Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Only if you assume objective free will on some level which is inconsistent... determinism holds that actions, all actions, are done as a product of environment, stimulii both direct, indirect and chaotic so altruism is a free consideration of others as an end in itself is irrelevant. Free will only comes to play with existential consciousness, but since it's just gone 3am, I'm too tired to talk about Husserl and it's not relevant here so let's get back on track. Nite all!

You missed my point - I wasn't assuming objective free will. I was labeling altruistic anything that derives its self-interestedness (for lack of a better word) completely from the perceived benefit to others (where benefit, of course, is defined by the actor).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
I'm arguing for generic relativism (the idea that no assertion is absolutely true - including that one). The idea is that one needs at least one axiom (the definition of logical validity - noncontradiction) to prove any assertion. Kuci is making an argument that this axiom doesn't need to be established, though he's never shown why.

Axioms aren't the same as assumptions. Axioms or definitions are just mappings of words to concepts.

[Kidlicious]

This stuff gets my goat. I'm not really sure. It just seems too dishonest.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Snowflake
Actually, if Moral Relativism means all alternative moral systems are equally valid it must accept that the moral system that only accept absolute morals are valid. And since the moral absolutism also thinks that their moral system is valid, this only leads to ... Well you know where I'm heading.

That's utter nonsense. All moral systems are absolute moral systems. Relativism isn't a moral system. While it certainly admits that a moral systems compelling its adherents to compel everyone else to believe in some absolute morality is as valid as any other, it doesn't mean the truth of absolute morality is valid.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
This stuff gets my goat. I'm not really sure. It just seems too dishonest.

It's rather absurd to argue that nothing can be known, I agree.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's obviously true. A statement such as "it's wrong to kill people" can only be derived from experience or from pure reason. It's clearly impossible to establish "it's wrong to kill people" from experience - you can observe that killing people causes pain, etc., but there's no experiment you can make to determine whether or not it is right or wrong. It is equally clear that you cannot make some proof of a moral statement such as "it's wrong to kill people" a priori, without assuming, as your premise, that "it's wrong to kill people" (or "it's wrong to cause pain", but you get the point). Therefore, all absolute moral statements are dogmatic.

Any moral statement is dogmatic, according to you, unless it assumes that it can't be of any value.

[Kuciwalker]

Exactly.

Of course, one can certainly state "I believe such-and-such", just as one can say "I think chocolate ice cream tastes better".

[Fake Boris]

At least you're not like Imran, who derives a moral conclusion from his moral relativism, i.e. that nothing matters.

[Kuciwalker]

That nothing matters is not a moral conclusion.

[Fake Boris]

Well, it does give an equal moral value to everything.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That nothing matters is not a moral conclusion.

Not saying nothing should matter, which would be a moral conclusion.

[Kuciwalker]

But it isn't a moral statement.

All moral systems are equally valid; that is, equally wrong

[MalevolentLight]

Moral absolutism

[Kuciwalker]

Prove your absolute morality is true.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kuci:

Do you believe that it is wrong for someone to steal?