Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[Ben Kenobi]

And your point? (related back to the analogy)

Are you so dull?

"Help us understand this parable."

[Whaleboy]

I understand perfectly, I simply want something to quote

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Bravo.

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

I am a relativist. I happen to prefer one morality over another. See again wrt ice cream.

[Whaleboy]

Well at least your hearts in the right place Kuci

Utopia... good place... no place

[Ben Kenobi]

Kant bases all his moral actions on whether the action can be universaliseable.

So if you believe rights to be an essential part of what is moral, than according to Kant, they must apply to everyone.

[Ben Kenobi]

I happen to prefer one morality over another. See again wrt ice cream.

Why then do you believe everyone should have these rights?

That's like saying everyone should eat chocolate ice cream.

[Kuciwalker]

It's like saying everyone should have access to chocolate ice cream

No, it's one of many moral systems. I happen to prefer it.

[Whaleboy]

Kant bases all his moral actions on whether the action can be universaliseable.

So if you believe rights to be an essential part of what is moral, than according to Kant, they must apply to everyone.

Which does not refute the hypothetical (situational... which incidentally supports relativism) imperative, since one could say that the categorical imperative is simply a descriptive concept, baring in mind three significant refutations. Namely, Ross' Universal oath-breaking, the murderers inquisition from Constant, and the distinction between moral and prudential maxim's or rights (I think by Beck), who's necessary conclusion is (of course in my view) something like my Mill Limit.

[Whaleboy]

It's like saying everyone should have access to chocolate ice cream

I assume in addition to other flavours... since I can't be arsed to read your first use of the example

[Kuciwalker]

I was kidding.

[Whaleboy]

Oh crap, Kuci just pwned me

[Whaleboy]

Is it reasonable to suppose that absolutism, in the emotive sense, is simply a function of human nature and an intellectual dishonesty?

[Drachasor]

Everything can be put into a binary logic system.

One either believes there is such a thing as absolute moral value, or one does not. Belief in that can mean many things, but at the core the person believes there is at least one thing for which absolute moral value exists.

On the other hand, Relativists do not believe anything has an absolute moral value. They claim that all things are "equally valid." That one moral view is no better than another.

However, by proposing that one moral view is not better than another, one is necessarily led to the conclusion that there is no moral value, objectively speaking, and any sense of moral value is, in fact, illusionary. Heck, is basically the the core of relativism. You might *dislike* a particular moral view, but you cannot say yours is better in any objective sense because the two are "just as good" according to relativism.

If every moral system is "just as good" *because* there is no objective morality. Moral Nihilism simply is saying that because there is no objective morality, it is pure foolishness to believe in morality.

Subjective, in its core, means that it only exists in your mind. Your feelings and the like are subjective, your dislike a moral system, as a Moral Relativist, is inherently subjective. All objective sense tells you that there is no basis for morality, all objective, all rational sense tells you that any moral beliefs you have are, in rational terms, illusionary, fictional, baseless.

This is not like ice cream, for moral systems are supposed to tell you how you ought to act; ice cream and food does not. Moral Relativism must inherntly lead one to knowing that there is no rational basis for any moral system, that all are equal, that imposing your morality on someone else is no more rational than imposing the food you like to eat on someone else.

And, to be more accurate and precise than I have been, Moral Relativism and Moral Nihilism lead one to the conclusion that there is no such thing as true moral acts. Nothing can be assigned a moral value at all; there is no moral value of "0" anything else. Sure, subjectively you can assign a value, but that's the same as saying 2+5=4, it might be your "subjective" evaluation, but it is incorrect. As is any Moral Relativist or Nihilist that assigns moral value to anything, at worst they are lying, at best they are engaging in self-deception.*

That and the nebulous pandering of every moral system having "equal value" is probably the worst thing about this bankrupt philosophy. Where it goes wrong is assuming that a code of ethics is merely a list or guideline of behavior when the terms "good" and "bad" inherently imply at least the vague outlines of a goal to that behavior (vague, yes, but enough for some basic moral truths).

-Drachasor

*Hypocrisy is argueable. I would also note that I don't consider hypocrisy too great a wrong, but it is still wrong.

[Moral Hazard]

In an adamant refusal to read this entire thread. I will post my thoughts relating to the OP.

Morals = Are defined by society which determines what is right and wrong collectively. 40 years ago you would have been evil if you were a communist, no longer true today.

By that definition of morals I agree with moral relativism. However I am myopic and therefore my morals trump your morals it's that simple. screw philosophy, I'm right Biatch.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Drachasor
Everything can be put into a binary logic system.

True or false: This statement is false.

Or, using a more true-to-life example,
True or false: The world record holder of the 100 meter dash is a faster runner than the world record holder of the 400 meter dash.

Neither statement can be given an adequate truth value using binary logic.

On the other hand, Relativists do not believe anything has an absolute moral value. They claim that all things are "equally valid." That one moral view is no better than another.

Like Imran said, that's a broad sweeping generalization that does not apply to all relativists.

This is not like ice cream, for moral systems are supposed to tell you how you ought to act; ice cream and food does not. Moral Relativism must inherntly lead one to knowing that there is no rational basis for any moral system, that all are equal, that imposing your morality on someone else is no more rational than imposing the food you like to eat on someone else.

How do you get from morality telling you how to act to morality being something that "ought" to be imposed on others? Does the one necessarily entail the other?