Moral relativism and the fallacy of "non-judgementalism"

[Aeson]

It's a classic newb mistake...

[Dinner]

I like this spambot because he makes fun of Alpert.

[Al B. Sure!]

I was under the impression that commenting on this thread would yield some intellectual discussion. I guess i was wrong

We don't really discuss juvenile philosophy here. Our main topics of discussion involve bathrooms, whether San Diego is classy or not, my love life, and Filipina brides.

If I were to move to a 5-bathroom mansion in San Diego with a Filipina bride, I think I would cease to exist physically and become one with Apolyton

[Aeson]

They do have a marine base in N San Diego County...

[Hauldren Collider]

Is this guy in the running for Apolyton's Greatest Spammer Ever?

[Jon Miller]

I don't know, he was gone for large lengths of time.

JM

[kentonio]

I think that moral relativism is a simply horrendous moral theory, and ought to be rejected. First, by assuming that universal morality does not exist, moral relativists overlook the origins of moral values. Human values are not arbitrary or capricious. Their origins are based in the facts of biology.

Not particularly true. If you truly believe it you also therefore believe that basically everyone who lived prior to the last century (and probably 99% of those too) were complete bastards.

My main argument with the idea of universal morality is that the things we consider 'good' often involve directly acting against our natural impulses. That would kind of suggest that the 'facts of biology' are against a lot of what we consider morality, not in favour of it.

Basically I think its a bit rich of us casting judgment on the morality of people who lived in completely different times and moral structures. Behaviour is learnt not divinely inspired. The only time I think its fair to get preachy is when the world had moved beyond some form of behaviour and people continued to misbehave. The south and slavery being a perfect example.

[DinoDoc]

Southern England still has slavery?

[loinburger]

I was under the impression that commenting on this thread would yield some intellectual discussion. I guess i was wrong

It's unusual to have a worthwhile discussion on ethical theory online, since religion tends to get in the way. I suggest you read some Kant and some Mill, and possibly some Aristotle. If you like Kant, then read some Habermas (specifically, "discourse ethics" and "theory of communicative action")

It's been about ten years since I studied ethical theory, but IIRC you've generally got three competing theories: deontology (rules), utilitarianism (results), and teleology (intent), with Kant, Mill, and Aristotle/MacIntyre as the main proponents of each theory. Each tends to do a bit of hand-waving. Habermas extends deontology to remove a lot of Kant's hand-waving.