Refute moral relativism

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.

Oh ok, oops.

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

...

>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

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

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.

The golden rule is pretty consistent my dude

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.

...

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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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 :°)

*as in consistent, whoops

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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

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 tried to make. a common liquid umbrella concept that is still subjective and still relativist in the end.

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.

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 what you are saying does not contradict moral relativism

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

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.

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.

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

>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

>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.

Poster of 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?

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

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

Why are you conflating laws with morality?

Subjective morality doesn't mean anything goes.

It means when in Rome do as the Romans do.

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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

>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?

>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.

>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.

>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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

>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.

>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.

>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.

Burning is entirely relevant to a discussion of fire.

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.

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

>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?

>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

Normative moral relativism is not the same as moral relativism.

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

In essence they are the same.

>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.

>triggered

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.

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.

>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.

Unitarians aren't Christians.

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

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

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

edgyphoric

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 Veeky Forums is almost entirely filled with pseudo intellectuals, this thread shows it. Sad!

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.)

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.

>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 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.

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