How can any reasonable person deny moral relativism?

/thread
/board

how can you possibly believe that

You can only accept moral reletivism if you somehow disattach your rational meditations from the history of your own life and the life and existence of your other social circles.
Things can be right and wrong because of circumctances. Geographical circumctances, cultural circumctances, circumctances related to the traditions of one's society etc...
The only question is, can you rationally convince others in the universality of your preferances.
Well, one can argue that we all view ourselves as good. We, with theexception of a select few, do not consider ourselves, or want to be evil/bad. The question then is, what makes up the good and bad in each society and how can we find the methodology to compare these things and find what is shared between them and perhpas rank the different aspects of each system.
One way or another it is awlays a war its just that it would be better of all such wars were cultural and not physical ones.

Satanic trips checked.

just like social darwinism, moral relativism justifies pretty much everything

moralities and ethics that justify everything are just not moralities and ethics, they're too loose and inconsistent.

>just like social darwinism, moral relativism justifies pretty much everything
You sound like someone who skims wiki articles.

Because reasonable people are often wrong about things.

Truth relativism is the core issue. Moral relativism is just a consequence of that. If you are a truth relativist you'll hardly be convinced of anything let alone convinced of moral truths.

Pragmatism.

So what do moral relativists think of Western countries imposing their values on the rest of the world?

>How can any reasonable person deny that relativism is objectively correct???

t. Anton La Vey

Let me show you what you are saying.

"There is no such thing as objective truth."

Is that statement objectively true? If so, it is self-refuting.

"There is no absolute truth." similarly must be absolutely true, and is similarly self-refuting.

>nihilism
>adult
Grats on your recent 18th birthday man!

LaVeyanism (because fuck it, everyone knows Satanism is man-made) is about self-improvement and positivism. It's a lot closer to hedonic positivism and shit. They don't rape out of fucking principle.

...And I'm the Protcuck Christcuck.

(I am most likely making shit up re: hedonism)

>le 'relativism is self-defeating!!!' meme

wassup reddit how's it hangin how u findin the place

is this how we argue now

Moral truths don't exist. That doesn't mean other truths can't.

Morality can easily brought on an universal and objective level by saying anything that hurts the evolution of society is morally wrong.
Now the problem with a definition like that is no individual will ever be able to hurt the collective in a fundamental way and on a collective level things like crime will always serve have function in society and will only ever hurt the individual, but never the human collective as a whole.

So basically it is very easy to advocate moral objectivity as long as you see society as its own organism that evolves. But then the idea of free will gets obliterated and morality again becomes irrelevant.

ayo hol up so u be sayin moral relativism be objectively factual? prove dat shiet for me mayne

No they fucking don't and it's people like you that give relativism a bad name.

Relativism means you can't judge things without considering their context. Not that you can justify anything in every context.

you don't get to decide what relativism means

>Not that you can justify anything in every context.

That's only "true" in your context. In my context you can justify anything :^)

I just did though, now what are you gonna do about it faggot?

laugh at you because you're wrong

You only decided what it means in your context. In my context relativism means something totally different. Looks like you lose again friendo.

>be a neo-nazi, ISIS member, christfag, or SJW
>believe there's absolutely no such thing as moral relativism
>or, be everyone else

Problem solved

Because nothing is the foundation of everything; therefore morals are relative to nothing.

Satan pls.

I bet you thought this meaningless shit was brilliant before you posted it

>nothing is the foundation of everything

DUDE

DUDE WEED

...

...

...

Because it's both you idiot.

>build strawman
>get called out on it
>resort to 'no true scotsman'

>he believes in argumentative theory

>implying relativism isn't LITERALLY one big no true scotsman

And what does their being self-refuting reveals about reality? It is just mental masturbation and distract us from the main question:
What is the difference between an objective morality and a subjective one, besides the first being just a subjective one that wants to impose itself upon others through being classified as a special "objective" snowflake?

But to lose is to win in my context. Looks like you lose friendo

>What's the difference between truth and lies, besides truth being just another lie that wants to impose itself on others through being classified as a special "true" snowflake?

But to lose is to win so I guess it's a draw

Which kind of truth are you talking about? Saying there is an objective morality because there is objective truth of a certain kind is just thinking by leaps.

If it looks like I lose in your context where to lose is to win then guess who is the real loser kimosabe.

Reality tells us that self-defeating things are self-defeating, and to pay attention to things that are real.

I realize I say this on a Sri Lankan green tea trading board.

The true kind obvs.

unless you want to live in Hobbes's state of nature we kinda need morals. well some morals. butt sex probably doesn't matter to having a functioning societly while murder and stealing do

True as in logically true?
True as in scientifically true?
True as in "commonsensely" true?

And I agree with you, but those morals would just be ""our"" morals. I'm not a revolted nihilist trying to destroy all absolutes, the problem is that the idea of objective or absolute ethical values doesn't even make sense to me.

> Christianity
> Not a form of moral relativism

Last time I checked Christians believed what was moral was whatever God felt like at the moment.

I don't, I just think its conclusion is moral nihilism, since it makes valid the position "no morals are valid" which is mutually exclusive with the others.

Morals largely become an egoistic affair under such a situation, which is a perfectly fine way to go about things. It's in our best interests to want people to tell the truth, not steal shit, and not murder.

yeah i agree. absolute morality doesn't exist. morals boil down to nothing more than a survival tool for social animals

>True as in logically true?
>True as in scientifically true?
>True as in "commonsensely" true?
I think he means "true as in not false"

There isn't just a single species of "truth". Something scientifically true as gravitation isn't true in the sense that 2 + 2 = 4 is true, or that it is true that the sun will rise tomorrow, or that it is true that I'm talking to you etc. Logic is unsufficient to prove a scientific truth, but it is sufficient to prove a mathematical one, for instance. You're just showing that you can't even distinguish between things and confuse words with realities, just because you can define "truth" as "not false" it doesn't mean that it is just that.

Yup. And that never changes moment to moment, era to era, eon to eon, eternity to eternity.

Pretty reliable.

you're being thoroughly retarded right now. species of "truth" defined as other than "not false" are not called truth.

I'm not denying that something is true when it is not false, I'm denying that something is just true or just false, instead of being true or false according to specific rules and circumstances.
Also, let's not forget that I also said that to infer there are "objective morals" (or even that it makes sense to speak of it) from there being objective truths is just thinking by leaps. We are deviating from the subject.

>Logic is unsufficient to prove a scientific truth, but it is sufficient to prove a mathematical one, for instance.

That doesn't make the scientific truth any less true. Both the mathematical and scientific truths are true regardless of however one can or cannot prove them.

>I'm denying that something is just true or just false, instead of being true or false according to specific rules and circumstances.

So there are specific rules and and circumstances where false things are true and true things are false? Is this like opposite day or something?

you are saying a thing can be true without being "not false".

whatever you thought you were saying makes exactly as much sense as you'd think a self-refuting thing does.

Well, I can only say that it is true that you should develop some reading comprehension

True according to what specific rules and circumstances?

Moral relativists = closet racists

>I'm denying that something is just true or just false

So you're denying the existence of categorical truth. Is that a true statement?

Well, something is scientifically true not just when you can prove through axioms and mathematical rules of inference, but also when it is supported by methodical experiments. However, something isn'y mathematically true just when you prove through methodical experiments, for instance, you can't prove Pythagoras' theorem just through experiments, they just say that in those particular right triangles his theorem is true, but they say nothing about all possible right triangles. A mathematical truth is eternal and necessary, a scientifical truth is contingent etc. I'm not saying that a science can't tell us the truth because it is not all logical, nor that a scientific truth is a mathematical untruth, I'm just saying that we cannot learn from science the same kind of truth we learn from math, because the truth of one isn't of the same kind of the truth of another, however both are true in their own fields. And a scientific truth isn't of the same kind of a "common sense" truth, like "I will wake up tomorrow and the world will continue the same" or "I exist," for a truth of this kind doesn't follow a method or axioms, it is just intuition.

some typos here, my bad

>truth of one isn't of the same kind of the truth

But all truths are not false so they are the same.

>scientifically true

Example?

How? Easy, moral relativism is impractical as fuck. It's the philosophical equivalent of a Mum who catches her kids arguing and instead of considering the disagreement she just says "Now now kids, you're both right now make up".
It's a discussion stopper without much practical use outside of the smugness it provides the person bringing it up in conversation.

Literally other way around. Being on the far left or far right necessarily requires some sort of rejection of moral relativism for ideological reasons, therefore if you're an anti-relativist on the far right you're generally a racist whilst if you're an anti-relativist on the far left you're usually a reverse-racist or, alternatively, someone who believes that class and class conflict are immutable "races" at perpetual war with each other. A relativist in the center just sees all variants as the same shit with slightly varying nuances, with things such as race being mere excuses.

Why does Satan spend his time shitposting on Veeky Forums nowadays?

"The earth is round"
"Ether isn't real"

Yea, but nothimg is ""just"" what it has in common with another thing. An animal isn't just an animal, but also a specific kind of animal, which doesn't make a zebra a "wrong lion".

>>the far right
>>closet racists

Dude c'mon at least read what I'm saying. Why I say I call moral relativists closet racists is mainly to do with how they tend to choose which justifications and truths are relative.

Moral relativism isn't a set of criteria, it isn't about "everyone being right". It is, putting it simply: "There isn't the Right with capital R, just my right, your right, the right of a community..."

which is evidently how an insane person says "everyone's wrong"

True and false are binary categories; something cannot simultaneously be both true and false.

"Animal" is a category just like "true" is, lions and zebras both being animals is analogous to mathematical and scientific facts both being true.

How does my analogy not cover that? My point is in practical terms there is no fucking difference between

>>"everyone being right"
>>"There isn't the Right with capital R, just my right, your right, the right of a community..."

Put into practice there is literally no difference.

A moral relativist would rather say "Everyone is wrong to me". "Everyone is wrong" is pretty objectivistic

Or my favorite, "that may be true for you, but it's not true for me."

You know who loses their moral relativity the quickest?

Victims of violent crime.

Saying "to me" is redundant when you're expressing your beliefs.

And how do you put it into practice? Moral relativism isn't a set of rules and values, just of "facts". And your analogy doesn't cover that.
To say
>There isn't the Right with capital R, just my right, your right, the right of a community...
Isn't to say
>There isn't the Right with capital R, just my right, your right, the right of a community, therefore everyone is equal before the Right
To recognize moral relativism isn't to respect and agree with all the moralities there are; you still follow your own morals.

(inb4 "Of facts?? Which facts??? You are saying there are objective facts??????? Gotcha!!", my answer: yeah you got me, whatever)

My reply was just a joke, don't take it seriously. The serious one is

Er, your joke was correct. Relativists always say or infer "to me".

Well, I think I can't do anything then, I don't know if it is you that are just hurried in reading or if it is that I am just bad at expressing ideas.

Well, even I don't take those seriously. For me they're just using moral relativism as a twisted form of morality.

>To recognize moral relativism isn't to respect all the moralities there are

Yes it is, you are respecting them by allowing them to claim to be moral.

A murderer says he was justified for killing the baby, the moral relativist says "ok killing the baby was justified for you I accept that :)" a moral objectivist says "No killing the baby was not justified for you, it was wrong."

whoever came up with this philosophy was a master troll

> the moral relativist says "ok killing the baby was justified for you I accept that :)"
That is using moral relativism as a kind of morality of universal tolerance, but in moral relativism such a morality would be just one among others.
A moral relativist would rather say: "killing the baby was justified for you but I don't give a fuck if you think it is right so I will impose my own morality by killing you"

>For me

A moral relativist says that killing your baby is fine because it's just a clump of cells.

>>And how do you put it into practice?
By "put into practice" I mean when discussing morality in general or even when trying to redress a grievance wherein both parties believe they're right. Moral relativism rejects the basic principles we use to discuss morality which why practically it sucks ass.