Moral relativism

submitted by ReeferMadness from (files.catbox.moe)

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]88MPH 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The question of moral "absolutism" vs. "relativism" is often treated as chiefly a question of ought, when in reality, it is a question of is.

I.e., it's not about whether one ought regard morality as absolute/relative, but whether morality as a matter of fact is one of either.

And in that respect, my view is that moral relativism is absolute.

By which I mean simply: it does not matter if you own your morals or defer them to some deity, for instance -- in either case, it's you making that call. The buck stops with you, and that is and will be the conflict between you and others.

You can pretend that morality isn't relative. But fact remains that it absolutely is.

[–]ReeferMadness[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's very strange that you identify they question as an IS then conclude that it is relative. The only argument I can even begin to agree with that claims that is an ought question. As in "we ought to think of it as relative because we lack the intelligence to determine what is moral reality".

However, with the simple definition "what is moral is that which is the least harmful" we can have an absolute conclusion as to what is moral so long as we have the necessary information about what harm comes from each option.

Therefore in an absolute sense morality is NOT relative.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]ReeferMadness[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    That in itself is a moral judgment, and it is you who's making it.

    We are arguing past each other because you seem to think this is about personal agency. That if there is a god who decides what is moral than that makes morality absolute, and if humans decide what is moral than that makes it subjective. This is not true.

    It is not god who decided what is north on a map. But north is not subjective. It is a defined term and if you disagree then you are wrong. It is objective because there is a right and a wrong answer. That we can change the definition DOES NOT MATTER! That is is humans who invented it DOES NOT MATTER.

    Subjective means both people who say opposite things are right at the same time.

    [–]ReeferMadness[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    The first thing people need to understand is what it means to be relative. It means that depending on perspective contradictory statements can be true at the same time. For example if we face in opposite directions everything on my left is on your right. If I say something is to the left and you say it is to the right we are both correct at the same time.

    However, if I say that an object is to the north of us and you say it is to the south, one of us is wrong. The north/south designation is not relative.

    It has nothing to do with disagreement, it has everything to do with saying that both opinions are equally valid and equally right.