Is there a rebuttal to moral relativism that doesn't involve religion?

Is there a rebuttal to moral relativism that doesn't involve religion?

That making a moral decision on a case to case basis is impractical and prone to human error.
So ‚rule utilitarianism'

I want to sniff her asshole and lick it

>impractical

how? just make decisions when the need arises.

>prone to human error.

unlike setting strict rules for every action you take?

Because it is impossible to make an informed decision every time. Especially if time is of the essence.

i.e.: Will you sit down with literally every homeless person and have them tell you their entire life story when you determine if it would be the right decision to help them out?
Will you try to determine the right choice rationally every time someone attacks you physically?

If you like it or not, most of your decisions are fairly automatic. It's just how out brains work.

The best you can hope for is to make the automatic decisions as least wrong (since they are essentially based on prejudice or habit) as possible and try to make judgment calls to the best of your knowledge.

Also laws are simply rule utilitarism with a process.
Doesn't always work perfectly and it never will. But it trumps lawless society, where every decision was "case by case", which is just too much to expect from groups of people.

I want to re her butt'ol if ya know what i mean

Doing whatever you want with no regard for responsibility has consequences, large and varied consequences depending. Your actions effect others, and depending on the severity of your actions, can drive others to be in shit places, who in turn do shit things, the cycle continues, people become more self centered in a given area.

The problem is that driving people into faux individualism is the exact opposite of what you want for a healthy and stable community, most events are due to the actions of several few, you'd be encouraging the negligence of people with no further less regard than yourself.

When it comes down to it, responsibility of individuals is the key to health of society. Lack of discipline drives it apart into individualism.

>Because it is impossible to make an informed decision every time

This may be true, but it's certainly more consistently morally sound to act as you see fit in the moment than follow a strict set of guidelines. Things can be "usually" wrong but that doesn't mean they're always wrong. Would you tell the truth to a nazi looking for a jew you hid in your basement?

who is she?

God that's disgusting. Look at tha cellulite. The only reason her arse might look remotely good right now is the fact that the loose fat is being held in by her shorts.

Eurgh. When will fat women just go and die already?

Relativity is relative.

sure it spooky in here

Spooks are irrelevant, it took community to get to the point Stirner was even allowed to make his pre-post-structuralist nonsense. The importance of responsibility is clear, since it accomplished more than Stirner; allowing him to write.

Kelly Devine. Or Divine, can't remember.

Just wait for some alt-right creepazoid to say "but don't you see user, the hips are perfect for birthing!"

God

>Devine. Or Divine, can't remember.
We have all faced this dilemma.

Moral error theory

show me your birthing hips bb

morality exists independent of individuals/groups in the world the same way color does- not the wavelength of light but the actual perception of color- it's not there without observers BUT all green things are green to those observers who can see it, even if they may not objectively be 'green' in the absolute scientific conception of reality. In the same way, all humans have a basic moral sense that does not exist in the 'absolute conception of reality' but does exist across all observers.
tl:dr- the perceptual nature of color doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and the perceptual nature of moral values doesn't mean that 'objective' moral values don't exist.

...

of course

morality is necessary, or it isn't (imperative)

> it is impossible to make an informed decision every time
It's impossible to make an informed decision at any time.

My attempt is that everyone has their own preferences, such as not getting stabbed to death, and that while preferences are subjective it's objective that people have them. Therefore, you can objectively claim that some actions aid or harm the preferences of others, and from there you get utilitarianism.

Of course, it runs into the same problem of utilitarianism, namely that you can't quantify shit.

funny word that. seems to me that pre and post should cancel each other out

that moral relativism, taken to its extreme conclusion means there are no such things as 'morals'

no shit. so what?

why hasn't anyone mentioned Sam Harris

basically no, there's nothing to prove that morality isn't relative without reverting to something like a god (or some other abstraction which takes the place of god but is again ultimately taken on 'faith')

also good choice my man, kelly divine is top tier, shame she retired

Aristotle

No, because I could reasonably assume that the Nazi is up to no good. Based on previous knowledge. But it COULD be true that the police man just happens to be a nazi and the criminal just happens to be a jew.

So thanks for backing my point.

>he hasn't heard about John Rabe

This.

>cellulite

Lol 2/10 wouldn't bang amirite?? xD Well memed m'sir!

Dude stop

>being THIS gay

Kek "rule untilitarianism" how was high school philosophy this year?

Virtue ethics.

Had you read any philosophy at all? Philosophers have for the past couple thousand years made plenty of arguments against relativism and for moral realism and various branches without recourse to god.

Read some books.

Using human well-being as a measurement of how moral something is.

Post-Structuralist is an ideology that best reflects Stirner's; in that sense it's before Post-Structuralism, and it suffers the faults of it several fold by being from the 19th century. People have said what Stirner has said, better.

That's one of the biggest rebuttals I ever saw

He asked for a rebuttal to moral relativism. The biggest one is its practical application. Rule utilitarism as a part of modern utilitarism is a valid solution to it. There are obviously other theories that one could "rebuttal with".
I have yet to meet an ethics prof who manages to make shit like the categorical imperative work outside of imaginary worlds where nazis don't exist.
Plus we practically already apply variations of utilitarism. Especially in our judicial systems.

Another valid rebuttal would obviously be the anthropological one, since moral relativism is easily led ad absurdum with "but muh cultural heritage demands I whip my child!". But no matter how obvious that is, it usually devolves into a discussion about Humes Law.

But hey, feel free to fill us in on your ground breaking ethical discoveries in you Phil101 class, m8. I'd be surprised if anyone in academia actually managed to pump out anything else than expansions on already boring ideas.

>he thinks casuistry precludes an established religious moral system
Ever heard of the Jesuits?

>caring about anything based on the supernatural

We might as well talk about sharia, m8.

>(1) [morality] ... does not exist in the 'absolute conception of reality'
> (2) the perceptual nature of moral values doesn't mean that 'objective' moral values don't exist.

In (1) you deny the objectivity of morality; in (2) you imply that it is a possibility that morality is objective.

Your stance confuses me greatly.

>In the same way, all humans have a basic moral sense that does not exist in the 'absolute conception of reality'
This, it seems to me, is a flat-out contradiction though it might hinge on the meaning of 'absolute conception of reality': humans and whatever powers and properties they possess (moral sense among them) are parts of our reality, and hence it does exist in reality or in the 'absolute conception of reality' (what does that mean again?)