Moral Relativism

[PK1]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism".
If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
Since you refused to supply a definition for "Normative Morality", you are the one who is confused of its existence.

1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.

2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.
.

 

[PK1]

I believe morality reflects a sense of "live & let live"...
.

That is not what the word means.

---
To help you understand definitions of Morality, here is an opening snipet from a reputable source ...

The term “morality” can be used either:
1) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or ...
2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I and others here in this thread have provided you with definitions that appear to reflect the above definitions.

So, once again. which definition of "morality" are you proposing?
.

 

[Unkotare]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism"....
.

Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.

 

[Unkotare]

I believe morality reflects a sense of "live & let live"...
.

That is not what the word means.

---
To help you understand definitions of Morality, here is an opening snipet from a reputable source ...

The term “morality” can be used either:
1) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or ...
2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)......
.

You copy and paste and still don't understand the terms in use.

 

[PK1]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism"....
.

Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.

---
If a fallacy, then use your logic to provide a valid argument to demonstrate the fallacy, including your premises & conclusion.
.

 

[PK1]

I believe morality reflects a sense of "live & let live"...
.

That is not what the word means.

---
To help you understand definitions of Morality, here is an opening snipet from a reputable source ...

The term “morality” can be used either:
1) descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or
accepted by an individual for her own behavior or ...
2) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)......
.

You copy and paste and still don't understand the terms in use.

---
If you cannot explain, then you are the confused one.
.

 

[PK1]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism"....
.

Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.

---
If a fallacy, then use your logic to provide a valid argument to demonstrate the fallacy, including your premises & conclusion.
.

---
I did not realize my simple request to provide a valid logical deductive argument would strain the brain of someone who claims to have a Philosophy degree!
.

 

[Unkotare]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism"....
.

Moral relativism is a fallacy. You don't seem very familiar with logic in general.

---
If a fallacy, then use your logic to provide a valid argument to demonstrate the fallacy, including your premises & conclusion.
.

---
I did not realize my simple request to provide a valid logical deductive argument would strain the brain of someone who claims to have a Philosophy degree!
.

Go buy a book on basic logic (and maybe a dictionary) and then get back to me, kid.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Fallacy: Relativist Fallacy


Stephen Law: Moral Relativism

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism".
If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
Since you refused to supply a definition for "Normative Morality", you are the one who is confused of its existence.

1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.

2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.
.

If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.

In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

Go buy a book on basic logic (and maybe a dictionary) and then get back to me, kid.

---
Diversion tactic = emotional response.

Cannot provide logical argument to support your fallacy claim = intellectual incompetence .
.

 

[PK1]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism".
If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
Since you refused to supply a definition for "Normative Morality", you are the one who is confused of its existence.

1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.

2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.
.

If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.

In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."

Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism".
If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
Since you refused to supply a definition for "Normative Morality", you are the one who is confused of its existence.

1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.

2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.
.

If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.

In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."

Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
.

Plenty of them out there pick one.

Just remember that if you're a moral relativist both sides are right...

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism".
If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
Since you refused to supply a definition for "Normative Morality", you are the one who is confused of its existence.

1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.

2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.
.

If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.

In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."

Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
.

View attachment 55975

Plenty of them out there pick one.

Just remember that if you're a moral relativist both sides are right...

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
I asked you to pick an example to support your claim.
No can do?
.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

What moral relativists really mean to say is that they don't believe morality exists at all, because that is what their fallacy amounts to.

---
You & Stephen Law do not understand the concept of "Moral Relativism".
If you did, you would understand there is no fallacy with its argument, based on its premise definition of "morality", which represents a variable, not a constant.
Since you refused to supply a definition for "Normative Morality", you are the one who is confused of its existence.

1) In your own 1st URL (subsequent post):
If there are cases in which truth is actually relative, then such reasoning need not be fallacious.

2) In your 2nd URL ref, Dr Zen rebuts:
how do you determine what is "morally wrong"? I agree with you about female circumcision, but then I would. But what is your ground for it? Talking about moral rights and wrongs as "matters of fact" is ridiculous. What you wish to say is that our morality is "better". You just don't have the balls to say it without pretending there's an absolute involved.
.

If you are a moral relativist then neither side of the equation is wrong.

In other words both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist.

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
"both sides of a dispute over morality are equally moral if a person is a moral relativist."

Could you provide an example of such a "morality dispute"?
.

View attachment 55975

Plenty of them out there pick one.

Just remember that if you're a moral relativist both sides are right...

*****CHUCKLE*****

---
I asked you to pick an example to support your claim.
No can do?
.

Fine! Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[PK1]

Then let's do this one...

All mature willing companions should be allowed to marry as they choose because it's neither the governments nor your business... Therefore multiple partner, close relative, and interspecies, marriage should be allowed.

---
I view "Moral Relativism" as realistic, flexible, tolerant, and having Normative components.
Therefore, its position needs not reflect your conclusion that "if you're a moral relativist both sides are right".

In your example, I believe it's OK for the mature/responsible individuals to make their own decisions re: who to marry, and the gov should simply record for legal implementations.
I am a Libertarian, with a "social responsibility" flavor. Ethically, i take the "Live & Let Live" position, which has both relative (to each their own) & normative (Golden Rule) features.
Just like the "Nature vs Nurture" debate is senseless (it's usually both), the Normative/Universal vs Relative Morality debate is extreme & unrealistic at both ends.

Back to your example ...
I favor individuals choosing multiple partners if they take responsibility over their children (if they have any), but NOT agree with marriage among close relatives; two genetically similar adults are more likely to give a child two copies of a defective gene (not fair to the child).
Also, interspecies coupling is difficult to defend; the other species is not likely to understand the relationship's commitments from the human perspective.
.

 

[Unkotare]

In other words, you don't believe in morality at all.

 

[PK1]

In other words, you don't believe in morality at all.

---
Of course i do, from MY rational perspective.

It's been noted that you have not provided YOUR definition of "morality" from YOUR "universal-normative" or whatever-you-want-to-call-it perspective ...
Until you do, you have no logical argument.
.

 

[Unkotare]

In other words, you don't believe in morality at all.

---
Of course i do, from MY rational perspective.

It's been noted that you have not provided YOUR definition of "morality" from YOUR..... perspective ...
Until you do, you have no logical argument.
.

You don't seem to have the first clue what "logical" means.


It is not a matter of "your definition" or "my definition," fool. Words have meanings; even this word.

 

[there4eyeM]

Anyone capable of thinking should be able to realize that morality, good, bad, etc., are all human terms for human concepts. They exist only in the mind of a human. Fear of our human potential provokes the effort to make rules absolute. Society wants to protect itself from the people who compose it. Nothing more.