Arguments FOR Moral Relativism
- Thread starter downhalo
- Start date
haniblecter
Veteran XX
downhalo said:
The morales are those that the strongest person in the tribe, community, world believes them to be.
IE, US and cutting little girls clits off in arabia.
Masamune/Xerxes
Veteran X
The theory of moral relativism is somewhat similar to Machiavellian notions of morality. Bascially, if you argue for that veiwpoint then just state that certain circumstances force a Gov't/Ruler to bend the rules in order to best serve their people. IE: Lying if it will save lives, withholding information for societies best interests.
Moral Relativism suggests that Gov'ts can't be held to the same standards as individuals. Machiavelli goes further to say that rulers should be allowed to kill or do just about anything so long as it best serves their sides best interests.
Moral Relativism suggests that Gov'ts can't be held to the same standards as individuals. Machiavelli goes further to say that rulers should be allowed to kill or do just about anything so long as it best serves their sides best interests.
Masamune/Xerxes said:
Ok kids, what we have here is what we call a logical fallacy. Notice how he lured you in with the classic "is somewhat similar to" ruse and then the pounce "Moral Relativism suggests that/Machiavelli goes further to say." Where he blends the two together, leaving you to draw the conclusion that machivellian morality is synonymous with moral reletavism.
Machivellian morality != Moral Relativism because:
Machivellian morality is descriptive (shows what people do) while
Moral Relativism is prescriptive (says what people ought to do).
It's, as has been worn nearly into the ground, like comparing apples and oranges.
Try again.
No matter which way you look at it, both sides have arguments that meet their selfish needs. I personally don't think poking someone in the eye with a stick is right, but thats not to say that in some society (prolly in the Bizzaro world) they think poking someone in the eye with a stick is perfectly acceptable. I have a selfish need to not get poked in the eye while maybe they have a selfish need to do the poking....
OK, I have no point....what was the question?
OK, I have no point....what was the question?
Pachacutec
Veteran X
killing 100 to save 10000? that work?
gotta break eggs to make the omelet!
gotta break eggs to make the omelet!
downhalo said:
How about: you shouldn't argue this subject because you think moral relativism is an actual position to be argued for or against rather than a declaration that all moral values are subjectively judged.
Moral relativism cannot be used to justify or deny anything, except for the ONE THING THAT RELATIVISM CARES ABOUT;
WHAT RELATIVISM DOES said:
That is all moral relativism means. No implications stemming from this; no evaluation of moral systems; nothing.
It doesn't say the following things, though people who have politicized the philosophy *thinks* it does;
1. That all actions are equally right.
This is false because relativism doesn't say whether or not your morality system is "more correct" than any other. The fact is, moral relativism is completely indifferent to this subject. If you want to justify your moral values, then go ahead and do it in any way you like.
Again: Moral relativism only states that the moral values were arrived at subjectively, rather than being imposed on humanity by an objective source of absolute morality.
2. That all actions are equally justified.
This is false because relativism says nothing about justification. NOTHING. In fact, moral relativism is indifferent to this subject also. The most you could extrapolate from relativism is that the moral justification will be based off of the value system being used.
Example: In Culture A Action A is justified for a subjective reason while in Culture B Action A is unjustified.
Do not take this example any further. Do not say, "If Action A is justified in A, why isn't it justified in B?" Because A's moral values do not apply in B, fuckwit. But if a Ber comes to A, then A will enforce the consequences of A's morality onto the Ber. And that is that. Relativism just says, 'Look, there it is!"
Relativism does not determine which justification was the correct one. It just says that those justficiations were arrived at subjectively. For all we know, A's moral values could be superior to B's. RELATIVISM DOESN'T CARE.
Again: Moral relativism only states that the moral values were arrived at subjectively, rather than being imposed on humanity by an objective source of absolute morality.
3. That an action cannot be considered morally wrong.
Once more false. Moral relativism doesn't tell us whether or not you can judge others. All it implies is that the person who committed the moral wrong subjectively thought he was in the right.
Again: Moral relativism only states that the moral values were arrived at subjectively, rather than being imposed on humanity by an objective source of absolute morality.
To deny the *actual* moral relativism concept - not the stupidity that people try and say it implies - a person must prove the existence of an outside, absolutely objective, absolutely universal enforcer of a single absolute moral system.
Most people who argue for moral absolutism consider that entity God. A very few people who ignore psychological evidence claim that absolute morality stems from biology.
I guess what I'm saying is, the vast majority of people have tried to use relativism to justify things when relativism is built to be completely ambivalent on every position but one.
This is probably because the vast majority of people are morons.
The only valid arguement FOR the belief of moral relativism is
1. the denial of any absolute moral code, that none exists.
... but you cannot PROVE a negative, unfortunately
... so no proving arguement of evidence can be presented
... one is left with only ones own opinion/belief
1. the denial of any absolute moral code, that none exists.
... but you cannot PROVE a negative, unfortunately
... so no proving arguement of evidence can be presented
... one is left with only ones own opinion/belief
One could go for the *reasonable* argument (though not a logical proof) that the postulation of the existence of an absolute moral code is the unnecessary multiplication of entities involved in an identifiable process.
Excess entities: The moral code itself. The mechanism by which this moral code is applied to people.
Observed process: Human beings acting morally under the guide of divergent and contrasting moral systems.
Excessive implications and methods that have not been explained by a detectable mechanism: Why the absolute moral code isn't followed exactly by all the divergent human cultures.
Hence, Occam's Razor makes the induction path to moral relativism "shorter" or "easier" than the induction path to moral absolutism. Since we can't prove *or* disprove the existence of the absolute moral code, and because we find that more excess implications are handled or dismissed by denying the concept rather than assuming its existence, it seems much more reasonable that relativism is true, rather than absolutism.
Unfortunately, what is reasonable isn't necessarily true or false in the logic sense. Hence my note: this is not a logical proof. Occam's Razor is an effective guide to reasonable results, but doesn't give us any stringent logical proof or disproof.
Excess entities: The moral code itself. The mechanism by which this moral code is applied to people.
Observed process: Human beings acting morally under the guide of divergent and contrasting moral systems.
Excessive implications and methods that have not been explained by a detectable mechanism: Why the absolute moral code isn't followed exactly by all the divergent human cultures.
Hence, Occam's Razor makes the induction path to moral relativism "shorter" or "easier" than the induction path to moral absolutism. Since we can't prove *or* disprove the existence of the absolute moral code, and because we find that more excess implications are handled or dismissed by denying the concept rather than assuming its existence, it seems much more reasonable that relativism is true, rather than absolutism.
Unfortunately, what is reasonable isn't necessarily true or false in the logic sense. Hence my note: this is not a logical proof. Occam's Razor is an effective guide to reasonable results, but doesn't give us any stringent logical proof or disproof.