoring Roman morals and using your own sense of morals.

>That morals are neither objective nor universal. It doesn't say anything about what you should do where, nor how you should react when your morals conflict with someone else's - only that they inevitably will.
The pragmatic purpose of morals is when they will motivate individuals to act or not act based on some principle. Meaning others are able to impose their morality on you, or you impose your morality on others. If you want the radical freedom to get yourself killed, that has nothing to do with morality.

> That morals are neither objective nor universal.
This should be pretty fucking obvious, but moral realists think this isn't true.

>>2453480
>There are shit tons of laws on the books that have nothing to do with morals.
Name one that doesn't eventually come back to morality.

>And you can have amoral laws.
I didn't say you couldn't - it's only that moral relativism isn't codifiable. If every act in every situation is relative and may or may not be moral, depending on the circumstance, perception, and individuals involved, it's difficult to derive laws on that basis without accounting for every possibility. Not that we don't try to do that - with so many degrees of murder and self-defense laws.

>You have the radical freedom to go punch someone in the face for no reason because you don't think it's wrong
This (while an extreme proposition to the point of being disingenuous) is moral relativity. The fact that there are consequences in one area and not another, may be a consequence of moral relativity, but it is not, in and of it itself, moral relativity.

Moral relativity makes no dictates, by definition. It merely a statement as to the nature of morality. You can conclude it might be wise to do as the Roman's do as a consequence of that aspect, but moral relativity goes beyond culture. It also includes individual situations within a single culture.

>>2453493
>This should be pretty fucking obvious, but moral realists think this isn't true.
Which is why moral realists cannot into moral relativism, and was the reason I expected this thread to light on fire with the burning anger of a thousand sons, but instead we're doing semantics.

>>2453497
>Name one that doesn't eventually come back to morality.
You could make a moral argument about literally anything. You want simple ones? Every single law that was passed due to corruption and kickbacks. Those have nothing to do with morality.

>I didn't say you couldn't - it's only that moral relativism isn't codifiable.
Why would you codify moral relativism? That's a bit of a strawman. Those doing the codifying and have the means to enforce their morality impose their subjective morality onto their law codes. They don't make room for other people's morality unless the situation necessitates it for the purposes of maintaining power.

>If every act in every situation is relative and may or may not be moral, depending on the circumstance, perception, and individuals involved, it's difficult to derive laws on that basis without accounting for every possibility.
The judge doesn't need to give a shit what the burglar thinks. Moral relativism doesn't mean you give everyone's viewpoint equal weight. It means that guy was starving and capitalism is bad, and you think he's a fucking thief. Guess who gets to impose his morals on the other?

>Not that we don't try to do that - with so many degrees of murder and self-defense laws.
That's not what moral relativism means. If you said all 9000 of those special case laws were the word of god, then it would all be objective morality, even if there was not a blanket law on murder.

>This (while an extreme proposition to the point of being disingenuous) is moral relativity.
No it isn't.

>The fact that there are consequences in one area and not another, may be a consequence of moral relativity, but it is not, in and of it itself, moral relativity.
Yes, it's the result of being conscious that other people have different senses of morality. Why else would you care about anyone else's subjective morality over your own subjective morality?

>>2453497
>Moral relativity makes no dictates, by definition.
It makes the dictate that morality is subjective.

>You can conclude it might be wise to do as the Roman's do as a consequence of that aspect, but moral relativity goes beyond culture. It also includes individual situations within a single culture.
It's based on the fact that morality is subjective.

You're confusing normative moral relativism with moral relativism in general.

>>2453510
>Every single law that was passed due to corruption and kickbacks. Those have nothing to do with morality.
No, that's directly immoral - that goes back to the "fairness" we were on about earlier, as do all economic laws. I expected you to bring up parking tickets or something - you're not even trying.

>They don't make room for other people's morality
That's a problem, moral relativity can't easily be codified. Moral realism, to one degree or another, can. So if OP wants an argument against moral relativism - that's a nice and pragmatic one.

>Not that we don't try to do that - with so many degrees of murder and self-defense laws.
>That's not what moral relativism means.
I didn't say that's what it means, I said that's an attempt to take the reality of moral relativism into account. That the same act (killing), in different circumstances, may or may not be moral, and that there are, additionally, gray areas and mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Literally endless nuances created by the fact.

Similarly, in your classic starving thief incident, you can either go the Socrates route and say any theft is immoral so long as the state says its so, or you can go the morally relativistic route, and say may be stealing for your starving children isn't so bad.

>It makes the dictate that morality is subjective.
That's not a dictate, that's a claim.

>>2453537
>No, that's directly immoral - that goes back to the "fairness" we were on about earlier, as do all economic laws. I expected you to bring up parking tickets or something - you're not even trying.
You said bring up laws that don't come back to morality. So being able to call laws immoral means laws are a morality based system? You're debasing your own argument in an attempt to "win" inconsequential little arguments.

>That's a problem, moral relativity can't easily be codified.
Moral relativity doesn't need to be codified. Morality doesn't need to be codified, but either subjective or objective morality can be codified.

>Moral realism, to one degree or another, can. So if OP wants an argument against moral relativism - that's a nice and pragmatic one.
You're working off the assumption that laws have something to do with objective morality.

>I didn't say that's what it means, I said that's an attempt to take the reality of moral relativism into account. That the same act (killing), in different circumstances, may or may not be moral
The same act, swinging a baseball bat, may or may not be moral depending on if you hit a baseball or someone's head. Moral realism simply means that morality is objective, not that killing is automatically bad. The bible makes lots of room for killing, as long as it isn't murder. That doesn't mean god fearing Christians are moral relativists instead of moral realists.

>That's not a dictate, that's a claim.
Whatever your attempt at tautology, the point of bringing up when in Rome, do as the Romans do, is not that doing something in Rome makes things wrong. It means people in Rome generally speaking make subjective judgements that certain things are wrong and this varies from people not in Rome.

Your only concern about other people's subjective morality is how they choose to impose it upon you. If you think you're right, and the other guy thinks you're wrong, you don't give a fuck if there's nothing he can do about it.

File: 1273159753556.jpg~c200.jpg (10KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x200px

>>2453287
The codes, have a highly consistent pattern of supporting survival.

Objectivity does not mean 100%, absolute, static. It is a highly consistent pattern but not an absolute, because absolutes are nonexistent.

Morality emerged from organisms that projected that which enhanced their survival forward as an abstraction, a rule, a law.

It is not universal, but to say it has no basis in reality, is to deny the very building blocks of human societies.

>>2453562
>So being able to call laws immoral means laws are a morality based system?
Oh, wait, I thought you meant laws designed to fight corruption and kickbacks, well that makes a bit more sense.

But even laws designed to benefit one sector or company at the expense of another, are moral from the benefitting company's point of view and those who backed it, or at least, potentially so, as they see the success of that company or sector as more critical to the society. You can easily make that argument for laws backing petroleum or American steel, for instance. You can even make that argument for a city full of used car lots, that passes a law that no one can put a "for sale" sign on their car within the city limits (as often is the case). The used car lots are critical for the local society's survival.

Though you do have a point in that I'm sure you could find some law that has no moral justification, but they are few and far between, as everyone justifies themselves somehow, and they usually require justification to be passed or be supported.

>Morality doesn't need to be codified
Uhg... Okay, the evolution goes empathy+hierarchy ~ socieity+culture ~ morality ~ laws. See, the problem is the laws are ideally derived from morality. Ideally they are morality codified. If moral relativism is the prevailing reality, that makes it a whole lot harder to do.

>Whatever your attempt at tautology
No it's not tautology, as what you're describing are singular consequences of moral relativity, not moral relativity itself. Yes, four forces and a dozen or so types of particles make up the universe, but bosons are not apples, nor are falling apples gravity.

>>2453587
You're basically saying you're a moral relativist and you just are in denial about it. Moral relativism isn't moral non-existence, as much as moral objectivists like to make that false dichotomy.

>>2453595
No, being a relativist would mean that any form of projection would be legitimate.

Projection which detracts from an organism's survival is immoral.

Moral Relativism is moral non-existence because removes the survival component as the basis for its existence.

>>2453594
>But even laws designed to benefit one sector or company at the expense of another, are moral from the benefitting company's point of view and those who backed it, or at least, potentially so, as they see the success of that company or sector as more critical to the society. You can easily make that argument for laws backing petroleum or American steel, for instance. You can even make that argument for a city full of used car lots, that passes a law that no one can put a "for sale" sign on their car within the city limits (as often is the case). The used car lots are critical for the local society's survival.
That's a fucking strange sense of objective morality you have there.

>
Though you do have a point in that I'm sure you could find some law that has no moral justification, but they are few and far between, as everyone justifies themselves somehow, and they usually require justification to be passed or be supported.
It's called might makes right.

>Uhg... Okay, the evolution goes empathy+hierarchy ~ socieity+culture ~ morality ~ laws. See, the problem is the laws are ideally derived from morality. Ideally they are morality codified. If moral relativism is the prevailing reality, that makes it a whole lot harder to do.
They're codified by whoever has might in a way that they can be enforced by those with might, either by co-opting other people with might, or by convincing others not to use their might to stop it.

>what you're describing are singular consequences of moral relativity
Because it's relevant. It's the conditions of which are are forced to consider someone's subjective judgement. You're acting like moral relativism means morality doesn't exist and you ignore other people's morality. It doesn't.

>>2453605
>No, being a relativist would mean that any form of projection would be legitimate.
Legitimacy is a subjective judgement as well, so no, not really.

>Projection which detracts from an organism's survival is immoral.
That's a stance that differs quite a bit from what many other moral objectivists think, especially ones from apocalyptic death cults. By your logic, anything not trying to get to interplanetary travel and preventing the heat death of the universe is immoral.

>Moral Relativism is moral non-existence because removes the survival component as the basis for its existence.
No it doesn't. Moral relativism says the organism is the unit on which morality is determined and based off of, as opposed to realism which says there is some objective universal morality.

You keep confusing normative moral relativism with moral relativism.

>>2453606
>That's a fucking strange sense of objective morality you have there.
I don't have a sense of objective morality - I'm entirely in the camp that morality is inevitably subjective, even if that which survives the natural selection test in the long term serves an objective purpose - the survival and prosperity of the culture in question.

>You're acting like moral relativism means morality doesn't exist and you ignore other people's morality.
I'm saying it's a claimed description of an aspect of morality (so obviously it doesn't mean morality doesn't exist). It is not a dictate or a description of the consequences of that property. That's left to other mechanisms. "Fire" may have the property of "heat", but burning yourself is not "fire" nor "heat", it is merely a consequence of ignoring that property.

>>2453626
Burning is entirely relevant to a discussion of fire.

>>2453633
I'm not saying the Rome thing isn't a relevant example of the consequence - it totally is, but "When in Rome do as the Romans do" is not, in and of itself (broken record) moral relativism, it's consequence of it (someone please nudge this needle). You can be a moral relativist and still decide it's more moral to ignore that advice.

Moral relativism isn't a belief system nor a set of rules. It's a declaration as to a property of morality. What you choose to do with that knowledge is entirely your own.

>>2453245
lmaoing at this post-truth 'progressivism'
Now go kill a child in the name of some kinky-ass god because that's not immoral in some lost tribe

>>2453613
>Legitimacy is a subjective judgement as well, so no, not really.

That's the exact same thing i just said.

>That's a stance that differs quite a bit from what many other moral objectivists think, especially ones from apocalyptic death cults. By your logic, anything not trying to get to interplanetary travel and preventing the heat death of the universe is immoral.

Survival is about balance, accepting both life and death.

Too much life and you make life not worth living and too much death and you have no life at all.

By my logic? I know the limitations of my logic and understand that ANYthing can be taken to an autistic absurd degree, in order to disparage and undermine it.
We might die on this rock, but there still is a difference between dying healthy and dying sick.

>No it doesn't. Moral relativism says the organism is the unit on which morality is determined and based off of

Basically, the unit gets to decide, like a god, its morality in a complete vaccum, without reference to its emerged function.

>as opposed to realism which says there is some objective universal morality.

I already pointed out how objectivity is not universal, but a highly consistent pattern.

>You keep confusing normative moral relativism with moral relativism.
Whats the difference?

>>2453613
>>2453510
>By your logic, anything not trying to get to interplanetary travel and preventing the heat death of the universe is immoral.
Morality serves a purpose in maintaining a society or culture, and requires reason, so if you are aware of that consequence and had any ability to affect it, yes, it would be entirely immoral to ignore.

As for suicidal death cults, that's a question of morality that resolves itself real fast.

Not that everything that stands the test of time is moral, there's plenty of appendixes out there, but sometimes they lead to appendicitis.

Morality is a subjective ongoing process being worked out by imperfect subjective beings with limited vision.

you literally cannot prove that morality is totally subjective

>>2453655
Normative moral relativism is not the same as moral relativism.

>>2453678
>As for suicidal death cults, that's a question of morality that resolves itself real fast.
He was talking about Christianity.

>>2453687
In essence they are the same.

>>2453613
>le christianity is a death cult meme
what do you get from adding your poor thought and juvenile euphemism? Did you have the need to add it to your argument to feel cheeky? Holy shit, how pathetic.

>>2453701
>triggered

>>2453695
lulz... Didn't catch that. Not that I entirely agree that all dictates of Christianity are ultimately moral, I do have a particular problem with the abandonment of reality issues favoring the next life over this one - but in most respects, with some cherry picking, emphasis, and glossing over, such as is inevitable in nearly any religion, it's a better moral system than many and a fair block to build from.

It also generally tends to advocate against suicide, for propagation, and for social harmony and stability.

>>2453711
Moral relativism doesn't mean that the vast majority of people in a society can't agree on most matters of morality.

You might as well just worship scientism or secular humanism or anything else arbitrary that strikes your fancy.

>>2453728
>Moral relativism doesn't mean that the vast majority of people in a society can't agree on most matters of morality.
No, I'm not saying that it does. Further, Christianity and moral relativism aren't even entirely exclusive, even if it's a bit of a liberalization of said - look at the Unitarians.

But yeah, whatever works.

>>2453755
Unitarians aren't Christians.

File: Bible-burning.jpg (11KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 259x194px

>>2453701
>i'm crying because someone accuratley described my retarded worldview
christians are too easy

>>2453245
That which is not objective is not real. Either that which is moral is moral by nature or it is not moral at all.

>>2453245
You cannot object to anything on principle in it. You have to look at genocide and conclude it's fine because it's good for them

>>2453766
edgyphoric

>>2453763
Neither are Catholics, or so people here keep telling me. But I think you'd be hard pressed to find a lengthy list of Christian religions that doesn't include both.

Moral relativism doesn't go anywhere and has no practical use. It does not provide you with any kind of framework for making value judgements, it does not make any insight into human behavior, it does not even define or distinguish between moral concepts. You in truth cannot even call moral relativism a real moral framework because it is utterly vacuous. It has no solutions, it actually abhors solutions. In fact it does not even ask any interesting questions. It only makes a single inane statement and then offers no other commentary. It is a moral stance for sophists and teenagers.

If there wasn't enough proof showing that /his/ is almost entirely filled with pseudo intellectuals, this thread shows it. Sad!

>>2453763
As a Unitarian, I resemble that remark! It is true, there are Unitarians who are literally not Christians nor declare themselves such. We have pagans (CUUPS) and buddhists and atheists - and they each have a different day of the week they show up at the church. However, the bulk of Unitarians do consider themselves Christian, and Sunday morning is always the most packed and prime time at the church, with sermons from the Bible, a hymn choir, and the works. (Even if the Trinity is still a bit of a non-starter.)

>>2453807
Moral relativism isn't a specific moral stance. Neither is moral realism. You could be a moral realist and believe in any various number of creeds and believe everyone else is objectively wrong.

>>2453807
>Moral relativism doesn't go anywhere and has no practical use.
Actually it has a very practical use when it comes to analytics, particularly of groups of folks that are no longer around. If you judge every group from a stance of moral realism, it becomes difficult to interpret the motivations behind their actions or predict them.

But like >>2453817 says, it isn't a belief system in and of itself. It's merely the acknowledgement that different folks operate under different morals (not that you need to respect them for it), and that the same morality cannot be universally applied to every situation.

>>2453245
>my opinion is right in every situation because I decide what fits to every situation debate me atheists

File: Well then fix it, genius!.jpg (52KB, 600x393px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 600x393px

>>2453809

>>2453245
You gave no arguments for it (because there are none that are decent) so I don't have to refute anything.

File: 1477365300010.gif (715KB, 250x196px) Image search: [Google]

715KB, 250x196px

>>2453587
>Objectivity does not mean 100%, absolute, static.
>absolutes are nonexistent.

>>2453276
explain where it is supposed to differ from moral nihilism?

In the second square.

>>2455323
He's 100% absolutely forever right. (Wait, dammit...) ...Well he's right in that objectivity doesn't have to be static, whether there are absolutes is another argument, but a subject does not need to be absolute to be objective. Granted there are also degrees of objectivity, and the usual debate, as to whether anything can ever be fully objective.

>>2453276
>explain where it is supposed to differ from moral nihilism?
Moral nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts, that nothing is right or wrong, or morally good or bad. Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative to some standard or other, that things are right or wrong relative to Catholic morality, say, and different things are right or wrong relative to Confucian morality, but nothing is right or wrong simpliciter.

This does not mean that the Catholic must accept everything the Confucian does - if anything, it says that he probably wont. Nor does it mean their views are invalid, only that they differ and serve as their own standards.

File: 1459085204192.gif (3MB, 200x170px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 200x170px

>>2456104
>degrees of objectivity
>as to whether anything can ever be fully objective
>I know that I cannot know
the only reason you believe this is because you refuse to speak the same language as others, re-defining terms to your liking. it's semantical. if you are going to decide that "objectivity" means something other than "consistent absolution", then we might as well use the word "consistent absolution". semantical arguments are disgusting.

also
>the usual debate
like many debates, one side is entirely fucking wrong. in this case, it's the people arguing that they know for certain that they cannot know for certain. fucking baby-tier shit.

Talk out your ass all you want. In the real world, moral relativism only leads to degeneracy and consequently the decline of great nations.

Hedonists and cucks BTFO

>>2456152
Hi /pol/, you're late.

>>2456125
I didn't say I believe it, I just said it's open to debate... And it's a fairly endless one, partly for the reasons you are alluding to.

I'm personally of the opinion the fact that we have any common experience and can communicate implies an underlying objective reality. We can nearly all agree there's an apple on the table. But there may indeed be human limits as to the degree of objectivity one can obtain and verify, and there's certainly limits to the degree of objectivity we currently can.

>>2456152
Correlation does not equal causation.

Also heil Hitler

>>2456169
I don't see any reason to take an argument seriously that contradicts itself, and claims against objectivity do just that. objectivity must exist, for the same reason that "nothing" cannot exist. if objectivity were to not exist, it would be considered objective that objectivity does not exist. this is the inherent problem in arguing against the concept, it's impossible.

as for "common experience" and agreeing with others and such, you should look into phenomenological reasoning. I don't mean for the suggestion to supplement argumentation, I mean that I believe that you being someone who seems to have an interest in philosophy based upon the things you have said and claimed would gain a lot of fruitful knowledge from exploring the field. when it comes down to it, there is no "we". for you, the universe may as well be your perception of it, as you know nothing else. well, I cannot say that for certain, I only assume you like myself hold a perspective, but I can say with certainty for myself, the universe may as well be my perception of it, as I know nothing else. knowledge that supercedes such a perspective is religious at best.

>>2453277
No it isn't you fucking sperg.
>>2453357
Law shouldn't exist.

>>2456227
Is a bit odd to state objectivity can't be meaningfully debated, and then start espousing solipsism - which is something I myself tend to reject as meaningless.

But yes, I'm entirely aware of the flaws that exist in phenomenological reasoning.

>>2456246
>Law shouldn't exist.
See: >>2453454

>>2456251
you've misinterpreted what I've said if you think it has anything to do with solipsism. a very common mistake when discussing phenomenology, though the consideration of solipsism is directly related to phenomenology. I even considered warning against you concluding I am discussing solipsism in my post, I was hoping you would have understood the difference between being aware that your perception is all that is affirmable of the universe by yourself, and the belief that your perception is the only one that exists. the former is interpreting existence using only objective means available to yourself, the latter is a hypothetical concept.

also, I don't think you are, my point in bringing it up is that phenomenological reasoning is flawless in it's bases, while you are trying to make arguments based on agreement between supposed entities.

>>2453245
You can't refute it, because refutations are relative. What you think to be right can be wrong to other people and vice versa.

>>2456274
>phenomenological reasoning is flawless in it's [basis]
Nearly any position that stands the test of time is flawless in its basis, but like all such positions, the flaws and limitations of phenomenology are nonetheless revealed as a matter of extinction and consequence (though, in this case, the limitations are inherent in its basis).

>while you are trying to make arguments based on agreement between supposed entities
I'm not sure how else one would discuss moral relativism.

>>2453339
asking for clarification is not the same as moving the goalposts. Plus "fairness" as a moral attribute is the same thing as saying that all cultures value "goodness."

>>2456634
>there are limitations in it's bases
>I don't have to explain myself or what these limitation are, you just have to believe me
big talk for someone claiming that agreement between entities holds some value of objectivity.

>nearly any position that stands the test of time is flawless in its basis
by that reasoning, all of the world's religions and widely held opinions?

>I'm not sure how else one would discuss moral relativism.
your responses to my queries and statements are within my perspective. people really struggle with separating phenomenology from solipsism. it is not that complicated.

>>2457999
>big talk for someone claiming that agreement between entities holds some value of objectivity.
The limitations are implicit as is the fact that individual perception is limited. Didn't think that'd need explaining.

>by that reasoning, all of the world's religions and widely held opinions?
Indeed.

>your responses to my queries and statements are within my perspective. people really struggle with separating phenomenology from solipsism. it is not that complicated.
I never stated phenomenology and solipsism are the same thing, it's merely the road you seemed to be going down. Though if you do not bring another entity into the picture, it certainly risks going down that road all by itself.

>>2458021
ah, you've just betrayed yourself as uneducated in this field.

>individual perception is "limited"
"limited" is a relative term. limited compared to what? without a spectrum of comparison, the suggestion is meaningless. what could you possibly compare the only window you have in existence to? the faith that many other windows exist coupled with the faith that an accumulated opinion held by these alternative windows is more valuable than your own? I could go on, tip if the iceberg.

then I realized you just validated all of the world's religions as equal in merit to logically valid claims. tell me about how logical positivism is wrong, please. I'd love a discourse punching dummy for the evening. I'd prefer it if you started by contradicting yourself, if that's okay.

>Though if you do not bring another entity into the picture
you do not understand the concept. the consideration of the potentiality of another entity is well within the realm of phenomenological reasoning. what you are straw manning is solipsistic beliefs, without realizing it.

>>2458034
>ah, you've just betrayed yourself as uneducated in this field.
*whistles innocently*

>without a spectrum of comparison
Only if you go into pure solipsism and don't assume there's stuff going on you aren't aware of, otherwise you have a pretty clear indication that your perspective is extremely limited.

>you do not understand the concept. the consideration of the potentiality of another entity is well within the realm of phenomenological reasoning.
You keep insisting I'm saying this, and I keeping you I'm not, so I dunno what to tell ya. Yes, you can take a phenomenological point of view with multiple entities with multiple perspectives, but if you omit them or deny their validity, there's only one place left to go.

>>2458034
(missed this while I was snickering.)
>then I realized you just validated all of the world's religions as equal in merit to logically valid claims. tell me about how logical positivism is wrong, please. I'd love a discourse punching dummy for the evening. I'd prefer it if you started by contradicting yourself, if that's okay.
I never stated those opinions (or any others) were equally valid, logical, nor equally efficient towards any particular ends.

(Also I read it as "by that reasoning, all of the world's religions [are] widely held opinions?" - as I'm not sure how to translate the fragment otherwise.)

>>2458061
>Only if you go into pure solipsism and don't assume there's stuff going on you aren't aware of
why would you go pure solipsism and assume there is stuff going on that you aren't aware of? that's completely irrelevant. phenomenology is about determining objectivity within your perspective. if something is going on that you aren't aware of, which is easy to presume, you certainly can't make any objective claims about the hypothetical "stuff", because it's outside of your perspective. you can utilize the concept that there may be things going on outside of your perspective subjectively, but not objectively. this all fits within the realm of phenomenological reason.

>your perspective is extremely limited
I ask again, compared to what? saying "there are things going on that you don't know about!" is not a spectrum of comparison unless you are literally talking about omniscience. in which case, yes, my perspective is limited in comparison to the hypothetical concept of omniscience, but that's all omniscience is, a hypothetical concept. unless you can show me some proof...?

the suggestion that multiple perspectives working in unison is more powerful than a single perspective working on it's own is not contradictory to phenomenology. engaging with other entities, no matter what they may be, does not fall outside of your perspective.

>You keep insisting I'm saying this, and I keeping you I'm not
yes, but I explain to you how you are saying this and you do not refute these explanations in any sensible way, such as:

>you can take a phenomenological point of view with multiple entities with multiple perspectives
what are you even trying to say here?

>>2458088
Solipsism essentially assumes all of reality is generated by your imagination and you are the totality of the universe, including any other actors you may currently be witness to. Phenomenology doesn't necessarily assume this, it only suggests your reality is effectively limited to your perception (be it directly or by extension of reason). One doesn't risk becoming other, until you remove all other actors from the equation. At that point, (when there is truly no "we", as you put it) they are basically identical for all intents and purposes.

In a world with other actors, you can assume each lives in its own universe and each can treat their experience phenomenologically, but if two or more can communicate and agree on aspects common to one another's universes, it rather suggests there is a shared universe of which they are a part of, and they can gain knowledge of it which would otherwise be outside of their own experience through this communication. This model remains consistent with Phenomenology without risking decaying into Solipsism, so long as it is accepted that each of these actors exists outside of one another's purview, but it nonetheless insists your perception, both immediate and imagined, is limited, as is each actor's. Given the sheer scope of the universe we collectively observe, and the activity we thus infer, it is extremely limited, but also on the less grand and more local scale, immediately so. Thus you are provided with a reference with which to judge the inherent limitations of phenomenology itself, knowing that, even collectively, you can never be aware of all things, and individually, of a comparatively infinitesimal range of things, and are further faced with the very real possibility that some aspects of this universe may always remain outside of even your indirect experience and that of the collective, which may or may not affect your experience.

Is the relativism of moral relativism itself relative? Can it vary between subjectivity and objectivity?

File: C.S. Lewis.jpg (33KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x488px

https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

That was easy.

>>2458215
I suppose, inasmuch as you can say there are certain aspects or tendencies that are shared across all cultures and every situation, it can become less subjective, but as the bulk of the start of this thread was arguing over, that's a rather amorphous group of objects, some of which float around the definition of morality itself.

If you assume morality has a function and a goal by definition (such as a system of values and principles of conduct taught to maintain and benefit a society and/or culture), then while you still have moral relativity - as opinions and points of view will differ as to the best path - you can at least somewhat objectively argue that one system of morality may be more effective than another, despite the inevitable flaws, in both the argument and the subject, brought on by conflicting interests and limited perceptions.

>>2458218
Meh, it's often portrayed that way, but what he's really arguing against is moral nihilism. He does like to suggest there is some ultimate morality that exists outside of us, that we're somehow vaguely aware of, but in the end, that doesn't preclude moral relativism, as none of us perfectly perceive what that morality is.

He readily admits people who see different facts will have different interpretations as to the morality of an act. He readily admits different cultures and different people perceive situations differently, so even under his assumption that "natural law" exists, moral relativism still arises.

In an example he himself uses, it's perfectly moral for a society that believes in witches with evil magical powers to burn them, but not for one that doesn't. When those two societies conflict, there's nothing say which is right or wrong if neither can convince the other of its case.

But moral relativism does not dictate that either society must accept the other's beliefs, only that, much CS Lewis argues, they are each correct from their own point of view. So he essentially agrees with moral relativism here. Moral nihilism, on the other hand, says neither society is right nor wrong, even within its own scope, and that, at least, both moral relativism and CS Lewis would disagree with.

>>2453245

>refute "like that's just your opinion man"

>>2456104
>Moral nihilism is the view that there are no moral facts
>(...)
>Relativism is the view that moral statements are true or false only relative (...)

almost like something that is... not a fact?
are you claiming "non-universal moral rules"? defend your insanity.

>>2453245

I don't interpret it as having no rules, I just can't discount the probability of another shoe falling that completely changes the paradigm. Like ordinarily a child molester is bad, right? But if he's part of the northern alliance that cucked the taliban, the DOD says leave him the fuck alone.

>>2458823
Social constructs are entirely real and a fact of life. For poof - try running around naked downtown for an hour.

As for the second sentence, I'm saying one position makes that claim, the other does not.

>>2458889
do you argue badly on purpose

File: not_an_argument_camp.jpg (50KB, 520x336px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 520x336px

>>2458918
Only against bad arguments.

>>2458930
do you hold yourself to know anything? why are you posting?

>>2458956
>do you hold yourself to know anything?
I assume so, or I wouldn't be able to type. Do you know anything, or are you just some sorta bot making meaningless posts?

>why are you posting?
Some combination of rage and boredom.

>>2458918
Maybe you could try explaining to one of us why that's a bad argument?

>>2458967
from skimming this guy's argument with the other person it seems that he's already prepared to go "duhh nothing is real anyhows LMAO" so it really is necessary for him to confirm he's actually trying to express something before any criticism can be made.

if I were to start with for example his post not addressing any of what it quoted he would probably say something to the effect of "addressing things is not real" and the only effect of such a conversation would be me looking retarded for talking to someone who's obviously only posting as some kind of unconscious reflex and never claiming to mean to do otherwise.

>>2458995
I bait easy when I'm bored.

True, I don't know why I bother arguing with someone when I'm giving definitions and they claim de facto I take that position and thus am "defending insanity". But I just can't resist that little red exclamation point right now.

>>2459017
>they claim
"are you(?)"
>defending insanity
you merely posted insanity. I asked you to defend it and you did not, nor did you openly refuse to. is that supposed to mean that you hold the view, or that you do not? optimistically we could assume in your head it is one of those but in truth it will be neither until arguments against one are presented, and then you will say that you held the other view the entire time.

>>2459041
I'm not even sure what insanity you propose I defend... Moral relativism, moral nihilism, or moral realism? They're all insane at one point or another, but I could make an effort at any or all.

>>2453245
Never.
However, ethical absolutism is supported by pragmatic truth and the metaphysical implications of the earth system sciences, but I'm not going to waste my time explaining that to a bunch of idiots

>>2459041
>you merely posted insanity
Apparently dictionary definitions are insanity.

>>2459063
Well you can just go drink some hemlock then. Though I have no idea what ethical absolutism has to do with weather systems.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 326x326px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 326x326px

>>2459063
Upon further consideration, I meant to say *moral absolutism

>>2459081
Same diff, but it is the more accepted term. I've seen it used interchangeably before - at least once in the same damned book.

File: you do not need to defend this.png (18KB, 552x319px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 552x319px

>>2459053
at which point was this fucking presented in such a way that it needed clarification? just stop posting.

>>2459068

>>2459079
It has to do with ecology and the interdependent nature of multiplex earth systems networks

File: 1488092049814.jpg (59KB, 337x472px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 337x472px

What is the point of moral relativism? How does it change anything in practice?

>>2459091
At the point where I gave the dictionary definition for two common philosophical terms, and you asked if I was defending insanity.

>>2459123
Not much... When it comes to analyzing the behavior of another culture, particularly if it's no longer around to explain itself, it's a more useful approach to take when trying to understand or predict their actions. If you judge every group from a stance of moral realism, it becomes difficult to interpret the motivations behind their actions or predict them when their models do not match your own.

Beyond that, it's only useful as a perspective approach when discussing the workings or nature of morality.

Or to put it in /g/ terms, like object oriented programming vs procedural programming. It denotes the internal nature of the software and is something coders will debate over or choose between, but it doesn't change what the software does for the end user.

>>2459107
Eh, if we're going down the "natural law" path - while I agree morality serves a purpose, and can't entirely disagree with the premise, see the CS Lewis reply. >>2458301

>>2459178
no one thought you ever defended anything, retard.

both the post your post was addressed to and the one addressing it concern moral relativism, as does the thread in general. do you have ADHD?

>>2459286
Eh, it's difficult enough to interpret your posts through all your rudeness, but it's 4chan, so I'll try to follow this logic in an effort to discover whether or not it actually exists...

The post I responded to asked, "Explain where it is supposed to differ from Moral Nihilism?", which I assume referred to the title topic of Moral Relativism, given that it wasn't a reply.

I gave the definitions for Moral Nihilism and Moral Relativism, and provided a (literally) textbook example of the latter that does not apply to the former.

To which you replied, and I quote, "are you claiming 'non-universal moral rules'? defend your insanity."

So, this still begs the question, which of those two insanities do you want defended? As they both make that assumption. Or are you simply saying the definitions are wrong, and/or insane?

>>2459336
>Or are you simply saying the definitions are wrong, and/or insane?
a "non-universal moral rule" is outside the definition of what most people mean when they say "moral rule". if you were to convince these people their morals aren't universal that would rather make them stop calling them morals.

for the logically impaired, if all your morals stop being morals that makes you a moral nihilist.

>>2453265
>cite a single moral principle that is consistent across all cultures. just for fun.
Killing the guy who makes the rules is wrong.

>>2459363
>a "non-universal moral rule" is outside the definition of what most people mean when they say "moral rule".
I was unaware of this... Maybe it's just the folks I hang out with are extremely rare, and are indeed the only ones who commonly accept what is moral in one area, era, or culture, may not be considered moral to a people of another area, era, or culture.

But if that's the case, where did the expression, "When in Rome do as the Romans do" come from? I dunno... Maybe it was one of these wonderfully rare individual's ancient ancestors, and it just caught on and spread for a millennia or more, without anyone outside his rare mutant family having any idea as to what it actually means.

Very strange.

>>2459382
have you in your life ever been able to make a single argument clearly and concisely? do you fear to do so, yet keep on babbling for some autistic reason?

>commonly accept what is moral in one area, era, or culture, may not be considered moral to a people of another area
typically they hold their area or themselves personally to be right and the others, where they disagree, wrong.

>>2459452
I may have become a bit facetious.

>typically they hold their area or themselves personally to be right and the others, where they disagree, wrong.
So, non-universal morality? Ah good, so it's not just me and my weird friends. That would be the essence of moral relativism. Your people determine what is right and what is wrong. Some other people may choose differently.

Where moral nihilism says no one's right or wrong, ever, period.

>>2459279
Actually I am not going down the natural law path, this is egoism

>>2459524
Ooo... Myriad of ways that can go... Please renege on your promise and elaborate.

File: spontaneo is silent.jpg (55KB, 236x210px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 236x210px

>>2459495
a thing doesn't become "relativistic" because someone is wrong about it. every one of these people holds morals to be universal, themselves to be right and everyone who does not agree with them to be wrong.

what is your actual damage

>>2459560
No, that's moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn't entail anyone agreeing - it indeed, says different groups will likely disagree. Each group thinks it is right, and is right within its scope, despite having different views from other groups. What is your actual damage?

When the two conflict, the point of contention is either adapted to, assimilated, or extinguished (possibly along with one of the cultures in disagreement).

Moral relativism doesn't say which group is right, it only states that each group holds their own beliefs as to that matter and determines what is right for themselves.

>>2459587
>Moral relativism doesn't say which group is right, it only states that each group holds their own beliefs as to that matter and determines what is right for themselves.

therefore a person who believes themselves to be right and everyone else to be wrong is not a moral relativist. you are making this argument yourself. there is one step in it. tell me you are following it. we can go slowly if you find this too complicated. I can also call your mother to comfort you in the face of this overwhelming difficulty.

>>2459634
>therefore a person who believes themselves to be right and everyone else to be wrong is not a moral relativist.
I normally consider examples of insanity non-sequitur on this topic, but let's roll with it...

He may or may not be a moral relativist. Moral relativism doesn't really deal with the individual directly, it instead states that whether he is moral or not is relative to the society he is a part of.

If he believes that other cultures have their own view on morality (even if he obviously thinks they are all wrong), then yes, he's a moral relativist. If he believes his view is the only view of morality (believes everyone else thinks he is right and knows they are wrong), then he's not.

If his society believes he is indeed right and everyone wrong, fine, no problem. This seems an unlikely scenario, so it is more apt to be the case that they find against him. But what is right or wrong, morally speaking, is ultimately that culture's decision. (Or at least that is the stance moral relativism suggests is true.)

>>2459679
>If he believes that other cultures have their own view on morality (even if he obviously thinks they are all wrong), then yes, he's a moral relativist. If he believes his view is the only view of morality (believes everyone else thinks he is right and knows they are wrong), then he's not.
is this what anon actually believes or is it more babble you will utterly forget before your next reply?

are you withdrawing support from all your retarded hints at ontological moral conclusions like "Each group is right within its scope" "what is right or wrong, morally speaking, is ultimately that culture's decision" "Your people determine what is right and what is wrong" and defining moral relativisim, in a way that you will stick to, as the grand revelation that different people have different opinions, utterly unrelated to the question whether there are such things as objective moral rules?

>>2459767
No, all that remains true. Whether he is a moral relativist or not has no bearing or whether or not moral relativism is true.

Maybe objectivism is entirely false - doesn't mean Ayn Rand ain't an objectivist.

>>2459799
so you won't give up your insanity and you won't defend it. you are making noises but you don't believe yourself to be expressing thoughts.

>The Laws of Nature
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk

>Mere Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>‘Right & Wrong’ – A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>Bulverism (Foundation of 20th Century Thought)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

>Sexual Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RkZXZx6HCI

Morality is objective.

>>2453245
You can't. Why do people get buttmad about this?

>"well in my culture raping kids is fine so this isn't morally wrong :^)"

If I think, with my relative morals that what you're doing is wrong, I'll stop you from raping kids. What people don't understand is that if morality is relative, that doesn't invalidate all morality - it just makes it a race to make your morality the most popular.

>>2459829
Your position is that moral relativism and moral nihilism are the same thing, despite the various textbook definitions to the contrary. That morals can't be morals if they are non-universal, yes?

And yet you admit each culture thinks it is moral, and each culture does not hold the same morals, and even that those morals sometimes conflict. That each culture's morals are relative to its viewpoint. Further, you seem to be more or less willing to admit that people are aware of this fact.

Therefor, morality cannot be said to be universal. Different groups have different moralities, yet morality remains for each of them.

So, unless I'm wrong about one or more of your positions - you are making noises but you aren't presenting an argument.

>>2459882
you post more hints at "true" local morals but provide no other definition than the one that had nothing to do with ontological moral conclusions.

>yet morality remains for each of them.
this is not a common view. it is your claim, it is insane, and you have not agreed to defend it.

>>2459906
>this is not a common view.
Well, then we're back to asking where the expression "When in Rome do as the Roman's do" comes from?

If it isn't a common view that different groups have different standards for morality, then how did such a saying become so well known across the damn planet? Why do people constantly talk about, "Well that's disgusting from our point of view, from theirs it's perfectly normal." or "Yeah, that's fine there, but you can't do that here." - I mean, have you never heard a phrase along those lines? Cuz I think they are pretty damn common.

But no no, I'll defend whatever ya want. Just be sure to provide a counter-argument before I fall asleep.

>>2459539
My promise was rather duplicitous. I do want to explain, but cannot afford the time to get lost in conversation or a train station of thought as my lethargic frontal lobe often leads me to do. Nonetheless, I mentioned it and at least, owe you a brief explanation.

Under the assumption that what is moral is what is in your self interest. Drawing on the holistic ego that's realized via deep ecology, ecology, evolutionary science, and emerging vitalist-esque concepts from the field of biosemiotics. I posit that life on earth is a single being, and the moral imperative is to live our organismal life's in the way that is best for holistic life, as we can pragmatically determine. This systemic consciousness is a higher level of self-awareness.

>>2459923
you are making bits and pieces of two different arguments and I doubt either of us knows which one you are trying to make.

one concerns people having different opinions, and one the actual truth of the matter.

>>2459940
>one concerns people having different opinions, and one the actual truth of the matter.
The actual truth of the matter is that different groups had different opinions.

That's all moral relativity really means. That fact does not negate morality itself. Does it? No? Then good. We're done.

Moral relativism and moral nihilism aren't the same thing. In the former, each act is moral or immoral relative to the culture witnessing it, under the latter, no act is immoral or moral.

The only argument I am making is that there is indeed a difference between moral nihilism and moral relativism, as I think you requested. I mean, if there's another argument you wanted, maybe I'm doing this all wrong, and you can explain so I can take a shot at it whatever it was you did.

>>2459937
Ah, well I don't have any real problem with that viewpoint personally, works well enough. I don't think it really negates moral relativity, however, as not everyone is perfectly aware as to what their best interests may actually be - they can only strive to find them. ...and eventually, conflicts of interest arrive, creating different groups with differing opinions as to what is the moral good.

It is nice in that it keeps the declaration that morality serves a purpose and suggests maybe one day we can reach an objective morality, much like the utilitarianism. But, much like natural law, it doesn't negate the persistence of moral relativism in the meantime.

>>2453245
Not falsifiable, and the burden of proof is on you.
t. nihilist

>>2459967
you force your every post to have a large enough number of variables that you're able to confuse yourself with them.

since no one has made a case against people having different opinions (though you argue for it every second post, for some reason) we can dismiss that being a question and look at this in a real simple way.

"does people having different opinions change reality?"

we can look at this in any other context, such as the context of verifiable facts. people may mistakenly believe them to be different things but the actual verification will show the facts to be non-relativistic regardless.

now we look back at morals. do people have different opinions? yes.

does that change reality?

>>2459381

But the ritualistic sacrifice of the king/godhead was a cultural motif in several ancient populations.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/frazer/gb02403.htm

>>2460018
>you force your every post to have a large enough number of variables that you're able to confuse yourself with them.
I'm not seeing any variables in the post, but go on...

>"does people having different opinions change reality?"
If they act on those opinions? Yes.

Though even if they don't, you do get into various internal biological stressors when being exposed to an event of particular disgust.

>we can look at this in any other context, such as the context of verifiable facts. people may mistakenly believe them to be different things but the actual verification will show the facts to be non-relativistic regardless.
That's a matter of objectivity, but this isn't the case with morals. It isn't even really the case with facts, when the results are controversial - go start a climate change thread on /sci/. People will cling to objectively incorrect ideology, often in the name of morality.

>now we look back at morals. do people have different opinions? yes.
>does that change reality?
Again yes, so long as people act on them or are affected by what they are witness to.

I mean, if everyone's in a comma, there's no society and thus no morality to speak of, but otherwise, yeah, the effect is often drastic, and it often results in a whole lotta people being dead.

>>2460094
you take reality to mean the same as beliefs. that must be some really creative kind of brain problem.

>>2460110
Well if you're saying people's actions don't affect reality, then - well I'm tired of echoing your insults.

I'm not saying that even a whole nation believing in the divine all-good Snuffaluffagus alone will cause him to appear (save maybe among the particularly addled). But I am saying that that same nation's belief that the divine all-good Snuffaluffagus has told them to kill everyone in Kzukistan, will have rather drastic effects for those in Kzukistan, even if the folks there believe Snuffaluffagus to instead be the devil.

Moral relativity doesn't say who is right or wrong here, which facts are objective or are not, only that the constituents in those nations each have their own beliefs as to the subject as to whether it is morally right for everyone in Kzukistan to die in the name of Snuffaluffagus.

>>2453245
It seems not to have accomplished much in the way of benefiting humanity.

>>2460156
we can cross "do people's actions affect reality?" as another question successfully answered. incredible.

>>2460173
Heh, one of the better ones...

I dunno, maybe the morality we had when we first came down from the trees and started talking to each other (or whenever the birth of morality began) was indeed the best morality and was lost to the multiplicity that resulted later.

In terms of creating a morality that encourages a stable and prosperous society, however, I'd like to think that the process of social natural selection has improved on that model over the years somewhat. And thus, moral relativism has been an advantage for us. Moral models that did not serve this purpose well enough, were either abandoned, or the cultures that followed them went extinct.

I'm sure even the fundamentalist Christians on the board would agree that things have been better since the arrival of Jesus, and that the New Testament provides us with a better map for morality than we had under the old one alone. Or, well, most of them would - I'm sure there's a whole lotta non-Christians who would disagree with them. So for most Christian perspectives, at least, the existence of moral relativism has been good (even if they constantly conflate it with universal acceptance, which despite preaching it, they tend to disdain). Otherwise, well, they'd still be Jews.

>>2453283
lol, no it isn't, slave morality is a relatively new development

>>2453307
>realizing morals are subjective means not having morals

>>2460110
>>2460207
Okay, still not getting the point...

Reality and belief are not the same thing. No.

But beliefs affect actions.

Action affects reality.

The only way moral relativism, or morals in general, fail to affect reality, is a circumstance in which no one can act on moral belief. At which point there is no morality to speak of.

(Not that either of those leading points are completely undebatable, but I don't think you're prepared to deny that beliefs affect actions or that actions affect reality.)

>>2453344
How do you account for Roman emperors throwing Christians in the Coliseum to be eaten by lions?

>>2460348
Maybe he'd rather die a painful death than worship what he views as some Hebrew god? And further wishes someone would make a grand shocking demonstration to help prevent him from ever doing so?

(Not that I agree with the absolute universality of the golden rule, but it is a trend, particularly if you play Philadelphia lawyer with it.)

>>2453245
There are actions which are abhorrent, objectively speaking, such as murdering babies. However, a culture might deem that action to be a part of their life so they have a delusion that it is business as usual. Murdering innocent people is wrong, murdering babies/children is also wrong.
Moral Relativist: Hurr durr that's ethnocentric!
Me: No, killing a being who is too young to have an affect on the world around her is barbaric. It's unjustly ending the life of a defenseless individual and a waste of human potential.

>>2460442
That's not a moral relativist claim, that's a universal acceptance claim. Moral relativism not only doesn't cover acceptance, it indeed assumes it will not always happen.

The moral relativist position would be that the baby murdering culture finds it moral for reasons that we would find ass-shit insane, and we are morally bound to stop it by our own standards.

>>2460499
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
Well, I think any decent human should try to stop a practice like this, however, it's more dependent on the certain situation at hand and the proposed solution.

>>2460537
Yeah, I mean if a high-tech Aztec empire covers the planet, and your nation consists of iron age culture covering the south tip of New-Zealand, you may feel you should stop it, but it may not practical. Doesn't change your moral point of view though.

On the other hand, a fictional organization, like Roddenberry's Federation of Planets, might have a "prime directive", that makes them feel it is immoral to interfere (though even that show suggests it may be more a matter of law than morality). I suppose a few extreme liberals feel that a non-interference policy is more enlightened than one that would put an end to that. At the same time, a lot more of them want to put an end to female circumcision in foreign nations and similar such cross-culture interference.

Meh, they aren't known for consistency.

>>2460329
explain how a proposition can be at once moral and subjective

>>2460616
Group A: Doing thing X is immoral.
Group B: Not doing thing X is a immoral.

Even if both are rational actors on equal footing, there is no guarantee they will ever resolve this conflict. (Fair amount of examples less extreme than baby killing in the world, but I assume we both agree this happens.)

Thus both are moral by their own standards, each finds the other immoral by their own standards. Thus, morality is both at once moral and subjective.

At least until everyone agrees on a single morality. Even then, you still have moral relativism as it pertains to the cultures that existed before that time.

>>2460643
>Doing thing X is immoral
how is this a moral proposition if it is only true for group A and not for group B?

>>2459381
>what is a revolution

>>2460797
a revolution is an embodied rejection of the current definition of right and wrong.

File: wololo2.jpg (126KB, 600x405px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 600x405px

>>2460790
How is it not?

I did mention that each group thinks their morality applies to the other, yes? Each thinks they are the moral ones, and each is, by their own standards.

If the conflict is extreme, they will either isolate from one another (fuck those guys), adapt to one other (well, maybe we can make an exception for you assholes), assimilate one another (conversion wololo), or kill one another (deus vult!).

>>2460854
doesn't contradict moral relativism. and I don't even see moral relativism is a falsifiable stance. I just think it's amusing people are trying to argue against it with concepts of universal morality when none exist.

>>2460880
>concepts of universal morality when none exist.
That I wouldn't be so sure of... There are certainly widely accepted trends, at the very least. Additionally, there's the functional aspect - even if one could argue it merely exists as a result of cultural natural selection (moral systems so shit that the believers die off as a result of following them don't survive, and those that create prosperity and stability absorb those that cause instability and decay).

But I suppose these trends are amorphous enough and the perfect path to and nature of that function mysterious enough that you could say they aren't sufficient enough to discard the reality of moral relativism. Even if you could point to a single one that was absolute, it may not cover every aspect of every moral system.

I'll paraphrase a few attempts from C.S. Lewis for the fun of it though:

>We can’t imagine a country where people are admired for running away in battle out of cowardice, or one where people are generally proud of “double crossing all the people who have been kindest to him.” We can’t imagine a country where being a traitor to your loved ones is valued. And if we look at moral rules from various cultures, we see a lot of commonalities. True there are differences. But if we step back we see that the differences still involve a commonality. Thus, in some cultures a man can have only one wife. In other cultures, a man can have up to four. But, Lewis says, people “have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked”. People disagree on whom you should be unselfish to: your family, your fellow citizens, everybody? But they agree that you shouldn’t be selfish.

I'll leave it as an exercise to the reader to poke holes in all that, since I'm gonna hit the character limit, and I'm confident you all can.

>>2460880
I'd add that the notion of universality is absolutely hazardous in so many ways. I honestly don't think human beings are well equipped to detect the true range of opinions and perspectives that would constitute a "robust" and representative universality in any human domain. We should behave as though we are blinder than what we experience ourselves to be, just to be on the safe side not to disturb that which is beyond our personal world.

>>2460866
>How is it not?
what is it for "Doing X is immoral" to be true if it is only true for those who believe it?

>>2460977
Do you not think we should collectively strive to find and agree upon a more harmonious morality that most effectively ensures our survival and prosperity?

>>2460989
To me the question of whether we should or not is overshadowed by my belief (yes the actual b word) that we WOULD in any case collectively strive whether or not the individuals involved thought we should or not. Collective striving, manifesting collectively, can in my mind mean that the individual is not aware of it occurring on any level, so they're not making a choice to engage in a collective project, it's personal every step of the way.

>>2460985
A subjective aspect of their cultural morality that has objective consequences inflicted by the believers there of when not obeyed?

Morality essentially is belief. Beliefs may be subjective, but it has definite consequences in reality through those that ascribe to them. That something is subjective does not mean it does not exist. It only means its exact nature is not be universally agreed upon.

>>2461017
Yeah - little depressing, but I can roll with it. I would like to think that one day we'd be wise enough to engineer and accelerate that natural processes. But I suppose nearly every attempt has ended in disaster so far, so I can't trust us with it yet - similar to how I don't yet trust us to engineer ourselves with CRISPR.

Though like CRISPR, I'm sure there will be attempts, some likely with disastrous consequences.

>>2461021
>Morality essentially is belief.
*a belief system

>is not be universally agreed upon
*is not universally agreed upon

(Usually implies it cannot be agreed upon, but something that is subjective need not be eternally so.)

>>2461021
>for "Doing X is immoral" to be true is for it to be believed
someone who believes "Doing X is immoral" believes it to be true but does not thereby believe it to be believed

and if there isn't something that is its being true other than its being believed, then there is no content which is believed when it is believed
>I believe that doing X is immoral
>what does "doing X is immoral" mean?
>it means "it is believed that doing X is immoral"
you are saying that the proposition "doing X is immoral" is literally meaningless

>>2461073
Moral relativism doesn't really deal directly with meaning (be morality be meaningful or meaningless, it still applies), and doesn't generally apply directly to individuals. It's about the mechanism through which morality is perceived and resolved.

So, even if you and each group believes in God, and grants any canonical moral dictate meaning, merely by the fact that it is His will... If two groups have conflicting interpretations as to His will, and He remains silent about it, who is to say which one is right, save for the beliefs of those two groups? Each is right from its own perspective, each correctly accuses the other of being wrong from its own perspective.

So even if you bring God into the picture as an absolute fact, you still have moral relativity in the mortal world.

Now one could claim that the fact that God has a plan means one side is objectively wrong - but it could be that plan requires these two groups disagree - or it may be they are both wrong. Until the final judgement - when morals won't be an issue anymore - no one knows. Thus each keeps believing they are right.

Take God out of the picture, and the only thing that declares which side is right, is which side succeeds in winning the conflict. Even if it's simply that their path lead to greater prosperity and won over the hearts of the other. But even then, when looking back, one has to admit there was a group that held a different view, and there will likely be new conflicts, until some fanciful universal utopia is established, or some less spiritual apocalypse occurs.

TL;DR: No, I'm not making a judgement on meaning in any of these statements, both Group A&B are.

>>2461171
>I'm not making a judgement on meaning in any of these statements
either* of those* statements (in reference to the conflicting X morality statements)... Jeeze.

>>2461171
how does any of that address my two points?

>>2453249
>human biology, which is consistent across all cultures

it's not tho

the real problem with moral relativism is that it presupposes that there is no such thing as a best possible system of ethical practice, an idea fundamentally opposed to human rights. Moral universalism is tricky to defend since it can be easily linked to authoritarianism and tyranny of the majority but leaving that side of the equation out of it moral relativism remains an almost indefensible position. If we assume a few basic philosophical positions such as the value of inductive processes and the trustworthiness of our senses it becomes easy to understand that it is possible to change the way we do things in a way that is either objectively better or worse. Since morality only has meaning in so far as it has praxis, we can view moral relativism as a defense of suboptimal ideas, beliefs and ultimately practices. The further these practices deviate from the best practices as determined by qualified consensus the easier they are to pick apart.


Sadly the above argument relies a bit on utilitarianism which holds little appeal to theists and has its own problems. However we weren't asked to defend moral universalism or offer practicable alternatives just refute relativism.

>>2453265
assuming that "all cultures" is restricted to cultures that actually existed for a certain period and does not include fictional or theoretical cultures then a prohibition on brother sister marriage is likely one.

i know there are some accounts of freelove societies either in the ethnography of primitive peoples or ancient sources but i conjecture that these practice a personal restraint if they survive as the disgenic effects would destroy any society which did not adopt this norm especially if the groups were small.

its about as close to the natural laws the enlightenment guys were barking about as possible

>>2461722
To a large degree we should deal with atheists, being that God imposed objective morality. What you've waded through is good, although I disagree, I think God could very easily be a utilitarian. He values free will, and freedom of expression at the expense of the existence of evil.

This is important because the biggest proponents of moral relativism, are really just moral nihilists at the ultimate point, Nietzsche was this. Being clearly grounded, you can have a center point of expressive capacity, which is the center point for every other individual. Being unclearly grounded in a negative unity, you will see the body's relation to the spirit, or the spirit's relation to the body, but no relation relating to itself. That element is what ties it all together in a positive unity - God. We are one in the beginning and in the end, and to keep the ends clear cut and not frayed is our job as the benefactors of the human race. It is our bodies and our friends and relatives we look after, to keep them safe from spiritual wrongs. These wrongs are in a constant state of being objectively defined by God. God objectively defines these morals through his messages.

>>2461722
>it is possible to change the way we do things in a way that is either objectively better or worse
in pursuit of a certain goal

>the best practices as determined by qualified consensus
qualified according to what? consensus=appeal to popularity.

you're literally using relativism to dispute relativism

>>2461750
i prefer to work from an atheist perspective since God is defined very differently by different people, i actually like Spinoza's God quite a bit but such discussion is off topic.

>This is important because the biggest proponents of moral relativism, are really just moral nihilists

this may be true but the source of the argument is almost inconsequential, it should be possible to attack the argument without attacking the source.

>>2461795
You cannot define morality objectively without a grand arbiter. This is a false notion.

>>2461842
would you consider it arbitrary to name universal human consensus as a "grand arbiter"?

>>2453245
punch the relativist
he'll complain

>>2461360
Maybe I was unclear as to your points, as near as I can tell, you were merely stating belief is meaningless, when degree of meaning is a matter of belief. So I merely went back to the core thread topic to demonstrate that the degree of meaning of morality is unimportant to it having the aspect of relativism.

Otherwise, if you're asking as to the particulars as to why X is immoral/moral has meaning... Group A&B would presumably each have a litany of reasons, even if for one or both sides it may boil down to a theological belief. I've been avoiding using a particular example due to the shitstorm tangent it may create, but for instance, whether abortion is moral in the case of rape: One side will cite God, and a litany of ancillary reasons, while the other side will cite public health (physical and emotional and consequential) and some similar litany of ancillary reasons.

But it doesn't matter if their arguments are objectively meaningless. Moral relativism, when between two groups, doesn't judge which is right or which is wrong, it only states that the members of each group judges and is judged based on that group's standards.

>>2461872
You'd only be proving his point though.

>>2461722
>the real problem with moral relativism is that it presupposes that there is no such thing as a best possible system of ethical practice
It really only presupposes there are consequentially different views as to what that may be. If there is indeed a universally best form of ethics, moral relativism remains. The only difference is it is impermanent, if one day all can come to agree upon this single perfect morality, and does so eternally.

>>2453245
Morality is 100% genetic.

>>2462973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkX47t2QaRs
Granted, she is a slav, so I may just be proving your point.

>>2462973
Nothing is 100% genetic.

>>2463070
How do you think she'd behave in bed?

>>2461750
This presumes that both a deity exists and that there is only one deity enforcing one given set of "perfect" morals.

>>2453299
all newborn children are born with an inherent understanding of fairness.

if a parent gives oneof their children 3 sweets butthe otherchild only 1 sweet for no reason , every child will understand that that is unfair.

This is a human behaiour which virtually all humans (sans some with brain damage orother strange deviancies) have.