Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Whaleboy]

Yes, I think everyone who claims this moral code is bull****ting, as I described. It's a code for lawyers and lawyer types only. I don't really think playing devil's advocate is fair unless you proclaim it before you start.

Firstly, we have established that it is not a moral code, merely an evaluation of the concept itself and (if you buy emotivism) a description of it. Lawyers and lawyer types? So if I told you its my opinion, I don't go around with a belief of right and wrong, what would you say (it is the case of course). Simply because you yourself cannot perceive someone being a relativist does not refute the notion, it just speaks volumes for your understanding of the subject at hand. And as for playing devils advocate, as far as this debate is concerned, ones personal disposition is irrelevant, I fail to see how playing devils advocate is unfair unless you are intent on using ad hominems.

Same time, same person, same place, same issure, same context.

Not necessarily.

Drac, you don't understand what moral relativism is. Just because I cannot say that one moral system is better than another, objectively, doesn't mean that I cannot say that one moral system is better, subjectively. Are the Nazis wrong? Yes, using my basis of morality.

Well put . Objectively if you ask the question "were the Nazi's morally wrong" the answer would be 0. Just like if you ask a historian for his point of view regarding the morality of the Norman conquest, it would be 0.

Moral Relativism states that ALL MORAL SYSTEMS ARE EQUALLY TRUE, objectively.

No, it states that they are equally worthless, with a validity of 0 outside of context.

Hence it inevitably leads to Moral Nihilism, because a moral rule that states killing people for fun is good, is just as valid as one that states you should not kill, according to relativism.

A consequential argument does not defeat a deductive position . You'll note that ethics and morality are not the same thing... you can deduce a definition of murder of example (ethics) and then morally say whether it is right or wrong. A society is not an unloaded context, there are subjective rules that require it to function, accordingly, relativism is a philosophical position used by people to refute absolutists, encourage tolerance of opinions in society etc and by certain enlightened individuals in their existential view of things. It's not a social concept like Marxism.

Loinburger and Ramo:

[Ned]

Drach, I agree with your conclusion. Whaleboy has no basis for declaring Nazism wrong, assuming he is true to his lack of beliefs.

[Whaleboy]

Well I'm allowed opinions of my own, I happen to find the slaugher of 6 million people including 24 members of my family somewhat emotionally repugnant, so I have a moral reaction to that, but that is just descriptive of me, not prescriptive for others.

[BeBMan]

He still can say that in his subjective opinion the Nazis were wrong. That does not contradict his position that he cannot say that they were objectively wrong.

Edit: oops too late

[Whaleboy]

I find it weird that people find it so hard to grasp the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, it seems fairly obvious to me

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I find it weird that people find it so hard to grasp the concepts of subjectivity and objectivity, it seems fairly obvious to me

I do grasp it.

What I am saying is that even though you might have subjective dislike of the Holocaust, you must objectively say that the Nazi's were as "right" about what they did as you are "right" about your dislike.

Most people are not willing to accept such things, especially when there is an alternative.

-Drachasor

[BeBMan]

I'd say the Holocaust was wrong because there is no basis for the belief that Jews are inferior to Germans.

*runs away before the relativists get him*

[Snowflake]

Jews are superior than Germans, just look at how many Nobel prize winners are Jews ... Ok ok sorry for interrupt. Just a thought. Disregard me.

[BeBMan]

There are also lots of German nobel prize winners

[Whaleboy]

What I am saying is that even though you might have subjective dislike of the Holocaust, you must objectively say that the Nazi's were as "right" about what they did as you are "right" about your dislike.

Most people are not willing to accept such things, especially when there is an alternative.

No, since relativism does not, unlike your flawed assumption, say that all are equally correct, it says that the moral value is 0. It effectively limits morality to the descriptive individual.

There are also lots of German nobel prize winners

Israel could kick Germany's arse!!! And I'm an anti-Zionist

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No, since relativism does not, unlike your flawed assumption, say that all are equally correct, it says that the moral value is 0. It effectively limits morality to the descriptive individual.

That's Moral Nihilism; there is no moral truth (not even relative truth).

-Drachasor

[Whaleboy]

That's Moral Nihilism; there is no moral truth (not even relative truth).

Yet I am allowing for relative (subjective) truth to the individual. Ask me the question "Was the holocaust morally wrong" and I say:
"Of myself and subjective, the truth is that it was wrong, but objectively, not of myself, it was morally 0."

[Ben Kenobi]

No it's not wrong, but it's not part of my emotive state so my morality forbids it in most cases.

Yes or no?

How can something be right, and yet your morality forbids it in most cases?

If I visit you, I shall remember this, and help myself to your stuff.

How so? Explain the mechanism for that.

Disagreement on substance / preference claims.

Some things that to me are substance claims, may be preference to you, and vice versa.

Everyone has something that they will believe is right, or wrong, and it is intellectual suicide to say that you are a relativist.

That's why once you start down the road, you realise that even the statement that, "it is right to be tolerant of those who are different from you," is an absolute statement.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. Liberty of expression, liberty of religion, etc. are all rights I think people should have.

Bravo.

Skywalker is not a relativist, in any sense of the word.

[Whaleboy]

Yes or no?

How can something be right, and yet your morality forbids it in most cases?

If I visit you, I shall remember this, and help myself to your stuff.

Feel free!! Just stay away from my stash of cheesestrings

I cannot answer your question, since my argument precludes such simplistic dualisms as "yes" and "no".

Everyone has something that they will believe is right, or wrong, and it is intellectual suicide to say that you are a relativist.

Not particularly. The trouble here is that in the West there is no frame of reference considering that all relativists must succumb to elements of human nature. Or maybe not. Consider in the East, something analogous to the Buddhist state of enlightenment. This debate would go rather differently if it were being conducted in Tibet.

That's why once you start down the road, you realise that even the statement that, "it is right to be tolerant of those who are different from you," is an absolute statement.

And here was little old me thinking that you'd know better than the pull the relativist paradox on us.... ah well... I'll quote myself from another thread as I'm lazy

He's trying to use the Relativist paradox to defeat you, not realising that it is defeated on two fronts, one of context and the other leading onto that of essense.

For example, when one says there is "no absolute truth", one is not making an absolute statement, since that would be absurd. All truth as you know it is human truth, experienced. Then, qualified by the subjective perspective of human observation. You cannot mount the argument without resorting to solipcism (that defeats the point anyway) that that human truth is absolute, whereas its quite easy to rattle off reams of arguments to the contrary.

English is troublesome to use here because it is an absolutist language, very much like German. If I could speak French properly my life would be so much easier, but what I am fundamentally saying is that the defeat of the relativist paradox is accomplished by relativism recognising it's own subjectivity. The only implications there are for the nature of the debate in critical terms, and those implications I'm more than happy to advocate (art not war).