Normative Relativism

Unkotare

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2011
128,233
24,222
2,180
Can a society function if this concept is accepted and applied in full?
 
Of course it can function, but not necessarily.

Also, society is defined by its ideas, not by its function. Perhaps it can function, but just because it functions temporarily doesn't mean it will sustain itself.
 
There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals, just human reasoning is all it takes. There is correct and incorrect reasoning hence the discrepancy between cultures; however, that doesn't limit our capacity to reason to universal morals it simply slows us down.
 
There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals, just human reasoning is all it takes. There is correct and incorrect reasoning hence the discrepancy between cultures; however, that doesn't limit our capacity to reason to universal morals it simply slows us down.

Humans can indeed reason their way to universal morals due to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness. What humans cannot do in the absence of a living God is assert them to be anything more than the most recent absolute of evolutionary speciation sans any enduring ontological justification whatsoever.
 
Nor do they need to. In so far as survival being the ultimate goal.
 
Good for your opinion.

Humans have empathy, it comes from the nurture of their caregivers as children and has long since evolved into society-wide code.

Its good enough for survival & advancement. We dont need anything more.
 
There doesn't need to be a deity to ground our morals, just human reasoning is all it takes. There is correct and incorrect reasoning hence the discrepancy between cultures; however, that doesn't limit our capacity to reason to universal morals it simply slows us down.

Humans can indeed reason their way to universal morals due to the fact of the absolute rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness. What humans cannot do in the absence of a living God is assert them to be anything more than the most recent absolute of evolutionary speciation sans any enduring ontological justification whatsoever.


There won't be a better post on this thread.
 
Can a society function if this concept is accepted and applied in full?

I can't accept the premise, or maybe I need a clarification. How can moral code be both relative and applied in full?

Consider the statement "everything is relative". Can such a statement be true, when the statement itself must be relative?
 
Moralities change as a civilization grows and decays. Look at the drive to procreate. It is a universal drive - all animals share it but human societies regulate it to some form of ritualistic behavior. That behavior is different in many cultures but the drive remains constant.
So, over time, even in the same society ethical norms evolve so that it eliminates any existence of ethical relatavism.
 

Forum List

Back
Top