Moral Relativism: Good, bad...etc?

[BeBMan]

I know. But that does not answer my question. If you are relativist you must assume (even accept) that others think the same about their moral beliefs, if you personally agree with them or not. But then I don't see how you can enforce your system without acting against the key points of relativism.

[Ramo]

Why?

[BeBMan]

Err, sorry? I ask "how you can a relativist do this or that" and you ask me why? No offense, but I'm not going to answer my own questions. If I could answer everything I wouldn't ask

[loinburger]

Originally posted by BeBro
If you are relativist you must assume (even accept) that others think the same about their moral beliefs, if you personally agree with them or not. But then I don't see how you can enforce your system without acting against the key points of relativism.

If a relativist believes that all moral systems objectively have the same value then this would mean that a moral system that forbids imposing one's beliefs onto others is just as valid as a moral system that encourages imposing one's beliefs onto others -- in other words, a relativist moral system doesn't make any moral judgments about the objective validity of imposing one's morality on others, so the subjective validity of such matters is left up to the individual relativist.

Consider, for example, the moral relativist who attempts to impose his "murder is bad" morality on the Nazis. The Nazis might complain that imposing one's morality on others is immoral within their moral system, but the relativist is under no obligation to heed their complaints since he does not adhere to their moral system.

[Ramo]

You implied that enforcing your subjective morality on others goes against the "key points of relativism." You haven't demonstrated why that's the case.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
To his defense, ice cream preferences are completely irrational, while moral statements aren't.

No they aren't. It would be irrational not to prefer the ice cream that tastes better to you.

Morality, fundamentally, is the same. The only changes in moral beliefs through rational inquiry occur from extrapolation from already held first principles.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Kidicious
No one should care about someone's logic that contradicts itself. That's a complete waste of time. Your logic has already been shown incorrect.

It hasn't been shown to be incorrect at all. You've managed to claim that I'm hypocritical in holding it. The logic itself isn't contradictory - all you're saying is that believing in the logic is contradictory, which is not an indictment of the truth of the logic.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by loinburger

If a relativist believes that all moral systems objectively have the same value then this would mean that a moral system that forbids imposing one's beliefs onto others is just as valid as a moral system that encourages imposing one's beliefs onto others -- in other words, a relativist moral system doesn't make any moral judgments about the objective validity of imposing one's morality on others, so the subjective validity of such matters is left up to the individual relativist.

Consider, for example, the moral relativist who attempts to impose his "murder is bad" morality on the Nazis. The Nazis might complain that imposing one's morality on others is immoral within their moral system, but the relativist is under no obligation to heed their complaints since he does not adhere to their moral system.

Well, to be honest I'm not sure if I understood you correctly. To your last paragraph - my point is not that one side could complain that it is immoral to impose a certain moral system onto others. My point is if it would make sense within relativism. I understood relativist POVs so that it is a logical error to think one system is more valid than another. But doesn't then automatically follow that is is also an logical error to impose one of those systems onto other people?

I have no problems to accept that the relativist has a certain subjective opinion ("my morality is best"). But doesn't it - in case of the relativist - de facto mean "my morality is best - for me, but not neccessarily for others"? Why would he think that his subjective opinion should affect anyone besides himself if he is a relativist? Maybe I'm just too dumb

[loinburger]

Originally posted by BeBro
I understood relativist POVs so that it is a logical error to think one system is more valid than another. But doesn't then automatically follow that is is also an logical error to impose one of those systems onto other people?

If all moral systems are equally valid then there is no objective harm or benefit to be obtained by imposing one's beliefs on others. However, there could still be subjective harm/benefit to doing so, and the relativist will consider these when attempting to determine whether to impose his beliefs on others. There's no logical error because the statement "all moral systems have the same objective validity" does not logically entail the statement "it is wrong to impose your beliefs on others."

Why would he think that his subjective opinion should affect anyone besides himself if he is a relativist?

Depends on the specifics of the situation and in the relativist's moral system. Perhaps the relativist believes that imposing his moral system on others will benefit society, or will benefit some subset of society, or will benefit the relativist in particular, etc.