PK1
Gold Member
- Jun 26, 2015
- 3,900
- 525
- 140
---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.
.
Last edited: