What's the best argument against moral relativism

Art convinces better than dialogue
Morality is any given individuals mental framework of proclivities weighed and balanced through their memory-referencing will towards self-restriction. People always seek more advantageous conditions for their life, and 'morality' for any given individual is simply whatever framework of thought allows for the most expedient arrival at those better conditions. Everyone has 'morals' in this sense. Certain philosophies, like Buddhism, claim to know expedient methods that have proven as fairly universally applicable, making them less relative and more a collective subjective reality. But the "way" will always differ with every individual, so it isn't bad that our standards of morality are relative. That is to say no more than our taste in art and music is relative, which is not necessarily a terrible thing, however I do think that the deeper any given individual artist or philosopher reaches into their own depths, the more universally held as 'true' for a greater number of individuals will be the principles of beauty that they discover. Buddha being one such individual.

A lie is something we tell ourselves to get through the next day,

Isn't that denial?

Lies first, then denial.

By technology, people can live eternal life. Thus many humans' relative circumstances/situations which are uneffective to live eternal life will change. Since eternal life is ultimately what any one can be assumed to be benefited by so if the circumstances/situations of a relativistic society are changed/forced to be different for the sake of living eternal life...THEN TOUGH SHIT RELATIVISTIC SOCIETY YOU GOT FORCED TO LIVE SO JUST LIVE WITH WHAT YOU GOT FORCED TO EXPERIENCE!

Then?

>Since eternal life is ultimately what any one can be assumed to be benefited by so if the
What

If any humans of an other culture can be assumed to be benefited by eternal life...then if the

Basically...if humans can force other humans to live eternal life...then whatever cultural differences which were considered, "precious" and, "Irreplaceable" earlier than a human could force an other human to live eternal life are now not sacred and can and should be changed just so the others of a different culture live eternal life.

Now can humans live eternal life by technology? A respectable interpretation of testaments of religions, mythologies, and texts of parapsychology is humans have been interacting with other humans who have had technology to live eternal life since thousands of years earlier than now. More proof at courts is needed though. Too many humans are dying to believe that any other group of humans, who have technology to live eternal life, are humans just making eternal life happen for anyone. So if there is a group, or if there are groups, then they aren't benevolent sharers...thus we wouldn't have evidence as if humans who had the technology were really trying to help us prove humans have technology to live eternal life.

Absolute morality is a lie, but its a useful lie that binds societies together. If we all accepted the truth, we'd tear ourselves apart.

Are you such a dreamer,
To put the world to rights?
I'll stay home forever,
Where two and two always makes a five

I'll lay down the tracks,
Sandbag and hide,
January has April showers,
And two and two always makes a five

It's the Devil's way now,
There is no way out,
You can scream and you can shout,
It is too late now

I retyped some of what I said, "Can humans live eternal life by technology? Too many humans are dying to believe that any other group of humans, who have technology to live eternal life, are humans just making eternal life happen for all humans else making eternal life happen for all humans is more difficult than can be done. So if there is a group, or if there are groups, then they aren't benevolent sharers or aren't getting to share...thus we don't have evidence as if humans who have/had the technology are/were trying to help us prove humans have/had technology to live eternal life."

that it's dependent on the existence of beings that utilize morality.

someone fight me

Imagine a universe with no life, all is a sea of hydrogen.

Come up with some morality system that could work in that universe.

If you can, then you've shown Absolute Morality exists.

Morality is a form of communication like body language, territoriality, etc; it exists in most terrestrial chordates.

law (whether natural, artificial or economic) absolves us of reason to communicate. For example, we don't have to learn to conserve water if we live near a source of water. We don't have to learn to be responsible drinkers if we ban alcohol.

Since no allegory can be made for a law (such as seat belts), we don't have a reason to validate the law, thus leading more people to break the law until allegory can be formed and be validated among the people. Like, I don't have a reason to wear a seatbelt, because I'm not impacted by the amount of deaths that would have happened if there was no such law.

Humans, much like chimps, have very small groups. We have the capacity to think in terms of "Group of groups" rather than just "This is the only group that matters". The only thing that matters in my life is my friends and family; I'm indifferent to everyone else. I wouldn't lose sleep knowing that there's a war going on elsewhere. My friends and family form my morals; anything outside of that bubble is amoral. My family lives in this town (which is another bubble), which lives in this province (another bubble). We live in groups of groups, and I attribute a moral sense to every single one of them accordingly.

Moral anti-realist here. My main argument against moral relativism is that its inevitable conclusion is moral nihilism, since a position of moral negation is just as valid as any other and ultimately exclusive with the others.

moral niilism

"Donnie, go to your room!"

nah, you can imagine warring states denying the existence of each other - their claims are as valid as they are willing and able to back them with actual power. same with morality, as it is with law - they exist de facto IF they are practiced, IF they materialize.

Except that certain religious people feel that martyrdom is awesome and are happy when their child is killed by drone strikes because it sends them directly to heaven.

hoppe's argumentation ethics

Veeky Forums

Suicide bombers see themselves as acting on behalf of God. For them the universe is fatalistic; they have no moral considerations other than to fulfill God's work. This is why Islam is so dangerous.

that moral relativism allows us to find the next best code of morals without being rigid on a thing that might turn out to be wrong

oh wait...

There are certain things (child molestation, mass shootings, etc.) which seem intuitively wrong to us on the basis that it is the exercise of power over someone both unwilling and unable to fight back.

The fact that things such as these universally provoke a disgust reaction in mentally sane people indicates that we have a basic, innate sense of morality.

*unwilling to take part

Moral nihilism... Morality only exists as religious belief. There is no evidence that there are any actions that are inherently preferable for a rational person.

>dude GAWD lmao xd

Kick em in the shins. If they protest just point out how awfully rude it is of them to assume your moral position on causing harm to others.

>The fact that things such as these universally provoke a disgust reaction in mentally sane people
LOL

So you're saying that people are just mentally ill if they don't have that disgust reaction to those things. Give me a break. Some people have that reaction and some people don't, it's not a matter of who is sane or not it's just a difference like how some people have brown hair and some have red hair.

>This is why Islam is so dangerous.

Rather it's when the overwhelming dogma and doctrine takes on a fatalistic guise.

There have been many interpretations and guidance given by scholars on how to live life in an 'Islamic' way.

Fatalism can be pretty bad whether religion is involved or not.

So someone saying something like "I'm glad that school shooting happened, those kids had it coming!" doesn't come off as unhinged?

they only come off as unhinged compared to the majority of people who would have that disgust reaction. but you could make the same comparison the other way, to people without that disgust reaction it would be unhinged to feel disgusted by such a thing. It's not an innate thing, it just so happens that through evolution the most common type of people are those disgusted by that. things like that flow up and down throughout the generations, why pick this particular point in time and say that what is currently the most popular reaction constitutes sanity or a universal morality?

Moral relativism is essentially the same thing as saying there is no morality at all.

Morals are based on your feelings.

There is none. Morals are relative, ethics are a different story.